I notice you didn't mention spending.
Could that be because the spending is popular with his base?
What do you think the promise not to touch entitlements represents?
I share your frustration but also find it telling that you rely on the Constitution/strong man on a horse/Daddy model to restrain spending rather than the will of the electorate.
I don't think that's healthy in the long run.
“I notice you didn’t mention spending.”
Well, I did mention regulatory reform - which dramatically affects the spending side, and draining the swamp, which will have a profound impact on crony capital lobby based monopolies, subsidies and favoritism. And judicial reform is the key to limiting the size and scope of government to only roles enumerated in the constitution. If the constitutional limits on the size of government were enforced, the government would be something on the order of 1/20th the size it is. Don’t you agree that would have a profound effect on government spending?
But more to the point, if we can both agree that spending is the problem - whether funded by taxes or debt - then why do you care so much which it is?