Most Americans Don’t Know About President Obama’s UniParty Slush Fund…

New Word: “Trumpenstroke“. – The act of eliminating dictatorial fiat with the counter stroke of a President Trump pen. 

It is actually easier to write about the simplicity of eliminating almost all of President Obama’s accomplishments specifically because of the way Team Obama went about constructing them, dictatorial fiat.

DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals), Obama’s executive action (amnesty) dream act, and DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans), the overreaching executive action blocked by Judge Andrew Hanen and upheld by the Supreme Court, are only one Trump-pen-stroke from elimination.  The rest is simple enforcement.

trump-jeffersonLiterally, the only significant legislative action that needs congress to reverse it is ObamaCare, the rest of Obama’s fingerprints on history can be erased by President Trump quicker than Obama created them.

This reality is why the professional left are so apoplectic, and in large measure also why a defeated Obama is fully supportive of the current antagonistic protesting.  Fiats are eliminated faster than fiats are created.  It’s how our system works when the executive branch seeks to usurp the congressional branch.

However, there’s another more substantive area where little attention has been paid, because the UniParty co-facilitated it.  That area is the fiscal spending side of the DC.

The last federal budget was signed into law in September of 2007 by President George W Bush for fiscal year 2008.  Since then the entire mechanism of the federal government has been carried out by continuing resolutions, raises in the debt ceiling, and unfettered spending.

Absent of an actual federal budget, all spending falls under a process called base-line budgeting to determine allocation.  Federal distribution of the money within the continuing resolution, is essentially a year-over-year expenditure with a statutory increase based on inflation.  Essentially, whatever was spent in 2009 was respent in 2010 along with a little bit more.   What was spent in 2011 was a little more than ’10, and so forth.

Debt ceiling - failed stimulisIn February 2009  congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, or ARRA, commonly referred to as Obama’s stimulus plan.  The stimulus was just shy of one trillion ($986 billion +/-).

At the time of passage this single stimulus expenditure reflected a growth of approximately 20% in total federal spending.  The spending went directly into the deficit.

Approximately 30% of that “one time” trillion dollar stimulus was spent in 2009, the remaining 70% was spent in 2010.  (*note fiscal years run from October 1st to September 3oth annually).

However, absent a federal budget -and because of baseline budgeting- it became a repeated expenditure in each of the following fiscal years.

The $1 Trillion Stimulus was spent eight more times.

What most people don’t remember was what the money was spent on.

The shovel ready jobs program was a ruse, as Obama later admitted there were no “shovel ready” jobs created.  Instead the reality was the $1 trillion entered the various cabinet offices at the discretion of the President.

Obama Big Addicted SpenderInitially Obama gave a big chuck to the Dept of Education to use as a subsidy for economic drops in state education funds.  In essence Obama subsidized the teachers payrolls, and kept the teachers union happy.

Other notable large expenditures went into crony capitalistic endeavors with the Dept of Energy and EPA (Solyndra etc.), along with the State Dept.

The key point is the $1 trillion 2009 “stimulus” funds, became a tool for President Obama to use in whatever cabinet office need he saw.

So long as congress never passed an actual budget (and the traditional budget appropriations process kicked in), he would always have this massive amount of extra money to play with.  Obama, Pelosi and Reid ensured there was never going to be a budget.

As the economy somewhat gained footing (2012), for the last several years a lot of the money appears to have been spent on propping up ObamaCare and hiding the structural financial collapse.

If Obama didn’t have this extra $1 trillion at his disposal, ObamaCare would have already collapsed.  If you were wondering why ObamaCare didn’t collapse, well, there’s your answer.

This scheme worked brilliantly so long as Team Obama could kick-the-budget-can into successive years.  They did.

The various John Boehner continuing resolutions culminated in Paul Ryan’s December 2015 Omnibus bill, which again gave Obama his $1 trillion (stimulus) slush funds. You might remember they actually removed the debt ceiling on that final expenditure so they’d never have to go back to congress for approval or spending authority.

That 2015 Paul Ryan Omnibus spending bill extends until April 1st 2017, the date when the incoming President’s budget proposal (Fiscal Year 2018) is due by congressional statute.

When President Trump takes office on January 20th, 2017, he will have to present a budget proposal to congress by March 31st.  However, assuming congress goes through the budgetary process, that Trump budget proposal doesn’t kick into action until October 1st of 2017, the first day of 2018 fiscal year.

So congress is going to have to do something to fund government between April 1st and September 3oth, 2017 because the Ryan Omnibus ends and there’s no budget yet.


Here’s where it gets interesting.

Remember: #1) Obama’s trillion stimulus was a +20% jump in federal spending which has continued year-over-year since 2009, #2) most of that money is now spent on propping up Obamacare via the insurance corridor reimbursement program.

[FACTOID – When everyone, mostly pundits who are GOPe types, were praising Senator Marco Rubio for a 2014 bill that blocked increases to the ObamaCare insurance corridors – we were the only ones laughing at their stupidity because we knew Obama had this reoccurring $986 billion to spend on whatever he wanted.]

That $1 trillion in annual expenditure is what initially kept government at full size when originally passed in ’09.  It then transmogrified into a slush fund two fiscal years later, and ever since about 2012 it’s been a way for Obama to fund his priority list – and the UniParty congress has done nothing about it; because, well, essentially, congress agrees with what it’s being spent on.

It’s a staggering amount of money, $986 billion.  If Trump/Ryan eliminate the worst aspects of ObamaCare they can save a massive amount of that expenditure.  However, beyond that – it shows you just how much money can –and hopefully will– be cut out of government by that elimination alone.

Think about how the leftist media narrative will be spun when President Donald Trump presents an executive budget calling for elimination of 20% of federal spending on year ONE.  However, all he really would be doing is NOT SPENDING Obama’s 2009 stimulus again.

But don’t expect Donald Trump to stop there.   It should be widely anticipated that Donald Trump will present a budget that will drop the jaws of the media beyond the elimination of a $986 billion slush fund.

….. and just think, media people are triggered by a $20 billion expenditure for a wall.


Go Figure.

This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Dem Hypocrisy, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Donald Trump, Donald Trump Transition, Economy, Education, Election 2016, energy, Legislation, media bias, Notorious Liars, Paul Ryan, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Tea Party, Uncategorized, Valerie Jarrett. Bookmark the permalink.

503 Responses to Most Americans Don’t Know About President Obama’s UniParty Slush Fund…

  1. I had no idea, wow. Thank you for the info!

    Liked by 4 people

    • tempo150101 says:

      Sundance has been talking about this for a while. I am a pretty aware follower of the news and current events and I didn’t even know this. I’m surprised more people haven’t cause a fuss over this.

      Liked by 2 people

    • mightyconservative says:

      I’ve known about it for a few years, and wondered where the money was going. I had NO idea it was being used to prop up Obamalamadingdongcare. My premium, for four people, in 2010, was $575. Now, for three people, it is $1700/mo. It is private insurance, and I’m paying for SO much that I don’t need, it makes me sick. Then I read this article, it makes me livid.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Jett Black says:

        It’s “0bummer-don’t-care,” though I like your name for it, too. My premiums are shocking, too and I’ve got a son who’s rolling off the plan, but has only been able to find sporadic work so far–if he does COBRA, it’ll be nearly $1k/mo, just for him. Good thing he’s healthy and hopefully by next tax filing day, 0bummer-don’t-care and it’s unconstitutional penalties won’t exist anymore.

        Liked by 1 person

      • BigMamaTEA says:

        YEP. (You are not alone.)


  2. Andrew E. says:


    Liked by 3 people

  3. Pigg says:

    Wished Trump could rid ourselves of that Gay Marriage right that was forced upon us.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Thorfinnr says:

      Another example, IMO, of the MSM cooking the polls, when they claimed the majority of Americans were OK with this.

      Liked by 3 people

    • imprimipotest says:

      As the Federal government gets trimmed and reigned in during the next few years, we may see more and more states successfully challenge many things foisted upon the nation as a whole during this administration and prior ones.

      Of course, that may permit places like NY, OR, CA, and a few others to, say, maintain a mandate for oxymoronic ‘rights’ such as ‘gay marriage’, but they will have to slug it out on their own turf alone and foot the bill for all the consequences from their own coffers.


      • annieoakley says:

        Colorado will have bigly problems. Even marijuana sales will not be enough. The sacred Public employee’s Retirement will be forced to do something. (I hope they decide the state cannot afford to let every Somali and Mexican in the world to stay). They will just try to figure out a method to get more tax out of us, mexicans and somalis are a protected class.


        • Guybee says:

          Trump should force the states to fund their own benefits for the indigent and illegals. This would choke their budgets and force them to deal with these problems. Of course, they could try and raise taxes. But then the voters would revolt and throw them out or leave the state.

          Liked by 3 people

          • wyntre says:

            It depends on the state. Where taxpayers are outnumbered by slackers, like NYS and CA, those voters will ensure their benefits are maintained and WE will have to pay until there’s nothing left.



      • Daniel says:

        While people think it’s a joke that some states want to leave the US, I think it’s a great idea. Without the aid of the federal funding, those states would be in a collapsing pile not long after and when the state welfare system dries up, the consumers of welfare will find they have become the illegal immigrants seeking refuge in the USA.

        I think it would be nice if Trump were to come up with a way to make these states behave in a fiscally sound way or face being ejected from the USA or demoted to a “territory” like Puerto Rico.

        Liked by 1 person

        • wyntre says:

          Let the entire west coast secede – Ca, Oregon and Washington – three of the states with the most violent anti-Trump protesters.


        • dayallaxeded says:

          Sadly, the numbers don’t really coincide with your ideas–NY and CA are net contributors to the Fed budget–they may also tax-rape their productive citizens, but they, along with a few other “heartland” states are carrying most of the rest, including my state, LA. Bottom line, if the Confederate States weren’t allowed to secede, no one is–we’re in this together. Get rid of the illegal immigrants and start prosecuting criminals, like the Klintoon Krime Kartel and Soros, add a little common sense and truly fair law enforcement and an end to unconstitutional meddling and extortion, and the whole shebang will straighten out and fly right. There will always be regional and local differences–at least I hope so–but they’ll be the spice of life, rather than the toxic mess the Demonrats created.

          Liked by 1 person

    • fred2w says:

      Trump appointing a couple of conservatives to SCOTUS will put the marriage debate back to the states where it belongs. Hence, in more gay marriage nationwide.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Daniel says:

      That’s not necessary. All we need is a constitutional ruling that business has the right to exclude people based on individual choice. Then the states would be powerless in their unconstitutional laws which enforce such nonsense.

      One might say “oh! but that will cause all sorts of other problems!” Those laws don’t seem to solve the problem of businesses excluding service to policemen… or from serving them broken glass in their food. The problem is selective enforcement as we well know, but having the force of federal rulings against those laws which are selectively enforced will enable people to do what is right because I support the right of businesses to exclude police as well as our right not to support those businesses with our money.


    • Archie says:

      I am for gay marriage. Besides most of the states would have allowed it on their own anyway and reciprocity would have to be enforced somehow.

      Liked by 1 person

    • To me, it has always been a ludicrous overreach for “government” to have to approve/document anyone’s marriage, period.

      “government” intrudes much, much more than not. It needs to end now

      Liked by 1 person

      • SteveInCO says:

        Part of the problem is government extends a lot of benefit to married couples. And many private institutions do too, e.g., health insurance to the employee’s spouse. Also I believe spouses inherit if there is no will.

        That turns it into a gigantic legal issue.


        • dayallaxeded says:

          None of the perks or special dispensations for traditional marriages were constitutional either. All the issues can easily be managed by dismantling the silly preferences and letting people have freedom of contract as to their property and relationships. My wife is very insightful and has concluded the real reason the homosexual community was so fired up about “marriage” rather than domestic partnership or some other contractual relationship was for all the wedding fallderall. That’s why the cakes and decor became such a flash-point. Otherwise, who would care?

          Liked by 1 person

          • SteveInCO says:

            Many of them (pre socialism, pre presumption-your-doctor-would-be-paid-for-by-your-employer, pre government-provided-death-benefit) came from common law, which we inherited. Yeah, technically, they should have said something about that in the Constitution, but, if someone had suggested that, they’d have either said, “oh, that’s up to the states” or “why put something so obviously true in” or both.

            I have no problem with there being a default for non-entitlement issues, that can readily be overridden if desired by the parties. And for other issues you should be able to designate your next of kin (again with a default). It’s “benefits” being inherited which causes a lot of the snags now.

            I agree a lot of what’s going on is trying to force social acceptance. And a part of that is getting the trappings of a church wedding, whether the church wants to do it or not. Personally, I think if two people want to assert that they are married, it’s no skin off my nose; I am genuinely glad they’ve found happiness together (a too-rare commodity). If they want to force others to not only accept the legality of it, but approve, they have a problem.


        • notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital says:

          It was the economic benefits that was the #1 driver of the push for gay marriage.

          Their leaders will lie and deny that because the fate of most small subcultures is they are taken over by vain glorious psychopaths.

          Liked by 1 person

          • SteveInCO says:

            I think what’s most important to people is going to depend on the individual. I’ve run into some purely after the benefits; they would be OK with changing the law to talk about “domestic partners” everywhere, and letting churches define “marriage” making it a purely religious distinction. To my mind that would be the libertarian/classical liberal thing to do. Others are violently opposed to this; how dare they put marriage between a man and a woman on a pedestal and condemn other sorts.


      • dayallaxeded says:

        ^^^This, exactly!^^^ Besides, as stupid as the Obergefell SCOTUS decision was (the Kennedy opinion that made marriage between anyone and anything essentially an inviolable right), it can and probably will be extended to every real right–like 2nd A rights to keep and actually bear–as in carry–arms. I’ll enjoy my NY trips so much more when I can get the same reciprocity there for my concealed carry permit as they have to give my traditional, heterosexual marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

        • SteveInCO says:

          I take business trips to KA, and I will often drive so I can bring a gun. But it has to be limited to ten rounds (so I go with a stouter caliber than I would otherwise, I go with lots of smaller rounds over a few big ones when I have my druthers) and the instant I cross into the People’s Respublik of Kalifornia (PRK), I have to be unloaded and locked in a trunk, whereas before that time I could wear the thing visibly (and if in AZ I can conceal too). The gun doesn’t come out again until at my domicile. Or the shooting range (I make sure to patronize the shooting range; I don’t mind helping that part of the PRK economy).

          A PRK carry permit gives you all sorts of “privileges” (which should be recognized as the rights they are) so I’d just love to go about my business there secure in the knowledge that I am armed. I think as the knowledge that some people are armed got out, I’d see a lot less rudeness and in-your-face behavior while out there; rude assclowns would stop bothering people if there were ANY indication of them being from out of respublik.


    • SoCal Patriot says:

      I am an evangelical, but don’t want to get sidetracked by the social issues upfront. Our financial situation is more acute. The Democrats are probably begging for Trump to do that…he would be foolish. The people who voted for him want action on what he promised.


  4. Alison says:

    You’re having fun aren’t ya, Sundance ?!? 😊 Or should I call you Happydance ?
    You deserve it. All this winning is partly (bigly) thanks to you 🇺🇸

    Liked by 19 people

  5. Coldeadhands says:

    Bless DJT for undertaking such an enormous task as repairing this worm eaten government.
    He may be a peacemaker…I will not soon get over the evil perpetrated on the American people by the pack of scoundrels inhabiting the Capital.

    Liked by 10 people

  6. md070264 says:

    The pen is mightier than the sword……
    It is only just in the hands of a honorable man
    Make America write the wrongs away .

    Liked by 7 people

  7. Again THANK YOU Sundance on your Clarity…

    Liked by 4 people

  8. builtrich says:

    Many thanks, Professor Sundance. The informative posts are truly appreciated.

    Liked by 6 people

  9. Veritas says:

    We need a congressional amendment that would throw out all politicians who do not get a budget passed each year, better yet, a budget with no borrowing or smoke and mirrors.

    Liked by 2 people

  10. AFVet says:

    I wonder if Trump is aware of this.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Trumped says:

    So basicly Trump will use the end of ARRA to cut off the B.S. departments while the money is moving into mainstreet rather than feeding the nanny state.

    Liked by 4 people

  12. Athena the Warrior says:

    This is going to be fun. President Trump loves contracts and fixing bad deals and coming in under budget. The Congress critters are about to start having to work for a living for a change.

    Liked by 11 people

  13. The Recent Republican says:

    Trump now saying he will not accept the president’s salary of $400,000.00.

    96 hours after election day. Still winning. Add that one to the list.

    Liked by 4 people

  14. K2P2 Ribbing says:

    Perhaps it’s time for the U.S. government to adopt a balanced budget requirement so that Congress can’t adopt a budget that exceeds anticipated revenue. All but one state has this requirement in their laws. Why not the U.S. government?

    Liked by 6 people

    • StormyeyesC says:

      A MUST been trying for years

      Liked by 1 person

    • PatriotKate says:

      I think we may want to hold off on pushing a Balanced Budget Amendment. Here’s why. The Federal Reserve. Much, although not all, of our debt is to the very foreign Central Bankers who have illegally controlled our country. It may very well be that President Trump intends to repudiate some of that debt and a balanced budget Amendment would likely obligate us to the entirety of that debt.

      After that, I agree a Balanced Budget Amendment should be a top priority.

      Liked by 2 people

      • TheLast Democrat says:

        This sounds like a Trump move.

        You have a 100 million debt with a country. So, obviously, you got your 100 million out of it, and they expect that plus interest. But they are dependent on you.

        You come back around and say, “Hey, how about I give you 500 million of that next week, and we call it even?” –This is the leverage of the debtor.


        • notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital says:

          Perhaps you’d heard this saying.

          If you owe the bank, they control you.
          But if you owe the bank trillions and trillions then you control the bank.


      • The not at all “federal”, nor is it a “reserve” must go.


        Liked by 2 people

      • Marc says:

        This is true. Abolish the Fed first then pass a balanced budget amendment. It’s time to put Yellen and her usurious cabal out of jobs.


    • satmfs says:

      One thing Trump will demand is renegotiating contracts on everything the Fed buys. We know they pay way too much for practically everything, $300 toilet seats, $500 flashlights etc. Imagine how much that will save.

      Also, towards the end of every fiscal year, a ‘use it or lose it’ mentality kicks in with every department. A rash of purchasing, construction, hiring and other things that will run down what’s left of their budgets happens. The more that’s left, the less they get for their budget the next FY. Hopefully Trump can put an end to that. Take what’s left in all the department budgets, put it into an interest bearing excess account and if any department runs short and has a legitimate need, they can request what they need from the excess account.

      It’ll be interesting to see how Trump handles cleaning up B. Hussein and the UniParty’s no-budget mess.

      Liked by 1 person

      • ThingsWeTakeForGranted says:

        Satmfs, I think a government office should return excess funding. Sometimes planned programs are moved to the next fiscal year. The next years budget should not be cut because you returned excess funds. The govt ofc I work in did return funds one year and got their hands slapped and a reduced budget. You should not be penalized for this. I fully agree that end of year, govt waste spending needs to stop.

        Trump is the one to push, Ahead of schedule and under budget.


    • I DO believe THAT was/is a Requirement made into FED Law back some years ago.. Edit I know something of a sort was passed, though I cannot find it ATM..
      See HERE though..


    • Archie says:

      Better than a balanced budget would be to limit spending to 12% of GDP. That was what FDR had to spend if I am not mistaken.


    • TwoLaine says:

      It was something they used to promise us in return for voting for them, but we don’t hear it anymore, so they know they’ve gotten away with it long enough to not even bring it up.

      Same thing with term limits, building the wall, English only, repeal and replace ObamaCare, cutting the pork…….

      Liked by 1 person

    • Chris Lilley says:

      If a balanced budget is the target, then after interest payments, can anyone say definitively how much is left for the various departments to actually prioritize in a budget? I’m stunned by the description of the continuing resolution and the “slush fund” that has developed. Besides rolling this back to pre-2007 levels and insisting upon a budget presented from each department that itemizes so we can see all spending, what else can our new president do? Wow… Have we really spent that much into slush funds since 2007? I am stupified.


    • The ONLY way to produce a “Balanced Budget” is to base it on PRIOR-YEAR revenue, NOT anticipated revenue that can be whatever Congress chooses.

      The BEST way to reduce Debt is to base the “Balanced Budget” on “1% LESS THAN” Prior-Year Revenue.


  15. Bull Durham says:

    Trump will leave a mark on America that can carry our country forward for 50 years before the Liberals recover.

    There are other dangers beyond the Cult of Liberalism. Corruption is deep. It corrodes everything it touches.

    The Deep State has many layers and is a labyrinth that has burrowed deep in shadows for 80 years.

    And there are regressions into former postures by citizens who are comfortable with their own old ideologies.

    The world of common sense is difficult to maintain. We really need the transforming power of education from K-12, and the health stimulation of discourse, competing ideas, and the flushing our of doubts and fears by success and progress.

    Liked by 9 people

  16. Bubba says:

    I am mad as hell and I am not gonna take it anymore.
    Not really as mad since Trump won.

    Liked by 2 people

  17. regedit says:

    I wouldnt count on P Ryan but im sure Both Pence and Sessions know exactly what you talking about-baseline budgeting complete con to rub our own country

    Liked by 3 people

  18. jwoop66 says:

    Did Trump say he was going to do this, or are you pontificating possibilities?


    • BobW462 says:

      Yes, he said this. He has clearly stated that his economic policy includes a balanced budget. Search the web.

      Liked by 1 person

      • jwoop66 says:

        Ok. I like the sound of it, don’t get me wrong, but did he say he’d cut the budget like this? That’s what I’m asking? The writers are who I am asking. No offense Bob.


    • SeekerOfTruth says:

      Trump has previously hinted strongly at which areas of government are not needed. But did not dwell too much on that in the closing campaign or he may lose votes. But for over a decade Trump has written and talked about production based economies versus service and government services economies. If you understand that and what I write below it all fits.

      Eliminate any excess service or regulation areas and direct the energy to production encouraging departments. That equals MASSIVE changes.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. Pam says:

    Oh yeah, I remember Obama’s insensitive comment about the shovel ready jobs. These are people with actual feelings and to make it sound like a joke is no laughing matter especially to the people that had these jobs.

    As far as there being no budget yet, I’m not one bit surprised. Sadly this has become the new normal but we are going to see some major changes come January! 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  20. wjb105 says:

    10-15 percent of a government budget is waste – as a rule. Another 5-10 percent is unnecessary. The DOD budget is probably the budget with the most waste. The military can’t handle costs.
    I just wonder why there is no monthly reporting on expenditures.

    Liked by 3 people

    • libnot says:

      Its funny you say that cuz….I remember a few years ago…when there a ‘big’ snow storm that hit the East Coast. One of the headlines was that 400k ‘non essential’ workers in DC were told to ‘stay home’. My question then…and now is….if they are ‘non essential’ …then why do they have a job? lol….But, I’m not smart enough to figure these things out, obviously. 😉

      Liked by 5 people

      • SteveInCO says:

        Some jobs MUST be done 24/7. Others can wait until next week if need be, with lost time made up, if need be. “Essential” probably refers to the former. It should be a different word.


      • notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital says:

        Agreed. Probably about 75% of government spending is waste.

        Where I live billions have been spent on technology, computers etc. but they don’t know how to use them as an integrated whole – in systems.

        It’s as though they’re still using an abacus and smoke signals.


    • TwoLaine says:

      Shirley you jest?


  21. Bull Durham says:

    The People
    Endless Prayers
    Make America Great Again

    The pyramid of success in the 2016 Presidential election.

    Liked by 20 people

  22. libnot says:

    And these are the types of things that will be a real ‘show me’ on whether or not we elected who we think we did. And I’m sorry…but, on some of the social issues..I could not care less about. Except the ‘bathroom’ thing…and religious protections. I do not care what one does in their own bedroom, as long as its just not pushed on me, and illegal, obviously. Thats all. If they want to join us in ‘marriage’ them. We have much, much, much bigger fish to fry. And, honestly, they are being left out in the cold and will need somewhere to go because the Commie Party would much rather support the Muzzies. Just look at Peter Thiel and Milo. They did a hell of a job for this election and getting this man elected and are still doing it. There are plenty more like them. Bring them in. My opinion. Thats all.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. SeekerOfTruth says:

    In another thread the transition thread I wrote a little about how Trump will be looking at the structural operational design and efficiencies as much as just selecting people. In the business world you redesign your structure before or along with fitting people in. What structures need to be eliminated or severely reduced, etc.

    If you focus on picking people first you accomplish only a small part. A leader need to focus on a new and more efficient structure that will likely reduce the need for as many people and as many agencies and departments.

    Structure first and then people except for the key people at the top areas.

    So I would expect and hope Donald soon initiates some structural changes that are significant. Billions of dollars to be saved quickly (too counter his tax cuts.)

    Libs were railing on his tax cuts increasing deficit but not if they are paid for by government reductions – people and closing whole buildings and consolidating people into fewer properties.
    This is all normal business thinking for cost savings. Too bad press and DC people have forgotten this with professional politicians instead of business leaders directing the country.

    Liked by 4 people

    • SeekerOfTruth says:

      remember Trump is for the working class people. So to him cutting wasteful government spending (people, buildings, unneeded programs) to reduce taxes for working people seems good to him. Of course if you are a government employee, then you may need to prepare your resume to find real work.

      He will focus the structure of the government to better suit

      a Production based economy versus a services and government services economy. So heavy regulation oriented government departments and agencies can be reduced or eliminated. Think how many people in DC are mostly employed writing regulations and enforcing regulations (mostly against your enemies).

      Gov regulations lead to bloating – people, building, costs….Regulations are created as a means of gov punishing your opponents as regs are not enforced evenly. There are too many for them all to be enforced against all people.

      Liked by 5 people

    • ufferndan says:

      Structure is destiny.


    • notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital says:

      YES YES YES.


  24. StormyeyesC says:

    NO perks or parties that the people that are funding couldn’t afford for themselves

    Liked by 3 people

  25. sandi mertes says:

    hey ppls—that picture above—with trump standing at the window in the oval office—would there be a way for people to get that for themselves—would really love to have that to hang on my wall—if its possible please e-mail me at my e-mail address—big thank you


    • SharonKinDC says:

      Right click on the image, then click save image as… Print as desired. Or… right click then click open image in new tab and print from there if using your home printer.


    • Dobegirl says:

      Hi sandi,
      I don’t know your e mail address or what operating system you’re working with. I’m on a Mac but I think Windows should work about the same. Just RIGHT CLIC on the picture and you should have a menu pop up with ‘save image as’. Click on that, tell it a file to save it to, and you’ll have saved it to your computer. (You can probably also drag and drop it between windows). You can then bring it into a photo program (I use photoshop, but I’m sure others will work). You can change resolution (most on the internet come in at 72 DPI and you’ll want much higher to minimize grain, at least 300-350 DPI) crop, resize, and whatever. You can print it out on a photo printer or save it to disc and take it somewhere to be printed.

      Liked by 1 person

    • ZZZ says:

      It’s photoshopped – notice the snow on the branches – in case that matters to you.


  26. toriangirl says:

    Sundance, your political analysis is, quite simply, the best on interwebs (and everywhere else for that matter). And that comes from a voracious reader. Thank you for your insights.

    Liked by 6 people

  27. regedit says:

    Trump is a fast learner-watch him become an expert on legislative process,budget,apointments,,PR etc…


  28. ufferndan says:

    Pail Ryan has met his match x 10. Thank God.

    Liked by 3 people

  29. booger71 says:

    I believe that President Trump will not hesitate to shut the government down until Congress sends him a budget that he will sign. Too bad that won’t be until Oct 1 2017. But he will have to contend with the March deadline when a new appropriation will have to be made that carries it through the end of September. It will be a fun fight to watch on CSPAN as hopefully the UniParty crumbles.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. IMO says:

    Could President Trump really cut the US $19 Trillion debt in eight years? No. He will do it in four years.

    Liked by 2 people

  31. JoeS says:

    Thanks Sundance.

    That year after year stimulus accounts for most of the accumulated federal US debt totaling 10 TRILLION dollars during Obama’s reign. Bush’s deficit was all of the wars. It is amazing that we have a press like we do. If Obama was a Republican, he would never have gotten away with the spending slush fund “stimulus.”

    I cannot tell you how many times I heard the media, a Democrat (or a republican for that matter) or some pundit criticize Donald Trump over the cost of the wall. I would scream at the TV about how phony that criticism was and how the cost of a wall is chump change. Unreal! And border enforcement saves the country money (this is another argument that should be explored in depth-there is so much here) and, more importantly, lives.

    I am so glad to have a businessman in the Whitehouse who does not drink and has had and has all of the women he needs! I truly believe that he has one goal: to make America great again-on the cheap! He is going to more practically conservative than any conservative that Washington has ever seen. And I think that is what you are getting at when you suggest that we are going to find out that Washington’s conservatives (who criticize Trump) are really not conservative at all. It is “brass tacks” time now.

    Liked by 3 people


    Trump is a legendary negotiator but how will he get much of his agenda thru Congress??? Indeed, in certain respects McConnell and Ryan are much like Reid and Pelosi.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. TwoLaine says:

    I never understood why TRUMP never brought any of this up in his rallies. It is not that hard to explain, and like he said “we get it”. I hate BOR because he likes to say we don’t get things, but he’s just a male chauvinist bloviating pig.

    I believe it would have driven many more to the polls to vote for him if this were known.

    Speaking of bloviating, I checked in on Faux earlier this evening and the show that was supposed to be on was the insufferable “Perino & Stirewalt”, or whatever they call it. Never watched it. Never cared to. But it wasn’t on, it was just two Faux weekend regulars talking about news. Hopefully that means it died a quick death. Maybe they’ll put Huckabee back on.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Txguest says:

    We have 40 republican governors, we need a convention of states that deals with
    1.-term limits

    Balanced budget
    Mandatory ID/ citizenship verification for voting ( free id’s to be provided gets around any burden arguments)

    The congress/ Senate will never We will have to do it from state level.

    Liked by 2 people

  35. Grace Anne says:

    The betrayals never seem to end. So heart breaking! Out with base line budgeting forever, How in the heck did that ever get started?

    Liked by 1 person

    • joanfoster says:

      O HAPPY DAY, O Happy Day, “he taught me how to trust and pray” and indeed he did. Bless his Holy Name. When Jesus Christ, washed my sins away. Sing it, Sista!

      Liked by 2 people

  36. Marygrace Powers says:

    Budget shock & awe will decend upon the Uniparty
    with such ferocity by Trump/ the grifters will eliminate
    themselves from office/the equivalent would
    the recently reported news by Drudge/ the
    illegals are starting to self deport/


  37. Dukem says:

    There are many self destructs in ObamaCare. Best one is the ‘absence of the severability clause’ in the legislation. Should any part of the legislation be ‘found defective’, the whole of the law fails. Since Obama himself by edict many times negated portions of the law, then the whole of the law should be viewed as negated as provided by Congress excluding any severability provisions. Obama has already established the precedence many times by declaring parts of the law invalid each year, such as the premiums.

    Other options are, the ‘fill in the blanks by the Executive’ provisions which allow President Trump to modify will (by phone and pen). Also. the illegality of the law at every stage. Tax increasing legislation un-Constitutionally initiated in the Senate (only lawful if initiated by the House), vote bribery and fraud in the House, Executive approval by an illegally ineligible President, misrepresentation at the Supreme Court as permitted taxation when factually was illegally fee based, and illegal federally forced purchases by citizens of a product or service.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Trump should announce two changes:

      States will make up any funding shortfalls.

      No state will interfere with any policy offered from an insurer based in another state.
      (Federally enforceable under the Interstate Commerce Clause)


  38. Sally says:

    Can you imagine Trump ever using a continuing resolution for his company’s annual budget? Me neither. Looking forward a return to fiscal sanity and the Constitution.

    Liked by 2 people

  39. Liked by 12 people

  40. JoeS says:

    What is best about all of this is that the media is talking about the tactics of whether Trump will be “inclusive” and “reach out” to heal the nation, and they have no idea who Trump is. They are talking about dumb stuff like protests and electoral college petitions. They are taking about small things like the controversy over Donald Trump keeping a few popular provisions in ACA (LOL-Trump’s backing down)

    The media has no idea that he is going to actually do things to make YUGE fiscal progress for the country. They have no idea what Trump is about to unleash because they never considered his views during all of the rallies they covered. They focused on stupid stuff like how he said something and lied about it or twisted it-over and over-daily. “Trump is unfit for office,” they said. The bias is so incredible.

    Trump is going go make our economy roar by unleashing the genius that is America. He is going to lower taxes, regulations, and make trade more fair. Those things combined with fiscal restraint and an infrastructure program that not only builds infrastructure, but also acts as a stimulus (not that I am big on stimulus-but this one makes sense-because Trump is running it).

    I can’t wait until 2020 when Trump give his progress report to the nation in his re-election bid. I can’t wait until 2018 when he campaigns for congress and releases his mid-term report. I can’t wait to see him reales his vision to the public, specifically, and see who in both parties tries to stop him. Then we will know who the good and bad are.

    Liked by 4 people

  41. tempo150101 says:

    People should be going to prison for this. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Unga Bunga.

    Liked by 1 person

  42. maiingankwe says:

    So Rubio essentially just made the bill to make him look good for his presidential run? Everyone in congress knew it held no water, it was just us left to figure it out? Wow, just wow. The corruption and inner workings of our government.

    Thank you God for Trump, and thank you for everyone who voted for him. God bless you, and our children thank you.

    Liked by 4 people

  43. Patriot 1 says:

    Sundance is right on the money. Pun intended. IMO the gov’t never stops spending more money. If Trump could cut the budget and reduce the size of Gov’t I will be amazed and very happy. Till then I am cautiously optimistic.

    Liked by 2 people

  44. Czar of Nothing (@dabbba) says:

    i know this proposition will go no where, but repeal the 17th amendment and put the selection of senators back into the hands of state legislators. the states deserve a seat at the table.


  45. SeekerOfTruth says:

    the stock market is already thinking about the changes in a Trump administration and there are many. I am watching myself and if confirmed soon will load money into TRUMP stock areas.

    1) Big tech all took a profit taking hit as they were nearly 100% against Trump and did not do things fairly like restricting free speech. So they expect to take a marketing hit and then settle OK as things settle down.
    2) Pharma and health care areas will get stressed as drug companies charge way to much and profits are too large and Obamacare and insurance stresses show up more.

    1) Small cap companies big winners due to reduced regulations.
    2) banks and in particular regional and smaller banks due to Frank-Dodd pullback and less reg burden in general
    3) Almost all industrial sectors – this is obvious
    4) Aerospace and military and defense companies – will finally build more modern weapons while reducing other military waste.
    5) Fossil energy equipment companies.
    6) Materials and transportation companies.

    future winners.
    1) retail should pick as we move to more US production and better wage jobs.

    Liked by 3 people

  46. tvollrath66 says:

    The news pundits are saying that Trump is going to put Kelly Ayotte in his cabinet. wouldn’t the voters think that is a slap in the face.


  47. TheseTruths says:

    Who is there to demand accountability when Congress and the President won’t pass a budget? Who has the authority to oversee this process and make sure there is accountability when it doesn’t get done?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s