You can always assess a person’s priorities based on how and where they spend their money. In the realm of politics, budgets and spending are clear evidence of what is important to the politician.
The preamble of our Constitution clearly lays down the missions, and priorities of our federal government. It states:
From Allen B. West
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Notice it says nothing about establishing “social” justice. And, I’m quite sure sanctuary cities that harbor criminal illegal aliens don’t ensure domestic tranquility — sadly something Kate Steinle encountered.
But I want to draw your attention to these words: “provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare.” There’s a huge difference in these two phrases based upon the verbs provide and promote. The verb provide is active, while the verb promote is passive. In other words, a very important aspect of our federal government is it actively seeks to provide for our defense — our security.
At the same time, the federal government is supposed to promote our general welfare — in essence, allow us to pursue our happiness. But, somehow, these words have been juxtaposed, and, for the last eight years, we’ve had a federal government, under progressive socialist control, that sought to provide the general welfare while just promoting our common defense. A big difference when it comes to policies…and spending.
As reported by the venerable Terence Jeffrey at CNSNews.com:
“Barack Obama was the first president of the United States to spend more on “means-tested entitlements” — aka welfare — than on national defense, according to data published by his own Office of Management and Budget.
Historical tables that the OMB posted on the Obama White House website, include annual totals for both “national defense” spending and “means-tested entitlement” spending going back to fiscal 1962–which is three years before President Lyndon Johnson signed legislation creating the Medicaid program, a means-tested entitlement that together with the Children’s Health Insurance Program enrolled 74,407,191 beneficiaries as of November 2016.
In every year from fiscal 1962 through fiscal 2014, total national defense spending exceeded means-tested entitlement spending.
In fiscal year 1962, for example, the federal government spent more than twelve times as much money on national defense ($52,345,000,000) as it did on means-test entitlements ($4,300,000,000).
However, national defense spending peaked in 2011, when it hit $705,554,000,000. By contrast, means-tested entitlement spending has increased each year since 2012.
Finally, in fiscal 2015, it exceeded national defense spending for the first time.
The fiscal 2016 numbers published in the OMB’s Historical Tables are estimates, but they show means-tested entitlements exceeding national defense spending $709,600,000,000 to $604,452,000,000.”
Now, of course the progressive socialist left will come back with the typical retort of “uncaring conservatives,” which isn’t the case. The difference is, conservatives believe we should have a safety net, not a hammock. Under Barack Obama we saw an incredible increase in American poverty, food stamp enrollment, and an expansion of Medicaid — which was meant to cover folks under the poverty line.
Now, never forget that during the Obama reign, America went from $10.67 trillion to $20 trillion in debt, and what did we get? We have more Americans dependent on government and its welfare nanny-state. We have a military that’s been decimated and depleted to the point where aviation maintenance crews are scouring museums and bone yards for spare parts. We don’t have adequate carrier coverage in the Persian Gulf. We’re driving our men and women in uniform into the ground due to incessant combat tours of duty. No, we don’t need to police the world, but we need to have a deterrent capability and capacity to provide security, and be able to engage and defeat the enemy on the ground, when called upon.
Read Full Story At Allen B. West