To my Leftist readers out there, we need to have a talk about one of your current figureheads in the media, Harry Sisson. Let me start with a question.
Why in the wide world of fuck are you letting him be a spokesperson?
I treated him like a joke up until this point, but after watching his bizarre performance on a recent episode of “Piers Morgan Uncensored,” I have some questions. But make no mistake, I will still treat him like a joke because, dammit, I care!
The most obvious question is who exactly is he influencing. It’s no secret the Left has more issues with men than a stripper convention, and after the 2024 election, they figured out saying “men suck” isn’t exactly the best way to attract potential male voters.
And Harry Sisson is the best you folks could come up with?
What’s more intriguing is Harry isn’t the only influencer in the Leftist hivemind. Let’s list off a few.
JoJoFromJerz – a woman whose claim to fame is using Instagram filters to make her look semi-attractive and swearing more than Andrew Dice Clay with Tourettes
Meidas Touch – a reliable Leftist outpost whose track record for telling the truth makes the Weekly World News look like a more accurate Nostradamus
BrooklynDadDefiant – a guy who looks like he could might be able to kick your ass, but would be more likely to play you an original folk rock song on his acoustic guitar
Hassan Piker – Cenk’s Nephew. ‘Nuff said.
Destiny – a guy whose takes are entertaining because of how manic and wrong they are
Occupy Democrats – Meidas Touch with a bigger budget
Olivia Julianna – a woman charged with attracting young men back to the Left, but may not be able to attract flies to shit
And many, many more.
So, back to the original question, who is Harry Sisson influencing? Judging from the 2024 election results, not too many. More realistically, though, he’s not influencing anyone; he’s preaching to the same choir everyone else in the Leftist influencer-sphere is. And it’s already pretty saturated as it is.
Let’s go over what Harry has going for him. He’s a young man, not all that unattractive, and looks like a little boy. That automatically makes him attractive to older women and some gay men, who would want to take him in and take care of him. Oh, and possibly fuck him.
His boyish looks would make him attractive to younger women and younger gay men, so they would fantasize about fucking him.
But if he’s the face of the movement to get men back to voting for Leftists, he sucks at his job. He’s the type of guy who dudebros would automatically know he doesn’t lift, bro. Working class men would ignore him because he comes from a wealthy family and looks like he would have trouble lifting a nail, let alone a hammer. He’s terminally online, but whines whenever anyone calls him out on anything or mocks him in any way. (By the way, hi, Harry!)
In short, he’s not helping, and he hasn’t helped since he came onto the scene during the Brick Tamland Administration where he ran interference for the President, saying he was prepared to be President for another four years. You know, right before they dumped the President for Queen Kamala the Appointed.
But he was totally fine, guys. We can trust Harry over what we saw.
A total lack of awareness notwithstanding, Harry is proving to be more of a liability than a help. His insane mugging for the camera after being proven wrong about high profile elected Democrats calling Donald Trump a Nazi showed he was either woefully ignorant of what the party he represents constantly does, tweaking out on some primo shit and not sharing, or both. At this point, it’s hard to tell. In fact, he might be a secret Trump/Vance plant designed to make the Left look stupider than it already does just to see how many fellow Leftists follow suit. And if the plant is the right answer, Trump/Vance is getting an amazing return on investment out of Harry.
For the people/party paying him? Not so much.
Personally, I would scrap whomever decided social media influencers could replace actually talking to people outside of their hivemind because it’s a damn stupid idea. That’s how you get out of touch with the people you claim to be looking out for, and that’s where the Left find themselves today due in large part to people like Harry Sisson.
Unless you’re into man-babies who look like they’re taking mushrooms for the very first time online, that is.
Month: October 2025
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you missed it (and why wouldn’t you since you all have lives), there was another No Kings march recently. And I am happy to report the only kings left standing after this march are of the burger variety.
In the aftermath of the march, the Left announced a new initiative called Mass Blackout. First off, it should be Mass African-Americanout. Second, the idea behind it is to stick it to The Man, with The Man being megacorporations.
And now it’s my turn to stick it to the Mass Blackout.
Mass Blackout
What the Left thinks it means – not spending any money during the busiest shopping days of the year
What it really means – another example of Leftists not knowing shit about economics
Financial boycotts have been a thing for a while now, whether it be conservatives boycotting national department store chains for daring to put a same-sex couple in an advertisement or Leftists boycotting Chik-fil-A for allegedly being anti-gay. Their effectiveness varies. Sometimes the boycotts work, other times they drive more business towards the business being boycotted. But at the end of the day, the same force drives decisions one way or the other.
You guessed it. Frank Stallone.
Actually, that force is money. (Sorry, Frank.) Money is a powerful motivator and can make the difference between keeping the doors open and going the way of many government employees these days. With everything, there is a risk/reward argument to be had. Sure, it may feel good to tell the local HOA board member wine mom Karen to go fuck a duck when she’s making unreasonable demands, but that comes at a cost that other HOA board member wine mom Karens will rally around the Alpha Karen and counterattack.
It would be at this point I would use the taser, but that’s just me.
The same principle is at work with the Mass Blackout. (The power of money, not the taser thing. That last one’s just my go-to.) The goal is to make the big stores feel the pinch as the Left goes shopping at smaller local vendors. On the surface, it’s a great way to stick it to the big box chain stores that dominate the retail landscape. Brilliant plan, right?
Yeah, that’s where the Leftists don’t know shit about economics comes into play.
Whether you shop of Mom and Pop’s Cheese Store or Best Buy, the money is still going into the economy. You’re just directing where the money goes. Even if you follow the directives of Mass Blackout and not buying goods or services between November 25 and December 2 from any major retailers, you’re buying something before and after, which means…it’s not really a boycott, per se. That’s practicing capitalism, boys and girls!
Also, there’s the problem of scarcity to consider. For example, I’m sure your local coffee shop has some great blends that you love, but if you’re craving a Starbucks Pumpkin Spice Latte (known as the Money Maker by 4 out of 5 dentists), you won’t be able to get it at your local coffee shop. They may have something close, but it won’t be exactly the same.
What the Left doesn’t understand is local stores and services may not have the exact thing consumers are looking for, so they will either have to order online or stand in line for the big chain distributors to fulfill those special orders. It pains me to say it, but the local businesses can’t always keep up. The sentiment behind the Mass Blackout is there, but the execution leaves a lot to be desired.
Then, there’s the unintended consequences of the Mass Blackout, namely the impact it may have on seasonal workers. Granted, Target and WalMart aren’t going to go under if they lose a few dollars here and there, but what about the employees? These are the ones who always get hurt during boycotts because they’re not the megacorporations; they’re the cogs in the machine.
I remember Leftists going after BP after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. They decided they would stop buying BP gasoline to stick it to the big wigs. What they didn’t know or bother to find out is many BP stations are employee-owned, meaning the boycotts hurt them the most.
Way to stick it to The Man, Leftists. That time, you stuck it to the working man.
Just like you’re doing here.
The problem (among many) is the Left doesn’t seem to care that much about the people they claim to represent. Working class people have been suffering for a decade or two because the Left values self-worth over the common good. To them, it’s always about putting up a good front and feeling good about what they’re doing (or “doing” as the case may be because their actions tend to be more ethereal than practical). And if people they don’t like or know get hurt in the process, so be it! Their fee-fees must be protected at all costs!
And that’s the heart of the Mass Blackout. It’s not about fighting anything they list on their website, which includes a lot of Leftist bullshit that has nothing to do with economics, per se, but can be wedged into the protest with jackhammers, chicken wire, bubble gum, and a lot of duct tape because intersectionality. (For those of you playing along at home, intersectionality is the idea that everything is interconnected, even if it’s complete bullshit.)
Yet, when trying to fit everything into a movement, Leftists never seem to get the idea you can have too much of anything, which ultimately hurts the movement.
You know what else hurts a movement? Apathy. For all the good the movement intends to do, it means jack shit if they’re the only ones playing along. So far, I haven’t seen too many arguments to consider joining the Mass Blackout, just that we should totally do it, yanno. That’s how stupid this is: they can’t even make an argument to the normies out there to join in. Everything they’re doing is Leftist buzzwords and emotion. No real calls to action outside their hivemind, who are already a) invested, or b) too damn poor to spend any real money on anything more expensive than avocado toast, hold the avocado.
And even that might be pushing it.
What is bound to happen because Murka is the general public will ignore the Mass Blackout and go about their days without a first thought, let alone a second one. They’ll spend their money as they see fit and that will be the end of it. And the people behind the Mass Blackout will invariably claim victory or blame the evil Trump Administration/corporations/billionaires/stupid people for a lack of participation.
And the best part? The Left has done this shit more than a few times this year, and not even your perpetually online favorite blogger knew about it. And I didn’t know about it either!
So, if anyone who is supporting the Mass Blackout is reading this, take the L now and save yourself a lot of pain. You’re not going to change the system by doing the same shit you’ve done earlier this year. Switch it up a bit! Maybe, just maybe, participate in the capitalist system like you’re already doing and know your role.
Shutting your mouth would also be a big help.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
For as much time as I spend mocking the Left for their rampant stupidity, there is one thing I give them credit for, and that is mass distribution of their squawking points. Back in the heady days of, well, last year, Leftists were all squawking in lockstep saying “Joe Biden is mentally capable of being President.” This year, they’re singing a similar tune, but for a different President.
Yes, fellow campers, the Left is now saying President Donald Trump has, as they call it, “diminished capability.”
Wait. Too easy of a joke to make. (At least for now…)
With that being said, let’s take a closer look at what the Left is talking about, Willis.
diminished capacity
What the Left thinks it means – clear cognitive decline which negatively affects the President
What it really means – Leftists trying to avoid responsibility for propping up President Brick Tamland for so long while accusing President Trump of the same shit
The term “diminished capacity” is pretty nebulous when you think about it (and I do because I canceled Netflix before it was cool). It can refer to any number of maladies, ranging from possible dementia to not being able to go out in public without diapers. But enough about President Brick Tamland. There was bountiful evidence that the former President was doing a bobsled run down the cognitive course for a looooooong time. My proof?
All the Leftists who said he was fine.
And surprise, surprise, it’s the same Leftists who are all over Trump’s alleged cognitive decline like an social justice warrior on anything that hurts their fee-fees. And if you don’t know what a social justice warrior is, be glad you’re ignorant of the term and walk on by. It is not a safe space for anyone.
And with how nebulous the term is, it gives the Left plenty of ways to hold Trump to a standard they refused to hold the last President to, even though there were clearer examples of there being an issue with the latter. Not that that’s going to stop the fearless defenders of democracy, mind you! They have a country to destroy…I mean save!
This is where Trump gives them easy wins at times. Semi-coherent rants about inconsequential matters, stopping in the middle of a valid question to talk about something else, spending a significant chunk of his time on social media.
Yes, my friends. Our President is a teenage boy. Only his Call of Duty lobby involves actual military.
But that in and of itself isn’t evidence of diminished capacity. Erratic behavior? Yeah. Cognitive decline? Not so much.
Not that the Left is going to let a little thing like reality get in the way of trying to make President Trump look like Forrest Gump…or would that be Forrest Trump? Anyway, the point is the Left is grasping at straws here mainly because they can’t admit one simple truth: Trump was right all along about President Tamland. In the last year or so of his Presidency, President Tamland was definitely not firing on all trapezoids, let alone cylinders. (Geometry joke FTW!)
But this wasn’t the first time the Left wanted to point out a President’s mental decline. Waaaaaay back in the late 80s, reports came out that President Ronald Reagan was losing his memory and was suffering from dementia. Back then, though, the Left wasn’t so gung-ho to make a President serving his second term into an afterthought. They mentioned it, yes, but they weren’t mean about it for the most part.
Yeah, that ain’t happening now.
The Left needs more people to agree with them that Trump is incompetent, mostly because they were incompetent enough to lose to the guy under the banner of Queen Kamala the Appointed. What was her campaign slogan again? Oh, yeah, insane cackling.
The Left hated it when Trump beat Hillary Clinton because they thought she was the most qualified candidate in history, or at least the history of the time. Of course, when former President Barack Obama says that about it, that’s saying something because it’s a reaaaaaallly low bar to beat his qualifications. My dog is more qualified, and she doesn’t even eat Obamas!
For you Leftists out there, that was a joke.
And speaking of jokes, that brings us to Queen Kamala the Appointed’s campaign. Yes, she’s saying people tell her she was the most qualified candidate to ever run for President, but they’re either a) lying, b) lying to keep themselves in her good graces if/when she runs again, and c) have never met my dog. But the result was the same. The Left couldn’t handle losing to Trump, so they went back to the “Trump is unwell” well.
Here’s the problem. Trump hustles a lot more than most people think. His stamina and work hours make nymphomaniac hookers look lazy. The man works all hours and sleeps only 4. Doesn’t drink alcohol (which, given the state of things in Washington, DC, on a normal day is a Herculean feat). Doesn’t have any drug habits that we know of. In fact, the strongest substance he takes into his body seems to be…Diet Fucking Coke.
Yeah, tell me again he has diminished capacity.
The only case the Left can make is Trump has more than a few gaffes, misstatements, and genuine “What In the Wide World of Fuck Is He Saying?” moments. I know about these because the Left can’t stop talking about them or turning them into bigger stories than they might otherwise be.
Oh, and did I forget to mention these same assholes were oblivious to President Brick Tamland’s clear downward slide?
Let’s lay our cards on the table. This sudden concern with Trump’s mental acuity from the Left is politically driven. I know. I was as shocked as you are when I found out.
Seriously, though, what we’re seeing is IMAX level projection, and it tells me a lot about what the Left knew about President Tamland and when they knew it. If the former President hadn’t been seen at his cognitive worst, the Left wouldn’t be going in as hard as they are on Trump’s alleged decline. Sure, they’d still have the Nazi/fascist/homophobic/transphobic/racist/sexist/insult of the week shit to fall back on, but not the “Trump is in steep mental decline” shit.
Then again, these are the same people who turned Dr. Anthony Fauci into a religious icon, so maybe it wouldn’t stop them.
Regardless, we definitely should take the Left’s claims of the President’s “diminished capacity” with a Great Salt Lake sized grain of salt. Besides, the Left have their own issues with diminished capacity within their own ranks, namely the Socialist Socialite and Jasmine “I Say Stupid Shit and I Get Paid For It” Crockett. The two of them collectively wouldn’t even make a half-wit.
Let me close with a word of advice from Jesus: “Physician, heal thyself.”
It was much classier a closing than my “Get that weak shit out of here!”
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
When you really think about it (and I do because there’s nothing good on Netflix these days), humans have a lot of awards they give out to each other. Everything from perfect attendance at school to making significant contributions to the arts or science is subject to getting a trophy, plaque, oversized check, or some other form of recognition.
Of course, there are problems with this, namely trying to cash an oversized check requires oversized identification. But more to the point not everyone who accomplishes something gets an award and others who get them aren’t worthy of them. Either way, feefees will be hurt worse than a submissive bottom at a BDSM club.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Over the past couple of months, people on both sides have been arguing about one prize in particular, that being the Nobel Peace Prize. The MAGA Right think Donald Trump should get it because of the peace deals he’s been brokering as of late between Russia and Ukraine and more recently between Israel and Hamas. The Left, of course, says Trump doesn’t deserve it because he’s an evil fascist Nazi doodoo head.
So, let’s break of a peace of the action (see what I did there?) and talk about this award.
Nobel Peace Prize
What the Left thinks it means – a coveted international award to celebrate those who promote peace around the world
What it really means – an international award given out to people for more ideological than practical reasons
The history of the Nobel Prizes in general is kinda cool. The guy who came up with them in the first place, Albert Nobel, invented dynamite, which makes him an honorary American because we love explosions. If he had invented a way to deliver meat through explosives, he would be possibly the greatest American ever, next to Chuck Norris.
Alas, he reconsidered his role in finding out a way to blow shit up, so he decided to take a more reasoned approach by recognizing people who contributed to the global society in the arts, sciences, and humanitarian efforts. Hence, the Nobel Prizes came to be.
With some prizes, like the prizes for Literature and the sciences, you can point to an actual body of work. We can debate whether the work improves humanity, but it’s there to look at.
With the Peace Prize…well, that’s another story. Since can be more of a squishy term, it’s harder to quantify what constitutes a worthy recipient, so it could literally be any criteria the Nobel Committee wants to apply.
And that’s where politics comes into play.
When you have no hard and fast rules, there are no expectations, just the word of the Committee members saying “this person is worthy of recognition.” Let’s take a look at some of the recent winners.
Yasser Arafat (1994) – Awarded as part of an effort to broker a peace treaty in the Middle East. Also, the leader of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a known supporter of global terrorism.
International Campaign to Ban Landmines (1997) – A group that wanted to, well, ban landmines. A noble pursuit (see what I did there), but among its members was noted Leftist organization Human Rights Watch because landmines hurt human rights or something.
Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontière (1999) – A group of medical professionals helping people globally and alerting people about humanitarian crises. Medical help is always appreciated, but I’m not clear on how the whole “raising awareness” part brings us closer to peace. I mean, doesn’t somebody have to actually do shit still?
Kofi Anan and the United Nations (2001) – I got nothing.
Jimmy Carter (2002) – I can make a case for him winning the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to broker peace between Israel and Egypt in the last 1970s, but this time? He was awarded for setting up the Carter Center, which focused on human rights. Unless those rights involved Jews, of course.
Shirin Edbadi (2003) – She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to bring democracy to Iran and defend women’s, children’s, and refugee rights. Again, a good cause, but I’m not sure how it would help global peace. It would make Iran a little less hostile in the grand scheme of things, but that’s like Idi Amin telling Jeffrey Dahmer to cut back on the cannibalism.
Wangari Maathai (2004) – She won the Nobel Peace Prize for, as the Committee put it, “for her contribution to sustainable development, democracy, ecology, and peace.” It was almost like the Nobel Committee had to tack on “peace” at the end to justify giving her the award.
Muhammad Yunus and Grameen Bank (2006) – Collectively they…did something. Not sure what, but it was something about economic and social development…which is peaceful, I guess?
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore (2007) – It was at this point the Nobel Peace Prize became a joke. Not even Dane Cook level, either. They got the Peace Prize for the same reason: being wrong about the environment. And I think Al got it for losing to George W. Bush and being wrong about the environment.
And then we get to the coup disgrace (and, no, that’s not a typo)…
Barack Obama (2009) – He won it before he did anything. You know, like drone striking innocent people?
There are more, but you get the picture. When you look at the full list of Peace Prize winners, you see a definite shift from those who actually contributed to peace and those who are getting a wider berth than Rosie O’Donnell and Michael Moore at an all-you-can-devour buffet in order to shoehorn them into the award.
And the same dickheads who swooned over Obama and Gore winning it are the ones saying Donald Trump isn’t qualified to win it in spite of the fact he’s actually trying to broker peace.
Of course, I’m half-and-half on whether Trump should be in the running. Half of me thinks it would be funny to watch Leftist heads explode at him showing up in Oslo to accept the award before the world. The other half of me thinks he’s trying too hard to get an award that doesn’t have the gravitas it once did. It’s like getting an honorary Daytime Emmy; yes it’s an award, but it’s a shitty one.
And when you consider the political leanings of those who are getting the award over the past 20-30 years, you’re more of a loser for winning it.
I’m sure the Nobel Committee reads my weekly missives judging from the Scandinavian hate mail I’ve gotten over the years, so let me give you a piece of advice. Just because you agree with your politics doesn’t mean they’re advancing peace. By expanding what the original purpose of the award means, you’ve watered it down to the point of irrelevance. I mean, you gave a Peace Prize to a fucking terrorist! Why not give Antifa one?
Wait, scratch that. You’ll take me seriously.
Regardless, you have to be a lot more selective in your selection process. Pay attention to those who are actually trying to bring about peace in our time and not just have the “oh, and peace” at the end. And sometimes you might have to hold your nose and pick someone you hate who is actually bringing about a more peaceful world by, you know, actually promoting peace.
As for the MAGA Republicans who think Trump should get it, I wouldn’t push it. If he can figure out how to get Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Hamas to get to the table and get results, then we can talk about him getting one. Until then, hold your applause until the Nobel Committee gets their heads out of their asses.
So, in 2548.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
It’s fall again! Time for white women to gather at Starbucks for Pumpkin Spice lattes, men to take over the biggest TV in their homes to watch football every weekend, and for Congress to fuck up one of the only jobs it has: keeping the doors open.
Yes, I know I’ve talked about this recently and in the past, but it seems every year or so, we have to go through this bizarre Kabuki theater where one party claims the other one is shutting down government because they’re big meany-heads, and the other is claiming the first party is wasting money on stupid shit and is holding their collective breaths to get what they want.
And every time it happens, it’s Republicans’ fault.
So, how exactly are we keeping the government running, or more precisely, limping along like a dry snail? Through Continuing Resolutions, of course! And what are they exactly?
Nothing good.
Continuing Resolutions
What the Left thinks it means – a way to keep the government running because Republicans don’t want to negotiate
What the Right thinks it means – a way to keep the government running because Democrats don’t want to negotiate
What it really means – a way for both major parties to keep spending without having to w0rry about passing an actual budget
Back in the good old days when men were men and women were men and everybody was really confused, Congress would get together to hammer out what they wanted to spend on what. After they agreed, they sent the final proposal to the President, who lent his John Hancock to the bill and it became law. Of course, John Hancock was never President because I’m guessing his peers were afraid his signature would take up most of the page.
That changed in the late 20th and early 21st Century when Congress realized it didn’t need to pass a budget to spend money; they could just do it. Then, the spend-a-palooza began. Although it kept the government from shutting down (which is like saying your least favorite gynecologist isn’t retiring anytime soon, only much more invasive), it started a trend where Congress could forego budget battles in favor of…well, Continuing Resolution battles.
And what it turned into since then was giving a coke fiend a credit card to buy cocaine, then use the card to cut the cocaine into lines and snort them. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Anyway, the point is Congress got to do two of its favorite things to do: spend money, and bitch about how the other party is being unreasonable, but we’re the ones stuck with the tab at the end of the coke binge…I mean night.
The insidious part of all this is it’s perfectly within the duties of Congress as laid out in the Constitution. Article I Section 8 gives Congress the power to spend money. It doesn’t say how that money has to be spent, nor does it require a budget of any kind. As smart as they were, the Founding Fathers never envisioned a time when politicians would be as ruthlessly devious as they are today. Back then, they had these things called honors, morals, and accountability to those who put them in power. Much to their credit, they knew the fallibility of human nature and tried to safeguard us from excess where they could.
Then, we had to go and elect assholes to fuck up that shit.
The best way I can describe the difference between a budget and a Continuing Resolution is this. When somebody sits down and creates a budget, it’s meant to be a guideline to follow and find areas where expenses can be cut or revenue opportunities arise. A Continuing Resolution is more like a payday loan place. They don’t care how you spend the money as long as you pay it back with interest higher than the GDP of every first world country combined.
And that’s if the payday loan place likes you!
Meanwhile back in Washington, Continuing Resolutions has made it possible for Congress to keep kicking the can down the road without ever having to deal with the consequences. Namely, having to keep to a budget. This leads to overspending on stupid shit, like…oh I don’t know…funding health care for illegal immigrants. But I’m sure there are no Congresscritters so fucking dumb as to do that…oh, wait…
And that’s one of the biggest problems with the Continuing Resolution practice: the entire process can get derailed by partisan bullshit. I know! I’m shocked that politics is involved in what should be a non-political action, too!
As much as I like to see government get slashed like it went through an abattoir, I also understand there are human beings affected by the political posturing. No matter what gets funded while the two major parties squander what little money we actually have, someone will always get fucked in the end. And not in the fun way with lube, dim lights, and romantic music. Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
And the worst, yet unfortunately predictable, part? None of these motherfuckers care. No matter who gets hurt, the Left and the Right will continue to battle over trifles that don’t benefit most Americans, but will line their pockets with cash from donors.
The only way to break the cycle is to admit we have a problem. Well, more than one problem, but you get the idea. Continuing Resolutions should be the exception and not the rule. They should be used only in emergencies, not because one of the parties wants to spend money on a particular matter like saving PBS or funding more ICE agents. We need to do a better job at tightening our federal belts instead of going to the tailor to get the waistline taken out a little. And by a little I mean a lot.
One idea that I’m quite fond of is a balanced budget amendment. Not only would it require Congress to pass a budget, but it would have to be one that actually balances.
Yes, Congresscritters, that means you are going to have to give up some of your toys so we can serve the greater good.
The only drawback I see to this is the same kind of dishonest accounting that got Arthur Andersen in trouble, but continues to drive the Continuing Resolution train. When dishonest people have the power to spend money, they will always find a way to fudge the numbers so much you’d think the accounting firm is out of Hershey, Pennsylvania.
That’s where a new and improved DOGE comes into play. To ensure the budget is actually balanced, there have to be actual cuts, not just reductions to proposed increases. Where there’s waste, cut it. Where there’s redundancy, consolidate it with a department or agency where it makes sense. We don’t need 14 different divisions under 50 different agencies doing the same damn thing.
And here’s the key. The cuts must be enacted and approved by the beginning of the new fiscal year. If Congresscritters have time to do stupid selfies or host podcasts, they sure as shit have the time to do their jobs.
Along with this, I have a similar proposal, that being making the bills as small as possible. No more riders that have nothing to do with the bill itself. No more 1200 page bills released at the 11th hour and filled with so much pork Jewish and Muslim politicians have to avoid them. If you have a spending bill, make it easy for people to see what’s in it and voice their opinions.
Of course, none of this will get done because there’s too much riding on the Left and the Right maintaining the status quo. (Status quo is Latin for “same shit, different day.”) Why would Congress give up the absolute power to spend whatever it wants without having to worry about where the money comes from? We’re more likely to get a good Michael Bay movie before we get any significant change on the Continuing Resolution front.
At least the government gets shut down for a while, so there’s that. Yay, I guess?