December 16, 2011 | 8 comments
December 15, 2011 | 3 comments
December 15, 2011 | 0 comments
December 14, 2011 | 39 comments
December 14, 2011 | 4 comments
The Daily Caller reports that Eric Cantor has signalled a willingness to lead Republicans in supporting cuts to entitlement and defense spending.
Appearing on NBC’s “The Today Show,” Cantor told Matt Lauer that spending cuts in defense and entitlements are “on the table.”
“Are you willing to perhaps raise the Social Security retirement age?,” Lauer asked Cantor Tuesday morning. “Are you willing to make cuts in Medicare? Are you willing to make cuts in defense spending? Are any of those issues on the table?”
“I think, you know, we’ve got to have everything on the table right now,” Cantor said. “That’s also what we heard from the people on November 2. … Everything should be on the table. I don’t think we should leave any stone unturned while we’re trying to do what most have in this country have done, which is tighten the belt, which is to try and live within our means.”
It is a new development for Cantor to take on entitlements and defense spending, and an important one because he has significant influence in the Republican Party as the incoming House majority leader. If he stands by his Today Show statements, Cantor will have moved the agenda far past the Pledge to America’s goals in terms of reducing spending.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?