Posts

So Much for Tolerance: Photos of the Violent Protests of Trump’s Inauguration

In some parts of the nation’s capital today, it looks like a war zone.

And it’s because of protesters who are presumably taking out their anger over the election—and the voters’ decision—by acting violently and destructively on the streets of Washington.

Here are some of the most compelling photos and tweets documenting the destruction:

(For more from the author of “So Much for Tolerance: Photos of the Violent Protests of Trump’s Inauguration” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump’s Inauguration Speech: Two Feet Firmly Planted on Our Fallen Earth

Donald Trump has provoked more outright panic among people with advanced degrees than any politician in recent history. It would be easy for the unwary to draw the darkest conclusions. The desperate urgency of his enemies, from panicked globalists penning incendiary columns to social justice warriors literally torching limos, suggests that his rise represents some new force of extremism, or dark, regressive forces that threaten our very Republic.

Surely (onlookers could reason) Trump holds to some radical, dangerous creed, or else why are all these smart people engaged in such a nationwide public meltdown? If you’re sitting in a crowded theater, and not just one person but dozens are shouting, “Fire!”, you are likely to head for the exit.

But sometimes where there’s smoke, there really isn’t any fire, but instead a smoke machine planted in Lady Liberty’s skirt. Today we saw the peaceful transfer of power in our Republic, and the American experiment in ordered liberty is as safe as it ever was. In fact, in key ways it is safer.

Donald Trump: Inclusive Patriot

To those listening honestly with even a modicum of charity, Trump’s speech should have helped to disarm most of the genuine causes for worry that his critics have raised over many months. Trump firmly rebuked the small, vociferous cult of online Caucasoid tribalists whom some have tried to smear him as championing. Trump used these ringing words, which clearly came from the heart:

A new national pride will stir our souls, lift our sights and heal our divisions.

It is time to remember that old wisdom our soldiers will never forget: That whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots, we all enjoy the same glorious freedoms, and we all salute the same great American Flag.

President Trump made it starkly clear that his vision of national solidarity, of “loyalty to each other” has everything to do with citizenship, and nothing to do with race. His is the healthy, Jacksonian nationalism of a Truman or a Reagan — and not the narrow, crabbed and envy-ridden sentiment of racial separatists or supremacists of any color.

A Foreign Policy for a Fallen World

Trump’s foreign policy principles are clearly drawn from that same Jacksonian heritage, which does not use lofty promises of global transformation that are sometimes hard to distinguish from Jacobin or Leninist rhetoric. Instead, Trump speaks plainly of defending our national interest in a fallen and perilous world. How often over the past 16 years have our decisions on crucial questions, from Iraq to the “Arab Spring,” been distorted and rendered delusional by universalist abstractions, which ignore the stubborn facts on the ground in Fallujah or Benghazi.

Too many “forgotten Americans” from coal mining country or struggling farms have bled out and died on alien sand, as our nation’s debts piled still higher, in pursuit of fantastical projects that seemed uplifting to some speechwriting civilian over on M Street.

Making Citizenship Great Again

Those who are tempted to panic over Trump’s pledges to enforce our duly enacted immigration laws should know that his promises, just like those laws, grow out of a deep respect for citizenship as a concept with texture and meaning, carrying both rights and duties — not some blank PDF which anyone on earth may download and print out at Kinkos.

While we recognize the equal humanity, under God, of foreign nationals, for Trump it is unpatriotic to treat them as indistinguishable from our fellow Americans — whose ancestors worked, fought, may even have slaved for the weal of this nation in particular, not for humanity as a category.

In fact, Trump’s vision of citizenship goes a good deal further than many libertarians and classical liberals think fitting: He sees the United States as one vast extended family, to the point that we should be willing to sacrifice economic efficiency for the sake of looking out for the least among us. Sound economists have warned us of the Rube Goldberg absurdities that come along with protectionism, and it’s not at all clear that less fortunate Americans would benefit from a trade war that we provoked.

Helping the Forgotten American

So when it comes time to implement Trump’s agenda in nitty-gritty policies, we must insist that measures meant to help Americans whose livelihoods are challenged by foreign competition be as small-scale and short-term as possible. Just as Trump rightly sees that the U.S. government cannot create democracy where the seeds for it always shrivel, he must realize that the same government cannot save entire industries whose economic foundations in reality are crumbling.

Americans have traditionally been a flexible, adaptable, “can-do” people, who picked up and moved from New England to flee its stony soil for the vast fields of the West, and left unprofitable farms to staff the vast factories of Chicago and Detroit. What Trump sees, as most other Republicans didn’t, is that the transitions which economic reality has imposed on many less-connected Americans have been bumpy, painful, and sometimes destructive.

Wall Street gamblers were able to threaten an economic meltdown in 2008, to gain a golden parachute from the government. The election of Donald Trump is a fitting rebuke to elites in both parties who allowed that injustice to happen.

Trump tapped into the populist current that now runs through most Western countries, a wholesome rebellion against the cozy backroom deals and policy tweaks customized to serve the self-styled “cognitive elite,” the people who sail from elite colleges to corner offices, who use the rhetoric of “justice” and “inclusion” to rise to unaccountable power in U.S. federal agencies and European Union commissions. He spoke in brash and divisive terms of an open split between the interests of these elites and the people they claim to represent. It was bracing to hear him state matters so bluntly.

Restoring the Balance in American Politics

No, Donald Trump will not create a Peronist regime, which wrecks the U.S. economy in pursuit of some ill-conceived “social justice.” He will not embark us on wars of naked aggression and foreign conquest. He will not seed our cities with racial hatred, nor blacklist Hollywood actors.

What he will do is repair the grave imbalances in our politics that has emerged in recent decades. For too long we have allowed those who can master phrases and administer people to thrive, while those who work with their hands are shunted aside — and often replaced by compliant foreigners. Too many policy debates are dominated by a battle of empty abstractions, as taxes rise, budgets burst and real-world communities wither.

In an age when European governments react to the crime waves inflicted by a massive influx of Muslims with Third World skill sets and a 7th century worldview by censoring the news so citizens won’t rebel, it is more than simply refreshing to have a president like Trump, who is impervious to happy talk and in touch with ordinary people. It might even prove redemptive. (For more from the author of “Trump’s Inauguration Speech: Two Feet Firmly Planted on Our Fallen Earth” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Supporters in Their Own Words

Thousands of voters traveled to the nation’s capital Friday to witness the inauguration of President Donald Trump. But have their voices been accurately reflected over the past few months? The Daily Signal spoke with Trump supporters about who they are, why they came out to support the nation’s 45th president, and whether they think the media’s narrative is fair. Watch the video to hear their responses.

(For more from the author of “Trump Supporters in Their Own Words” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Signs Executive Order Curbing Obamacare

Hours after taking the oath of office, President Donald Trump followed up on his campaign pledge to try to start chipping away at Obamacare, and curb federal regulations.

Trump signed an executive order on Friday evening from the Oval Office “to ease the burden of Obamacare as we transition to repeal and replace,” White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Friday.

The new president’s goal is to repeal the Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, which will require congressional actions.

“Potentially the biggest effect of this order could be widespread waivers from the individual mandate,” Larry Levitt, a senior vice president at the Kaiser Family Foundation, told The Washington Post. Currently, individuals who do not have health insurance and do not qualify for an exemption must pay a $695 annual fee or up to 2.5 percent of annual household income.

“They’re very aware of the fact that the first job is to prevent the Affordable Care Act from doing more damage than it’s already done,” says Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow in health care policy at The Heritage Foundation. “As we saw with the premium increases in the fall, people who are buying individual or small employer coverage without a subsidy are getting hammered.”

Haislmaier cautioned, however, that the executive order is “the beginning of the process.” The order states that it’s the goal of the administration to repeal the law, but:

In the meantime, pending such repeal, it is imperative for the executive branch to ensure that the law is being efficiently implemented, take all actions consistent with law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burdens of the act, and prepare to afford the States more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.

The order mentions several times, “To the maximum extent permitted by law,” and continues:

[T]he heads of all other executive departments and agencies … with authorities and responsibilities under the act shall exercise all authority and discretion available to them to waive, defer, grant exemptions from, or delay the implementation of any provision or requirement of the act that would impose a fiscal burden on any state or a cost, fee, tax, penalty, or regulatory burden on individuals, families, healthcare providers, health insurers, patients, recipients of healthcare services, purchasers of health insurance, or makers of medical devices, products, or medications.

Democrats have argued that gutting the law that mandates individuals buy health insurance and employers provide it would leave millions uninsured. Republicans say the mandate has been overly burdensome.

Obamacare has seen an increase of about 14 million insured, based largely on Medicaid expansion. The law requires individuals to buy insurance and employers to provide it.

However, the Obama administration admitted that health care premiums increased by an average of 25 percent across 39 states in October. Further, 33 states have fewer insurers offering coverage on Obamacare in 2017 than in 2016. Only one state, Virginia, gained insurers. Five states have one insurer, while 13 have just two. One-third of all U.S. counties will have just one insurer.

White House chief of staff Reince Priebus sent a memo titled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” to block all pending regulations under review but not yet in the Federal Register. (For more from the author of “Trump Signs Executive Order Curbing Obamacare” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Inauguration Protesters Dishonor Long-Held Principle

More than any other political act, the orderly transfer of power from one administration to another at a presidential inauguration demonstrates convincingly that we are a nation of laws and not of men.

Even with the closest of outcomes and the losing side’s understandable disappointment — and even anger — victor and vanquished normally pledge to work together for the common good.

Unfortunately, a coalition of left-wing radicals has now pledged to do all that it can to disrupt Donald Trump’s inauguration, including blocking streets and perhaps bridges, preventing people from assembling along the parade route, spreading false “news” about the ceremony’s participants and their remarks, and pledging a “permanent opposition” to the Trump presidency.

One newspaper referred to the left’s “post-election frenzy of fundraising, war rooms, protests and social media hysteria.”

This radical left has ignored the example set by past presidential losers such as former Vice President Al Gore and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who after suffering defeat demonstrated their respect for the Constitution and the rule of law.

In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote to Gore by a little more than half a million votes (out of 101.4 million cast) but won the electoral vote by the slimmest of margins — 271 to 266, one vote more than the 270 needed.

Gore could have refused to accept the Supreme Court’s decision putting a stop to ballot counting in Florida, but instead, he said that “for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy, I offer my concession.”

Gore quoted Stephen Douglas’ comments to Abraham Lincoln, who had just defeated him for the presidency: “Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I’m with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.” With his concession remarks, Gore provided an example of high statesmanship rather than low partisanship.

A little more than two months ago, Trump lost the popular vote to Clinton by nearly 3 million votes out of 129 million cast, but won the electoral vote decisively by 306 to 232 votes.

Many Clinton supporters remain in deep denial, lending their support to the disaffected and the disgruntled who have promised to protest at the inauguration of Trump.

To her credit, Clinton has not encouraged the protests, but has rather stood by what she said at her concession speech on election night: “I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans.”

Endeavoring to put politics behind her, Clinton said that “we owe [Trump] an open mind and a chance to lead” and acknowledged the importance of “the peaceful transfer of power.”

We do not know what Trump, ever unpredictable, will say in his speech after he has taken the oath of office to become our 45th president. But we have reason to believe that his inaugural address will be, at least in part, Reaganesque — optimistic and confident.

Speaking of Ronald Reagan, I think (as I wrote in National Affairs) that 2017 resembles 1981 in several significant ways.

Republicans have accumulated a vast backlog of conservative ideas over the past eight years that were blocked by President Barack Obama and are now available to Trump.

Similarly, The Heritage Foundation’s 1980 Mandate for Leadership contained a mountain of conservative policy reforms going back decades that helped Reagan move the federal government in a conservative direction.

Even so, Heritage has now offered the Trump administration a similarly comprehensive blueprint for conservative policies in every federal department and agency.

These include repeal of Obamacare and the creation of a free-market health care program; the repeal of Dodd-Frank and the shutting down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; restoration of the work requirements for federal welfare; a flat tax rate on personal income; a commitment to traditional marriage; and the strengthening of our armed forces so that they are second to none.

The 2016 election returns have given conservatives a golden opportunity. The conservative agenda has proven solutions to many of the problems that led so many Americans — more than 61 million — to vote for the change that Trump promised.

It is now up to conservatives to convince policymakers from the White House to the statehouses to pursue the right path, to preserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness for ourselves and those we love. (For more from the author of “Trump Inauguration Protesters Dishonor Long-Held Principle” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Keeping 50 Obama Administration Officials

President-elect Donald Trump has asked roughly 50 senior Obama administration officials to remain in their roles in order to “ensure the continuity of government,” spokesman Sean Spicer said Thursday.

The decision comes as Trump is reportedly struggling to fill important posts in his new administration.

Among the Obama holdovers are key national security officials, including Brett McGurk, special envoy to the global coalition fighting the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

The move is somewhat surprising, given Trump’s repeated criticism of Obama’s effort to combat the terrorist group. He called the president “the founder of ISIS” during a campaign event last April.

McGurk, however, does have bipartisan credentials. He served as an adviser on Iraq and Afghanistan under President George W. Bush. (Read more from “Trump Keeping 50 Obama Administration Officials” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Betsy DeVos Is Scarier Than the KKK, Says DC Teachers Union Head

Speaking at an event organized to oppose President-elect Donald Trump’s agenda in Washington, D.C. Thursday, American Federation of Teachers President Elizabeth “Liz” Davis said that Betsy DeVos, Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, is more frightening than the Ku Klux Klan.

“Of course, you know that there are some scarier things that are coming up … one of them is Betsy DeVos,” Davis said. “That frightens me more than the Klan, because Betsy DeVos is a multi-mega millionaire who has managed to buy her way to a position of influence that could actually change the face of what we know public education to be, and what we want it to be in this country.”

Watch:

Betsy DeVos is scarier than the KKK?

That is not jumping the shark. That is jumping a team of sharks with a flaming motorcycle, naked, irrationally screaming as the train-wreck of your pathetic liberal hysteria reaches the point where the American people cannot take your argument seriously because you think a kindly mid-western woman who supports school choice is worse than the Ku Klux Klan.

The real insult here is that as a representative for teachers, as an educator, Ms. Davis should know full well the KKK’s evil history and the atrocities committed by that wicked hate group. This is a woman responsible for teaching American children. For Davis to say that Betsy DeVos is scarier than the Ku Klux Klan, that is beyond slander.

She should be ashamed of herself. (For more from the author of “Betsy DeVos Is Scarier Than the KKK, Says DC Teachers Union Head” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Why Trump Poses a Bigger Threat to the Left Than Reagan, According to Newt Gingrich

President-elect Donald Trump poses a greater threat to the left than any other political leader in the last 100 years, Newt Gingrich proclaimed on the eve of Inauguration Day.

Speaking at The Heritage Foundation on Thursday, Gingrich predicted that the Trump administration will dismantle the Washington establishment, unlike anything America has ever seen.

“Trump is a direct moral threat to both the value system of the left—because he’s so politically incorrect—and to the power structure of the left,” the former House speaker said.

Trump will put an end to the liberal agenda pushed by the establishment since Franklin Roosevelt, Gingrich predicted.

“I believe it’s an opportunity to end the 84-year dominance of the left starting with Roosevelt in 1932,” Gingrich said. “[Ronald] Reagan didn’t end it, I didn’t end it. It has continued to be the dominant underlying force in American culture and government. We have a chance now to really do that.”

As the media becomes increasingly terrified and the left’s anticipation has risen, Gingrich said, it has become clear to me that there is no historical parallel to Trumpism.

Not even Reagan can serve as a model for a chief executive whose primary goal is to completely alter the current power structure, Gingrich noted.

“Reagan’s goal was to defeat the Soviet empire and, within the context of the traditional system, to accelerate economic growth and rebuild a belief in America and American history,” he said. “He didn’t spend a lot of time trying to take on the core value system of the left.”

Trump’s tackling of the left’s ideology is comparable to Margaret Thatcher’s annihilation of socialism in Great Britain during her years as prime minister.

Thatcher assailed socialism, “which is exactly what Trump should do,” Gingrich said. “Thatcher was a direct threat to both the value system and the power structure of the left in Great Britain.”

Gingrich suggested that while Trump may not be an ideological, traditional conservative, he has the ability to not only create jobs and stimulate the economy, but also to overpower the left’s agenda.

“He is not an ideological, traditional conservative, but he may be the most anti-left political leader of the last 100 years,” Gingrich said. “If they come together as a team and if they really focus on large-scale change, this will in fact be a historic opportunity.

Gingrich urged Trump voters to be both “noisily supported” of the administration and heavily critical of the elite news media.

“Every time the news media does something wrong, scream at them,” he said. “Just pound on them. Don’t pretend that we should pay attention to them in a positive way.”

Gingrich will pick up with part four of his six-part series on understanding Trump and Trumpism at Heritage on Monday, Jan. 23. The speech will take place at 11 a.m. EST. (For more from the author of “Why Trump Poses a Bigger Threat to the Left Than Reagan, According to Newt Gingrich” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Day One Executive Actions Could Include Immigration, Obamacare, ISIS, and Trade

President-elect Donald Trump plans to use “four or five” executive actions on Friday after being sworn into office, incoming White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters.

“We’ve talked about that for a few months now—Obamacare, the fight against ISIS, he talked about immigration, key issues that have been important to him throughout the campaign that will continue to be important to him throughout this administration,” Spicer said Thursday at a press briefing.

This comes after Wednesday, when Spicer told reporters that Trump will have “in the area of four or five” executive actions during his first day in office.

During the Thursday press briefing, Spicer said Trump is committed to using executive actions beyond day one.

“I think the president-elect is still working through which [executive actions] he wants to deal with tomorrow versus Monday or Tuesday,” Spicer said.

When later asked about trade, Spicer said Trump will move on taking action on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

“Part of what he announced in the executive order list, around Thanksgiving time, included actions on both TPP and NAFTA that will be done by executive order,” Spicer said. “So I think you will see those happen very shortly.”

During the campaign, Trump announced his first action to protect American workers will be to announce his plan to renegotiate NAFTA, a trade deal between the United States, Canada and Mexico, with the threat of withdrawal if necessary. He also intends to withdraw from the TPP, an 11-nation trade agreement negotiated by the Obama administration.

Ditching TPP would be largely symbolic because the agreement is essentially dead on arrival in Congress. But early executive actions by presidents are frequently symbolic, to mark a turning of the page in policy, said Dan Mahaffee, vice president for the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress, a nonpartisan education and public policy organization.

“Early in administrations, executive actions are used to fire up the base, but it also fires up the opposition,” Mahaffee told The Daily Signal.

Trump’s first 100-day plan, which includes potential executive actions on immigration, ethics, and energy, says he will “cancel every unconstitutional executive action, memorandum, and order issued by President Obama.”

Geoffrey Skelley, a political analyst with the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics, anticipates more than symbolism from Trump’s earliest days.

“On one hand, symbolism could be a good place to start while the administration figures out how to implement a certain policy, but at the same time, I’m more inclined to think Donald Trump will run right into the fire,” Skelley said.

In the 100-day plan, Trump has said he would impose a lifetime ban on former White House staffers becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.

He also pledged to lift restrictions on energy production, which could include reversing President Barack Obama’s executive-imposed Clean Power Plan, for what he said would be $50 trillion worth of jobs.

With regard to immigration, the Islamic State and Obamacare, some actions could be broad. For example, a president has wide latitude as commander-in-chief to combat the Islamic State.

Only Congress can repeal Obamacare. However, Trump could reverse some of the executive enforcement actions by the Obama administration, such as directing the Department of Health and Human Services to end mandated insurance coverage for abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and therapy or surgery for gender transition.

On immigration, which was a signature issue for Trump during the campaign, he has said one of the actions he would take in the first 100 days is canceling federal funding to sanctuary cities or municipalities that don’t enforce federal immigration law.

Trump has also vowed to begin removing more than 2 million criminal illegal immigrants from the country, which is largely a federal law enforcement matter. (For more from the author of “Trump Day One Executive Actions Could Include Immigration, Obamacare, ISIS, and Trade” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Trump Team Right to Consider ‘Dramatic’ Cuts to Federal Budget

The Hill reported Thursday that President-elect Donald Trump’s team is considering “dramatic” cuts to the federal budget, using as a baseline a report issued in 2016 by The Heritage Foundation.

Predictably, the left is having an absolute meltdown.

The bloggers at Slate fanned themselves with sanctimonious tweets from people who clearly hadn’t read the Heritage proposals. Meanwhile, the liberals at Salon and Mother Jones took to their fainting couches over the idea that Trump might eliminate the Violence Against Women grants—failing, of course, to note that the Government Accountability Office has already questioned the effectiveness of the grant program.

What all this hand-wringing and hysteria ignores is why contemplating budget cuts is so vitally necessary.

This country is almost $20 trillion in debt. Our entitlement programs—Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security—are headed toward bankruptcy. The U.S. continues to finance its spending with money it doesn’t have, making nations like China our largest creditor.

In 2015, the national debt exceeded 100 percent of everything the economy produced in goods and services—a warning siren if there ever was one, as countries with debt-to-gross domestic product ratios above 90 percent experience a significant reduction in economic growth.

Without meaningful reforms, America is on track to become economically stagnant and permanently debt-bound.

That is why it should come as no surprise that the new president is focused on tackling America’s debt crisis. The Trump team received several mandates from the voters in November, but one of them was to get the bloated federal budget under control.

If it hews to the Heritage “Blueprint for Balance,” it’ll start by first tackling programs that are wasteful, duplicative, and inefficient—not the vital government services that feverish liberals would have you believe.

For example, have you heard of the catfish inspection program? This program is so wasteful and duplicative that the Government Accountability Office has tried no less than nine times to get rid of it. In 2016, the Senate voted to do just that, but without corresponding action from the House of Representatives, the program remains.

Eliminating it would save $14 million a year. (And lest you worry about the cleanliness of your catfish, a similar program already exists at the Food and Drug Administration, where it runs at a cost of $700,000 a year.)

Or maybe you didn’t know that the Environmental Protection Agency has a whole lot of office space that it isn’t using. If it leased all of it out, the agency could save $22 million in one year. On a similar note, if we eliminated just one of the many corporate welfare programs within the federal government, we could save anywhere from $15 million to $500 million a year.

These are the low-hanging fruit of budget cuts: easy and obvious ways to save money. Unfortunately, it’s still not enough to right the fiscal ship. Tough choices—trade-offs between spending and saving—must be made.

Over the years, the role of government has expanded into almost every area of modern life. Reducing spending requires reducing that footprint. That’s why the blueprint proposes to eliminate organizations like the National Endowment for the Arts.

While some may argue that government has a role in fostering the growth of culture, the government simply does not have the resources to do this while simultaneously promoting fiscally prudent growth.

As it stands, the American citizens are doing pretty well advocating the arts—in 2014, Americans gave $358 billion to charity, and of that, nearly $18 billion went to the arts and humanities. Rather than writhing in their sackcloth and ashes over this “draconian” cut in spending, liberals should be applauding this private philanthropy.

The same calculus goes for the tough choices that must be made at agencies across the government. Should we have an entire government office focused on promoting energy efficiency when the private market is already meeting this need? Should there really be an entire bank paying foreign firms and foreign governments to purchase American goods from already wealthy corporations?

Tackling spending requires a review of government priorities. It means looking at programs through a critical lens, with an eye toward responsible stewardship, efficient allocation, and the role of government.

To liberals who think every cent of government spending is sacrosanct, any budget cut means the end of the world. But to the rest of America, to those who want to live in a country with a strong economy with well-managed resources, the actions of the Trump team are a breath of fresh—and very necessary—air. (For more from the author of “Trump Team Right to Consider ‘Dramatic’ Cuts to Federal Budget” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.