The American Spectator : Plenty of Nutting

Text Size

Plenty of Nutting

By Peter Ferrara on 5.30.12 @ 6:09AM

Yes, Obama’s spending binge did happen — all of it, like Obama’s unprecedented deficits, on his watch.

(Page 2 of 3)

In sharp contrast to Reagan (of course), Obama’s first major legislative initiative was the so-called stimulus, which increased future federal spending by nearly a trillion dollars, the most expensive legislation in history up till that point. We know now, as thinking people knew at the time, that this record shattering spending bill only stimulated government spending, deficits and debt. Contrary to official Democrat Keynesian witchcraft, you don’t promote economic recovery, growth, and prosperity by borrowing a trillion dollars out of the economy to spend a trillion dollars back into it.

Obama’s Spending Binge
But that was just a warm up for the Swedish socialist in American drag. Obama worked with Pelosi’s Democrat Congress to pass an additional, $410 billion, supplemental spending bill for fiscal year 2009! As Ann Coulter, far sharper than Nutting and relying on far better economists, explains, “Obama didn’t come in and live with the budget Bush had approved. He immediately signed off on enormous spending programs that had been specifically rejected by Bush. This included a $410 billion spending bill that Bush refused to sign before he left office. Obama signed it on March 10, 2009.” But in the fairy tale by Nutting, who appears to have been a lot more than one toke over the line when authoring his story, that spending is attributed to the evil and notorious President Bush.

Next in 2009 came a $40 billion expansion in the SCHIP entitlement program, as if we didn’t already have way more than too much entitlement spending. But that was just a warm-up to the biggest single spending bill in world history, Obamacare, enacted in March, 2010. That legislation, not yet even counted in Obama’s spending record so far because it mostly does not go into effect until 2014, is now scored by CBO as increasing federal spending by $1.6 trillion in the first 10 years alone, with trillions more to come in future years. Indeed, as explained in detail in my 2011 book, America’s Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb, that is surely still a gross underestimate.

After just one year of the Obama spending binge, federal spending had already rocketed to 25.2 percent of GDP, the highest in American history except for World War II. That compares to 20.8 percent in 2008, and an average of 19.6 percent during Bush’s two terms. The average during President Clinton’s two terms was 19.8 percent, and during the 60-plus years from World War II until 2008 — 19.7 percent. Obama’s own budget released in February projects the average during the entire four years of the Obama Administration to come in at 24.4 percent in just a few months. That is an enormous, postwar record, undeniable spending binge. These are facts, not opinions over which reasonable people can differ.

President Obama’s 2013 budget actually proposes to spend $47 trillion over the next 10 years. That Obama budget itself shows federal spending increasing from $2.983 trillion in 2008 to $3.796 trillion in 2012, an increase of 27.3 percent. Obama has already increased the federal government indefinitely by roughly one-fourth in just one term, with more, much more, to come. But Nutting puts his spectacles on, looks into his microscope, peers out through his telescope, and just can’t find Obama’s spending binge anywhere.

To even compare this spending record to President Eisenhower is disgracefully dishonest, and everyone parroting this theme in the media is just self-identifying themselves as the party controlled press. When he came into office in 1953, Eisenhower cut federal spending that year of $76.1 billion, already just 2 percent of Obama’s spending this year, to $70.9 billion in 1954, and again to $68.4 billion in 1955. Federal spending did not really climb above the 1953 level until 1958. During his first term, Eisenhower slashed federal spending from 20.4 percent of GDP when he came into office in 1953 to 16.5 percent of GDP in 1956, when he was so rightly rewarded with reelection. In sharp contrast, President Obama as noted above did just the opposite in increasing federal spending by roughly the same amount as a percent of GDP in his one term.

But for liberal socialists like Nutting, Ed Schultz, Rachel Maddow, and David Cay Johnston to even talk about federal budget numbers is like small children playing with matches.

Moreover, before Obama there had never been a deficit anywhere near $1 trillion. The highest previously was $458 billion, or less than half a trillion, in 2008. The federal deficit for the last budget adopted by a Republican-controlled Congress was $161 billion. But the budget deficits for Obama’s four years were reported in Obama’s own 2013 budget as $1.413 trillion for 2009, $1.293 trillion for 2010, $1.3 trillion for 2011, and $1.327 trillion for 2012, four years in a row of deficits of $1.3 trillion or more. This is why Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) told Obama to his face that the annual deficits under the Republicans have become the monthly deficits under the Democrats.

President Obama’s own budget released in February shows that as a result federal debt held by the public will double during Obama’s four years as President. That means in just one term President Obama has increased the national debt as much as all prior Presidents, from George Washington to George Bush, combined.

Moreover, as Bader also carefully reported in the Examiner, “If Obama had his way, spending would be even bigger than it is, since the Congress has not approved as much spending as Obama sought in his budget proposals, as Nutting himself conceded. As [CBO] noted, ‘The President’s proposals would add $4.8 trillion to the national debt,’ increasing the cumulative deficit from 2010 to 2019 to $9.3 trillion.”

Nutting tries to credit Obama with the slight spending restraint enacted in “the budget that was agreed to last August.” But agreed to with whom? That would be the Republican House majority, which was elected in November 2010 in a New Deal size landslide, precisely to shut down Obama. But as the Journal editorial page also explained last weekend, “Every time House Republicans have tried to cut more spending since 2010, Mr. Obama has fought them tooth and claw.” Indeed, Obama has spent the past year denouncing the House Republicans for the modest spending cuts they imposed on him as part of that 2011 debt limit deal. As too many have not noticed, that House Republican majority has passed spending cut after spending cut, all to be bitterly opposed by Obama and the Senate Democrats, who have refused to even consider any of them.

But that Republican House majority has succeeded at least in slowing the Obama spending binge, as the American people elected them to do over the hysterical objections of Obama. That modest spending growth slowdown consequently cannot be credited to Obama, Nutting to the contrary notwithstanding.

This is all what Romney meant when he talked about President Obama’s “debt and spending inferno,” which Nutting devotes his short story to ridiculing. But Nutting’s analysis is so confused and disoriented that he cannot even comment on the federal spending, deficit and debt issue intelligently.

It’s All About Ryan v. Obama
The difference between the parties on federal spending, deficits and debt is defined for the 2012 election by the difference between the Ryan budget and the Obama budget proposed this year. Ryan’s budget effectively repeals the Obama Administration, restoring federal spending and taxes to their long term, post World War II levels, which were fairly stable over 60 plus years, consistent with booming, world leading American prosperity, until Obama. Ryan’s budget consistently reduces federal debt as a percent of GDP to manageable, modest levels, solving the looming debt crisis. Ultimately, in fact, under Ryan’s reforms to be enacted today, not future spending cuts, the federal debt eventually goes to zero.

Under Obama’s budget, by contrast, all of this spins wildly out of control, ultimately crashing America. On our current course, as projected by CBO, under Obama budget policies federal spending explodes to 30 percent of GDP by 2027, 40 percent by 2040, 50 percent by 2060, and 80 percent by 2080. With state and local spending, total government spending approaches the Communist Party nirvana of near 100 percent. Moreover, under those policies, federal debt held by the public rockets to 140 percent of GDP by 2030, 220 percent by 2040, and 320 percent by 2050, on its way to over 700 percent by 2080. That would undoubtedly create a Grecian style sovereign debt crisis for America before that point.

Page: < 12 3 >

About the Author

Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (61) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Booger| 5.30.12 @ 7:33AM

From the desk of Rex Nutting:
To: Peter Ferrara
Re: "Plenty of Nutting"

Dear Mr. Ferrara,

In your feeble, right-wing, reactionary, counter-revolutionary attempt to refute my well-researched and thoroughly documented defense of Our Wonderful Leader in The Struggle, President for Life B. Hussein Obama, you very tellingly left out a virtually infinite number of germane facts which demonstrate the absolute guilt that Republicans must bear for our current budget imbroglio. Since I have neither the time nor the patience to list an infinite number of reasons for Republican ruin, I will have to stick to a single key point. Please do try to keep up.

Point One: Yes, when Our Merciful Master began His Ascension, things were indeed worse than He knew (please do not infer that this means Our Great One is not omniscient, merely that George W. Bush's sith powers had clouded his foresight). The true beginning of the current fiscal crisis occurred during the panic of 1873, when the REPUBLICAN president U.S. Grant allowed the banks, without proper federal regulation, to loan money to big business, (the railroads, which were bad then but are good now) with nothing in mind but making a profit. The resultant economic crash is still being felt across the country to this day. Truly, if Our Benefactor from Hawaii knew how much trouble the crash of 1873 would cause for Him, He might well have chosen a different career path.

Sincerely,

Rex Nutting

vtwin| 5.30.12 @ 10:18AM

Ferrara argument is misleading; deficits increased as a percentage of GDP under Obama not because of increased spending by Obama, as Rex Nutting correctly pointed out, but because the GDP collapse under Bush. And, this increase as percentage of GDP of the deficit was projected by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) weeks before Obama took Office.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/0.....t_outlook/

Nice try Peter but it looks like you'll have to wait another four years for that cushy government job.

Doctor Right| 5.30.12 @ 10:30AM

Nice try, yourself.

The mere idea that George W. Bush was responsible for Obama's mad-cap spending in 2009 is laughable, and smacks of desperation.

Albertus Magnus| 5.30.12 @ 12:02PM

Nothing Nutting "points out" is correct. Absolutely nothing.

And by the way, CNN is in the tank for Obama just like they were for Clinton. Not a reliable source.

Brooksifier | 5.30.12 @ 5:05PM

Only a masochist would miss the Rove-Cheney era. 9-11 wasn't Bush's fault of course, there was no complicity, no controlled demolition at WTC.

But Rove-Cheney lacked the Vision Thing.

JD| 5.30.12 @ 5:53PM

You make the exact mistake of timing that Nutting made, and are debunked just as he was by what Ferrara wrote. The spending increase happened after the GDP decline had ended.

JmsA| 5.31.12 @ 12:39AM

Anyone with half a brain knows of CNN's bias, and thus unreliability. How then did they really come about those conclusions, vtwin? Could it be that they fudged the numbers? You know, like statistical actuarial analysis used to make Social Security and Medicare projections, which you didn't know about, yet attempted to refute by suggesting statistics were only used in political polling; while proffering government sites titled "Actuarial Projections", to bolster your claim of said entitlements' long term viability?

Do you actually believe that anyone here, other than other lefty trolls would believe anything from CNN, or is this just your latest assigned task?

Von Mises Jr| 5.30.12 @ 7:41AM

Great article. But I would suggest that there is more to socialism than simply an inefficient planned economy.
You have already seen what Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have done to your home values. More of the same will destroy your most valuable asset and leave you no choice but Agenda21 communal living in a government complex like Mao's China.
Bernanke with .002% rates at the Fed Borrowing Window and greatly expanded money supply will destroy the value of your retirement accounts. You may still have the same in nominal value, but the real value will be destroyed by inflation.
Fannie, Freddie, HUD and GMAC are your landlords if you own a house. Crony capitalism (fascism) means the government is your de facto employer. The government through the Student Loan nationalization will decide if it is "fair" for your children to go to college (you better think right). And if ObamaCare stands, they will decide if you live or die.
So it is no different or perhaps worse than serfdom or slavery. At least Nobles and slave owners valued their de facto property. The "One World Government" socialist wishes to reduce the population by 80-90%. Join the Brave New World" of you will definitely not be one of the top 10-20%.

Ryan| 5.30.12 @ 8:40AM

The point should be easily made in a debate as well - "wait, you mean LESS spending is GOOD, Mister President? Why don't you cut MORE?"

Doctor Right| 5.30.12 @ 9:17AM

THANK YOU, TASOnline, for finally requiring that visitors login to the site before posting!!!!

Bye-Bye, Trolls! (And you know who you are!)

vtwin| 5.30.12 @ 9:45AM

Hi Doc, we're not going anywhere!

Doctor Right| 5.30.12 @ 10:33AM

If you want to comment/debate/argue, I'm all for it.

What I'm against are the fools who Robo-post the same nonsense ad nauseum...

Like a certain Paul-bot cowpoke from Pennsylvania, who is conspicuously (and marvelously!) absent.

Your decision to publicly align yourself with Obama and look foolish at the same time is wonderful!

Anthony| 5.30.12 @ 3:39PM

Really vtwin? Not if the gangbangers from Oakland have anything to say about it.
This guy Nutting deserves a position in the Princeton Economics Department, with an office right next to the other acid eating zombie, Krugman.

Occam's Tool| 5.30.12 @ 7:38PM

vtwin: who said you were a troll? You talk a bit of a left wing game, but you argue facts. When was the last time you called me an "Israel bund sandmonkey?"

I hope you are well, as is your bike.

Occam's Tool| 5.30.12 @ 7:43PM

Hell, I don't even mind Jack London.

Gary B| 5.30.12 @ 10:07AM

Doctor Right,

Maybe this will discourage all the cussing and name calling. We'll see...

Humphrey Dumfries | 5.30.12 @ 10:43AM

Doc, We are happy to help. Stay tuned for more bells and whistles, like the ability to IGNORE other users...

Doctor Right| 5.30.12 @ 12:24PM

In that vein, I'd like to pay homage to the folks whom we will (not) miss:

Clint
Jack in Wi
Purp
Alan Brooks

...who am I missing?

Booger| 5.30.12 @ 1:03PM

You should have listed Alan Brooks twice for good measure. I do wonder if the new login requirements have anything to do with the ongoing Brett Kimberlin terrorism.

Al Adab| 5.30.12 @ 2:50PM

Does acceptance of the login imply editorial acceptance of the poster? I agree with the above by Gary B regarding name calling and cussing. Those do not help the cause. There have been some good exchanges with the opposition here, but too many just become party line rote or worse.

Brooksifier | 5.30.12 @ 6:46PM

Feeling is mutual Booger.
Yet, if you really want Romney as president, you might get him, because he is very tough and the GOP is determined to win.
But a guy from Massachusetts??

Brooksifier | 5.30.12 @ 6:48PM

...what the hell is Rightist about Massachusetts?
Hilarity to ensue this November!

Alan| 5.30.12 @ 4:16PM

Doc, that about sums it up. Looks like #'s 1 & 2 might need to find a new purpose in life as they have spent the last 8 months of it here. Ironic that they should be dispatched the day Romney clinches and poop deck paul is officially retired.

Occam's Tool| 5.30.12 @ 7:40PM

John786, Doctor.

Man, this is much more fun.

Purp| 5.30.12 @ 9:08PM

Awww, now that's very nice. What happened to conservative hospitality?
Anyway, I'm here and plan to stay. Otherwise just talk to the mirror.

Albertus Magnus| 5.30.12 @ 11:04PM

The mirror responds with far more intelligence than you have ever displayed.

Alan| 5.30.12 @ 4:19PM

The ignore feature is priceless, it takes away the audience that these no life trolls live for should they start the same stuff. It really makes my day to be able to check in to the site once in a while and not see the same anti-semitic bildge being spewed over and over. Bravo!!!!

Doctor Right| 5.30.12 @ 4:32PM

I actually never "Ignore" anyone, even the most obnoxious trolls.

Call me magnanimous...

Alan| 5.30.12 @ 5:18PM

Thou art truly magnanimousferious!

Fast and Curious| 5.30.12 @ 9:25AM

Great article. I've had the budget discussion with libs so many times yet they ignore facts. Unbelievable.

mjs_pa| 5.30.12 @ 10:34AM

Let us not forget, romney supported the stimulus package, wrote obamacare, believes in cap n trade, violated right of consciense.

So what exactly do we get by switching romney-black with obama-white?

Fast and Curious| 5.30.12 @ 10:59AM

Regulatory reform. Reinstating Bush tax cuts. School choice. NO cap and trade. And most importantly, White House support for budget reforms passed in the House and thus no economic catastrophe.

Albertus Magnus| 5.30.12 @ 1:51PM

AND, better Supreme Court Appointments.

Al Adab| 5.30.12 @ 2:43PM

Should Romney somehow eek out a win (electoral vote remember?) Conservatives would have to watch him closely and keep the heat on over every bill and every appointment. Remember Harriet Myers?; and Bush was to the right of Romney (the spectrum is relative after all).

Albertus Magnus| 5.30.12 @ 3:44PM

I remember Myers, but I also remember Samuel Alito and John Roberts.

Al Adab| 5.30.12 @ 3:49PM

True enough. It is simply an example of how Conservative outcry changed a position. We will need to do a lot of it with Romney. His instincts are not Conservative.

Albertus Magnus| 5.30.12 @ 11:05PM

Agreed. Keep his feet to the fire.

Kwan| 5.30.12 @ 11:46AM

The "Big Lie" is alive and well in "The Great Leap Forward" Obama reelection campaign. Obama can't run on his miserable 3+ years in office so he must manufacture a truck-load of lies in order to deceive the saps, suckers, and morons who still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and that in this election, only one man has the experience of BEING President - and has done a d* good job at it. Obama 2012.

Purp| 5.30.12 @ 9:09PM

Well, you have that wrong. He has a fine record to run on- just a record you don't like - and that's okay.

chuck| 5.30.12 @ 10:48PM

Then why is he still blaming Bush for everything? I thought he'd have it all fixed by now!

TW in SC| 5.31.12 @ 2:55PM

The crux of it is this:

If Bush was responsible for all the spending, then the wondrous, magnificent boom in the economy Obama is claiming must therefore be credited to Bush. If the awful economy is Bush's fault, then Obama cannot take credit for spending our way out of it.

There's burning a candle at both ends and then there's burning your end on both candles.

Fiscal| 5.30.12 @ 11:57AM

There is no doubt that Obama is a big spending liberal without a great regard for fiscal sanity, but Ferrara's argument just makes him look economically challenged and a poor political hack. Obama maintained the Bush tax cuts and only increased discretionary spending by performing a surge in Afghanistan. One third of the stimulus package was tax cuts and in relation to the total budget, the remaining part of the stimulus was not huge. In addition, any economic effect of policy does not have an immediate impact, so using 2009 is a much better alternative than using 2008.

The problem with the federal budget is structural and it took decades to get it to this level. Both Republicans (including Reagan and Bush) and Democrats made this happen. The largest part of the budget is Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security. Add in the 20% military and paying interest on the debt (which Bush increased dramatically), and Obama's record on spending is not all that bad. The Medicare drug plan has an infinitely larger PERMANENT effect on the budget than anything Obama has done. Only an idiot or a right wing fanatic would believe otherwise.

The real issue is that we are going broke and neither side has the will to change our course including Ryan and Romney.

Indiana_Alex| 5.30.12 @ 1:24PM

One could make a legitimate argument that the one time tax credits passed with the stimulus should be considered spending rather than tax cuts.

Fiscal| 5.30.12 @ 3:03PM

That would be a stretch inasmuch as the tax credits put more money into private hands. That said, Romney is turning out to be a real coward since he won't put specifics out on reducing the debt and his general plan actually increases the debt more than Obama. He won't even have a "Sister Soljah" moment with the nutcases in his party. I'm still voting for him because there is absolutely no hope with Obama, but I'm holding my nose.

JD| 5.30.12 @ 5:56PM

One could NOT make a legitimate argument that they should NOT be considered spending. They are spending and could not be anything else. They are exactly the same as welfare checks.

Truth to Power| 5.30.12 @ 4:01PM

Nice article. Fiscal is making the arguments of left wing political hacks. In a humorous way he seems to trying to talk himself into voting for President O. Look at this bit of logical thinking.

"There is no doubt that Obama is a big spending liberal without a great regard for fiscal sanity..."

I guess at this point we are to think he is one of us but wait just a little later he comes up with this gem.

"...and Obama's record on spending is not all that bad."

Well I guess not. Fiscal is quite the thinker. He reminds me of a guy named Bob V. that used to post all the time. He uses the same ridiculous charts and makes the same inane points. The party is just about over Bob. All Bob will have in the end is the memories of bribing money bundlers.

MusilliR| 5.30.12 @ 12:17PM

The great thing about a democracy is that the people deserve everything that they get. They only get what they ask for. If the citizens of this once great land (greatness comes from the people) vote to continue on the present path, we will begin to look like Rome after the ascent of the likes of Caligual, Nero, and Claudius. If the citizenry can be so easily fooled by the rediculous manipulation of numbers that clearly make no sense, the descent of America will not take 4 more centuries.

Al Adab| 5.30.12 @ 1:52PM

Taylor Caldwell wrote in her intro to Pillar of Iron (novel about the life of Cicero) "any resemblance between the United States and the Roman Republic is strictly historical". We are on such a path.

To understand where the administrative social-welfare state will take us remember as a wise man once said, "The issue is never the Issue, the Issue is control.

One Mediator 1 Tim. 2:5. | 5.30.12 @ 2:02PM

TLP,

Where are you? I replied to your post over in "The Winner of Our Discontent".

JimP| 5.30.12 @ 3:21PM

I love Peter Ferrara's and Jeff Lord's columns. They always give the facts and the real history of President Reagan's terms. I always forward their columns to friends and especially my kids, so they will know the truth. Thanks guys. Please never stop writing.

KyMouse| 5.30.12 @ 4:50PM

OT -- I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but I'm glad we have to register and login now. Perhaps it will keep the trolls under their bridge.

I, for one, welcome our new TAS overlords.

Butch| 5.30.12 @ 4:53PM

Just testing the new system.

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 5.30.12 @ 4:59PM

Just goes to show that these regressive pukes are SO desperate to polish the giant turd that is MaoBama's record has reached "hilarious" status. Too bad no one's buying the bullshat anymore.

Alan| 5.30.12 @ 5:20PM

40 million Poles didn't get the joke either. This clown can't open his mouth without putting his foot into it anymore. amazing how fast the BS factor wears out when there is nothing there in the first place.

Occam's Tool| 5.30.12 @ 7:42PM

The world's greatest ectoplasmic chef!

Ghost of Cicero (NB) | 5.30.12 @ 7:55PM

:-)

One Mediator 1 Tim. 2:5. | 5.31.12 @ 11:29AM

Your friend is a liar, who has committed libel against me in another thread.
He claimed that I am committing unemployment fraud, that I posted my ss# and info. to that effect.
This has been refuted by me at length in previous posts when he posted under his other handle, Con Chef.

Being that he is using this to incite others to turn against me, as he claims I am therefore "a phony conservative", I have asked TAS to ban his butt.

And I would hope that you take a stand as well.
The ss# that was posted by me was not mine, and I do NOT collect unemployment.
Your "friend" here is the fraud, liar, and phony conservative, by the true definition of those words, Occam.

Immortal 600| 5.30.12 @ 9:24PM

Mr. Ferrara, a well written article. Thank You. It was a pleasure reading it.

The Bruce| 5.31.12 @ 2:00AM

I think you use a great many words to describe what is so simple. It goes like this:

In April of 2008, Bush signed into law the Federal Budget of 2009 (created by the Democrat-controlled House and Senate). The budget ran from October 2008 through September 2009 (FY2009). That budget ran a deficit of $449B.

Fast forward to February and March of 2009. Øbama signs the Stimulus and Omnibus Bill into law. These two bills add a further $1T to current FY2009 spending (increasing the deficit to $1.4T).

Now, in 2012, along comes Nutting, a useful idiot and Øbama apologist. In his brilliant wisdom, he concludes that since this extra spending was tacked onto a budget that Bush initially signed into law, he made the quantum leap that this additional spending was, in fact, "BUSH" spending -- nice distortion, right?

Anyhoo, Nutting, along with his merry band of malcontents, set the baseline of "Bush" spending at $1.4T. They go on to say that because Øbama went on to spend $1.6T, $1.3T, $0.9T and $1.3T (proposed) in the following years, that he's not only reduced deficit spending over previous administrations, but also that he's some sort of deficit hawk?

Being an Øbama apologist is nice work if you can get it, but I wonder if those people are looking past the Piper himself, as he merrily marches his rats (and the rest of us) over the cliff, yonder.

The Bruce| 5.31.12 @ 2:02AM

To AmSpec: Thanks for installing a registration system. The name-grabbing was a tad ridiculous.

But a thumbs-down on the 1500 character limit. I had to butcher my last post as a result.

One Mediator 1 Tim. 2:5. | 5.31.12 @ 11:32AM

That is solved by just post a second comment, then, to continue your thoughts.

I too appreciate the fact that the Trolls must use their one handle to insult and demean. No more cowardly posts allowed.

Although, some will not give up the behavior of open slander and abuse, as I indicated, above.

Latest Headlines

Not Ready for Primetime Players

Daniel J. Flynn|111 comments

Assessing a Week of Scandal

Matt Purple|124 comments

Oops, Maybe Government is Tyrannical

Marta H. Mossburg|61 comments

Soros Funds Anti-‘Torture’ Report

Mark Tooley|106 comments

Treasure State Treasury

Bill Croke|3 comments

My Generation’s Disease

Benjamin Brophy|68 comments

The View From the Other Side

George H. Wittman|17 comments

USPS: Radical Surgery Needed

Peter Hannaford|19 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real

Quin Hillyer | 4:15PM

Good New Book: ‘Precipice’

Quin Hillyer | 3:07PM

The Spectator’s Spectacular: Most Read Stories, May 12-May 19

Patrick Ryan | 12:41PM

Elijah Harper, R.I.P.

Aaron Goldstein | 5.18.13

If Only the Tsar Knew!

F.H. Buckley | 5.18.13

Low-Level IRS Staffer: No, We Didn’t Mastermind This Entire Thing

Matt Purple | 5.17.13

UPDATED: IRS Acting Chief Apologizes, But Defends His Actions

Kaylin Bugos | 5.17.13

Voter Fraud Affected Election Results in Missouri