Member Login

You are not currently logged in.

» Register
» Lost your Password?
Article Archives


demsspending_spreeJoe Biden and the Democrats seem to be wanting a government shutdown, as they say they can’t live with any of the cuts advocated for in a few appropriation bills in the House, and Biden “vows” to veto. From Newsmax:

Compared to 2023 levels, the bills in question would cut Department of Transportation funding by $7 billion, HUD funding by $1.2 billion, and EPA funding by nearly $4 billion.

‘House Republicans had an opportunity to engage in a productive, bipartisan appropriations process, but instead are wasting time with partisan bills that cut domestic spending to levels well below the (Fiscal Responsibility Act) agreement and endanger critical services for the American people,’ the White House said. ‘These levels would result in deep cuts to clean energy programs and other programs that work to combat climate change, essential nutrition services, law enforcement, consumer safety, education, and healthcare.’


During the COVID era, both parties spent massive amounts of money for “emergency spending.” This implied that these supplemental appropriations would disappear after the “crisis” ended… Yet it’s been over two years, and those dollars still flow. An article from Fox News, excerpted below, provides some figures:

The deficit for fiscal year 2023 was $1.7 trillion, growing 23 percent in a single year as the Treasury used $879 billion just to service the federal debt. But ‘Bidenomics’ means the worst is yet to come, and multi-trillion-dollar deficits are the new normal.

The impetus for these massive deficits is federal government spending, which tipped the scales at $6.1 trillion last year. Government receipts, meanwhile, were $4.4 trillion, woefully short of the $5 trillion previously forecasted. A slowing economy and counterproductive tax increases were key drivers behind the $457 billion drop in receipts from the prior fiscal year.

Yet, even these reduced revenues would have resulted in a balanced budget if President Biden had simply allowed spending to return to its pre-pandemic level. Instead, Treasury outlays are up 38 percent today compared to pre-pandemic times.

The government had an almost two trillion dollar deficit in FY 2023, yet somehow we haven’t seen any cuts suggested by Biden or the Democrats—which shows they don’t care about a “disaster” shutdown.

Federal outlays up 38% in the last few years? No wonder we have such high inflation.


Joe Biden and the Democrats also brag about how great the economy is; so how do they explain that government receipts were $600 billion below forecast, and $457 billion below last year?

Think of this: the government missed its forecast of revenues by 15% for one year, yet they base all their “green” spending on forecasts, claiming they can tell what the temperature will be within one degree a hundred years from now? No one should believe them.


Below I have a few simplistic suggestions of how to address the massive government spending problem.

When private businesses are losing money, they have to figure out where the leak is to save the boat from sinking. The government should do the same. Each agency should justify each line in their budget instead of just starting with last year’s numbers. That would save a lot.

The government should demand that all federal employees come back to the office or get fired. That should be no problem for Democrats who were willing to fire people for choosing not to get a vaccine.

Stop maintaining so much empty space. It is expensive. Read below from a report last week:

A new Government Accountability Office report notes that of 24 federal agencies, none of their headquarters are more than half-staffed on an average day.

The government determines how much seniors deserve on social security each year. It would be fair if government budgets went up no more than that. In the last four years, social security beneficiaries received a total raise of 17.5%. Compare that increase to the 38% rise in the federal budget, and we could come to over $800 billion per year in savings and a new starting point.

Close the border. That would save a massive amount of money each year.

End all subsidies for electric cars that people don’t want.

Biden should stop abusing his power to “forgive” student loans to buy votes.

Biden says taking away the money from the IRS would prevent them from going after tax cheats, but the IRS shouldn’t get one dime more until they go after the low-hanging fruit. Start with Hunter Biden, who they know cheated for years. Investigate all the Biden shell companies, because everyone knows that’s a standard place for money laundering.

It is also illegitimate for family members to loan money to other family members at zero interest. Those are reportable gifts. Start by looking at the $200,000 check from Jim Biden to Joe Biden after he got a $600,000 kickback from a bankrupt hospital.


And here are a few things that Joe Biden and other Democrats should be willing to immediately agree with, that will save huge amounts of money—because they say their overriding policies focus on fairness, income equality, wealth equality and building the economy from the bottom up, right?

They should base congressional and federal pensions on a forty-year average salary, just like social security recipients, instead of end of career salaries. It is impossible to actually adequately fund pensions based on career ending salaries. These pensions should be capped, just like social security—currently the cap is $3,627 at the full retirement age of 67. That would be fair and make results equal, which is the goal of Democrats, right?

Why should Anthony Fauci receive a starting pension of $414,000, which is more than ten times the maximum of a social security recipient? Why should Fauci get a 2% annuity payment each year, on a massive chunk of taxpayer money? Is that fair? Doesn’t that compound the wealth and create a bigger income gap about which the Democrats pretend to care?

The federal government is broke. When will Democrats start proposing cuts instead of continually coming up with new entitlements?

Jack Hellner is a writer at the American Thinker.