Coons: It ‘Will Be Difficult’ to Accept Cuts to Domestic Spending

Shouldn’t Coons be forced to change his name?

Can you find discretionary spending to cut?

Cut all aid to all illegals in the country trillions would be saved and better served.

We can only serve our country not 106 of them.

Start with the money going to Ukraine. And the IRS agents.

Ha, that was my 2nd thought. I guess I’ve been watching too many black on white and Asian beat downs the last couple years and have very little tolerance to the knee jerk ‘You a racist,” line. So I’m knee jerking back before a punch is thrown.

Trash pandas are the reason buying stock in bungie cords for garbage cans will always go up.

It’s brutal. I think it’s also a fact anyone standing out a little will end up swatted. They do it to a post president you can guarantee this rogue government has you on more than an IRS list.

One person’s waste is another person’s sacred cow, and that is why no one wants to cut anyone’s spending. Because if I cut someone’s signature program, they will come back and cut my signature program.

The current model is broken

Thank you for referencing that article ChicagoConservative27.

"Sen. Chris Coons "[...] investing in education, workforce, health care [??? emphasis added] is important.”

Host Martha MacCallum asked, “[I]sn’t it incumbent upon all of you to figure out a way to cut some spending? Clearly, there’s waste in government spending.”

FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

Neither post-17th Amendment ratification Sen. Coons, or FN MacCallum, seem to understand that the states have never expressly constitutionally given the very corrupt, unconstitutionally big federal government the specific powers to dictate INTRAstate policy for education, workforce, or healthcare.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
"Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States." —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
The congressional records show that Rep. John Bingham, a constitutional lawmaker, had emphasized that the drafters of the Constitution had left the care of the people to the states, not to the federal government.
”Simply this, that the care of the property, the liberty, and the life of the citizen, under the solemn sanction of an oath imposed by your Constitution, is in the States and not in the federal government [emphases added]. I have sought to effect no change in that respect in the Constitution of the country.” —John Bingham, Congressional. Globe. 1866, page 1292 (see top half of third column)
"From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added]." —United States v. Butler, 1936.
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)
“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress and Assemblies, judges and governors, shall all become wolves [emphasis added]. It seems to be the law of our general nature.” - Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Edward Carrington January 16, 1787)
Democrats Are Terrified Of An Educated And Informed Public (3.12.23)

The bottom line is that the states need to eliminate the unconstitutional middleman, the unconstitutionally big federal government, from "helping" the states to manage their revenues.

Note that the states can put a "permanent" stop to unconstitutional federal taxes, taxes that the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties who have pirated control of Congress cannot reasonably justify under Congress's constitutionally limited powers, as follows.

Consider that ALL the states can effectively "secede" from the unconstitutionally big federal government by repealing the 16th (direct taxes) and 17th (popular voting for federal senators) Amendments.

If the repeal amendment was strictly limited to repealing those amendments, then relatively little, or ideally no discussion would be needed before ratification imo.

In fact, I challenge the states to "ram" the repeal amendment through the amendment process faster than Pelosi irresponsibly rammed the unconstitutional (imo) Obamacare bill through the House.

”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
Pelosi: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." (non-FR; 6 sec.)

The definition of insanity is reelecting your beloved career state and federal lawmakers and executives over and over again, expecting those same lawmakers to find remedies for unconstitutional government policies every time.

“for many of us, investing in education, workforce, health care is important.”

It’s where we get our kickbacks.