Posted by Carl Wicklander on 03/11/10

The following letter appeared in the Thursday, March 11, 2010 issue of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It is in response to an editorial last week which can be read here.

Lessons Not Learned

Friday's editorial "Election and end game" (March 5) perfectly mimicked the navel-gazing that passes for modern political discourse by declaring, "Nearly seven years after the U.S. invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein, Iraq still won't have peaceful, free and fair elections. That's not our fault, but theirs - and perhaps history's."

Nearly seven years ago our government chose to invade a country with no apparent knowledge of their religion, customs, or complex ethnic history and then the editors seemingly blame the Iraqis themselves for our ruling class's ignorance.

Historian Thomas Fleming of Chronicles magazine compares this sort of uncritical thinking to a practical joker who tells his victim that he just won the lottery. Who is at fault if the victim suffers a heart attack or carelessly spends money he ultimately doesn't have? Is it the victim who wasted money he thought he had or is it the joker who needlessly intervened in the victim's life?

Do we blame the Iraqis for predictably behaving according to their history or do we blame the U.S. government for unleashing that behavior by intervening in a place where it was neither necessary nor wise?

And will this same lackadaisical thinking apply again to the more heavily populated and more ethnically diverse Iran?

Carl Wicklander
Nashville, IL

Posted 03/11/10 annarlutz Lexington, SC

Great point, Carl but that's hardly surprising. You always make excellent points.

Posted by Carl Wicklander on 02/24/10

Originally published at Uncouth Ruminations

And he may just be the next senator from Florida.

There's a lot of buzz around Marco Rubio these days. Justifiably so. He is running against the Establishment's candidate Charlie Crist. He delivers stirring speeches and holds the support of the so-called Tea Parties. He's charismatic and as a Cuban-American, he is a diverse face the Republican Party desperately needs.

He waxes about individual liberty and free enterprise. These topics gave him cheers at CPAC. But there is more to Rubio than this. What so many of his admirers may or may not realize is that Marco Rubio is exactly what the Republicans want in order for them to put a different face on their big government machinations.

He is Hispanic, which is a plus, and even though he is not (yet) the Establishment's candidate, he does not represent any meaningful change from the status quo from early 21st century Republican politics, only more passionate delivery.

Last October, I first highlighted some troubles with Rubio in "Compassionate Conservatism Revisited?" where Rubio expressed support for a Republican version of a nanny state:

"I thought that of all the candidates, [Mike Huckabee] did the best job of connecting how the people's social and moral well-being cannot be separated from their economic well-being."

I also noted that one of Rubio's political mentors was two-term governor Jeb Bush, who is portrayed in Robert Crew's recent monograph, "Aggressive Conservatism," as a strong-willed and secretive executive who did not hesitate to stretch the authority of his office to achieve his goals. Sound familiar?

After Rubio delivered his speech at CPAC last weekend, he should give true conservatives and libertarians more reason to worry. Not only does he toe the Bush-Huckabee line of compassionate conservatism, he also makes clear that he follows their foreign policy as well:

"Americans are also looking for clear alternatives on the issues of national defense. . . . there is no greater risk to this country than the risk posed by radical Islamic terrorists. Let me be clear about something. These terrorists aren't trying to kill us because we offended them. They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way. We need to make it unmistakably clear that we will do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.

"We will punish -- we will punish their allies, like Iran -- and we will stand with our allies, like Israel. We will target and we will destroy terrorist cells and the leaders of those cells. The ones that survive, we will capture them."

This is a startling part of the speech. But let's break it down.

Let me be clear about something. These terrorists aren't trying to kill us because we offended them

This is a repackaging of the unreflective cliché, "They hate us because we're free."

By saying "Let me be clear," Rubio wants to assure us that there is no alternative explanation to why terrorists hate us. We did not offend them. It would be preposterous to think they could be offended that the U.S. supports Israel unconditionally against the Palestinians, props up corrupt regimes in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Saudi Arabia, militarily occupies lands that Muslims consider holy, and whose foreign policy results in thousands of dead Muslims.

They attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on as many people as they can, and America is standing in their way.

Okay, they attack us because they want to impose their view of the world on us. There is a case to be made for that, but aren't we currently engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan because we want to impose our view of the world, democratic republicanism, on the Muslim world? We obviously don't like the idea of living under an imposed Islamic caliphate, so why should we believe that traditional Islamic societies would want to live like secular Westerners especially if it was forced on them?

We need to make it unmistakably clear that we will do whatever it takes, for however long it takes, to defeat radical Islamic terrorism.

This comes directly from the playbook of the Israel Lobby: bait Iran, stand with Israel, and stay in the region for hundreds of years if necessary against vaguely defined "radical Islamic terrorism."

Meet Marco Rubio: Bush Republican.

Posted 02/25/10 annarlutz Lexington, SC

Is there a better choice for Florida? As you say, Marco Rubio is courting the tea parties with rhetoric. I put him in the same category as Sarah Palin. But stimulus-supporting, Obama fan Charlie Crist is not a better choice by any stretch of the imagination. Don't choices like this reinforce your hatred of the two-party system? Republicrat or Demican, it's the same crap in different piles.

Posted 02/25/10 MichaelBarry Sebring, FL

annarlutz: Bob Smith, former two term US Senator from NH, several years ago moved to Florida and is in the Republican primary race opposing Crist and Rubio....He has some neocon ideas but on most other issues he is far to the right of Crist or Rubio. The establishment has excluded Smith who has a much more impressive resume than either Crist or Rubio from the Mar 7 debate on NBC The Libertarian in the general is a Alexander Snitker.

Posted 02/25/10 Carl Wicklander Nashville, IL

Anna, Rubio is only better than Crist in the sense that he would probably vote against some things like stimulus and health care but he's a pretty standard Republican. Although I wouldn't vote for him I'd probably prefer to see Rubio beat Crist in the same sort of way that I preferred to see McCain beat Obama. Michael, it sounds like Alexander Snitker would probably be the one to support. I'll have to read up on him.

Posted by Carl Wicklander on 02/18/10

Originally published at Uncouth Ruminations

With the surprise retirement of Evan Bayh, widely assumed to be a shoo-in for reelection, Republicans can lick their chops some more about the electoral gains they are sure to make this fall.

Perhaps the Tea Party pressure is paying off. Maybe enough of those evil Democrats are getting the picture that their big government machinations are history and a renewed, revitalized, and reformed Republican Party is poised to set the ship aright by following the Constitution and restoring the republic to the one bequeathed to us by the founding fathers.

Probably not.

Like Obama, the Republicans are misreading the early election returns.

In 2006 and 2008, Americans sick of the Republicans, their ill-conceived wars, and a miserable economy, threw the GOP and their "permanent majority" out. 2008 was a year where the Republicans were so despised that Democrats could have literally nominated a yellow dog and still won the presidency. Not sensing this, Obama and the Democrats introduced to America an agenda that envisioned a health care plan that would inevitably lead to a government take-over of the industry.

Republicans have responded by defeating Democrats in Virginia, New Jersey, and of all places, Massachusetts.

So how are they misreading the election results?

They are taking these early Democratic defeats to mean that, even though the Republicans have offered no agenda of change, the American people must want back the good old days of the early 2000s of the ambiguous "War on Terror" and endless deficit spending.

No sooner had Scott Brown embarrassed his daughters on national television did National Review's Andrew McCarthy assure us that it was the War on Terror that really motivated people to get out there by praising how:

"Scott Brown went out and made the case for enhanced interrogation, for denying terrorists the rights of criminal defendants, for detaining them without trial, and for trying them by military commission. It worked. It will work for other candidates willing to get out of their Beltway bubbles . . . .

"He said the United States needs to stop apologizing for defending itself. And he won going away, in the bluest of blue states."

What McCarthy means by "defending itself," is keeping the same Bush foreign policy that Americans have already repudiated.

This also shows how, despite all the good rhetoric about the Constitution, limited government, and reduced spending at home, all of that takes a back seat to the ubiquitous "War on Terror" and makes the so-called Tea Parties a farce.

Just look at the reception given to Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul.

Paul, who has consistently led in Kentucky polls for at least four months, is continually vilified by his party and their media henchmen for a variety of bizarre reasons. He's kooky. He's pro-abortion (untrue). He's a marijuana advocate (a dramatic distortion). But the most telling criticism is that Rand Paul is somehow weak on military matters and wants to surrender the "War on Terror."

To make that argument ignores the fact that Paul's first campaign commercial declared that he will "stop travel visas from terrorist nations" and "keep prisoners off U.S. soil," as well as supporting military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay. On his website, he has expressed his support for a declaration of war on Afghanistan. He also wrangled the endorsement of war empress Sarah Palin. To the chagrin of all the little Churchills with laptops, Rand Paul is not Neville Chamberlain.

But it was Jeanette Pryor of Newsrealblog that summed up the supremacy of war when she said this regarding Sarah Palin's endorsement:

"The logical conclusion of this endorsement is that Palin considers America's global defense of freedom, national defense, the War on Terror, the defeat of Radical Islam, and the support of Israel and our allies, to be less important than 'some' domestic policy issues."

Pryor says plainly that support of Israel is more important than the domestic issues that might unite people like Palin and Paul. Not only are the wars more important than our domestics, but Israel is too. Are we for America first or are we not? Or as The American Conservative's Daniel Larison noted about the reaction to Palin's endorsement, she "has erred because she forgot that national security is the one area where conservatives cannot meaningfully disagree and still be accepted."

During the Bush administration, everything took a backseat to the wars. Spending skyrocketed. The Roe v. Wade atrocity remained firmly in place. Border security was abandoned. The federal government sunk its claws deeper into American education. Executive power increased. But the wars, well, that's what really mattered.

These GOP sycophants have already demonstrated that once the Republicans are back in power, the latter aim to do everything exactly the same once again. And the former aim to continue their bidding.

From the party that has had no ideas for fixing the problems they helped cause this should be no surprise.

Posted 02/19/10 annarlutz Lexington, SC

Even our local GOP doesn't get what's behind the "tea parties." I prefer it that way though. I don't want the tea party movement to be annexed by the Republican party. I think that would only further marginalize the movement. In addition, it would make it difficult to hold Republicans' feet to the fire when they stray from the straight and narrow. It makes me even more happy that a Republican candidate can diverge from the status quo and still lead in polls. I met one of Rand Paul's staffers over the weekend! He saw my Ron Paul 2012 bumper sticker and left a note on my car.

Posted 02/19/10 Carl Wicklander Nashville, IL

That's a great story! Where was this? This message of freedom really brings people together doesn't it!

Posted 02/19/10 annarlutz Lexington, SC

We were in Pensacola for Valentine's weekend. The staffer was staying in the same hotel as us. He gave us his room number, so we met and hung out. It was pretty cool.

Posted 02/21/10 Paul Hogan Middle Village, NY

The Tea Party has a lot of middle aged Americans that know that Washington doesn't work anymore. Many of these people are against taxes, bailouts, lobbyists and corruption but they aren't clear and unified about what they are for. Since they tend to be conservative in their thinking Republican vultures see them as recruits. If the Tea Party forms a third party by 2012 they will take votes away from the Republicans, the Democrats will win and it will be business as usual in Washington. My hope and perhaps my fantasy is that the Tea Party will take over the Republican party before the 2012 elections. This weekend Ron Paul won the Straw Poll at CPAC because a lot of younger voters turned out to vote for him. The college students of today are going to inherit this mess and they know it so it's only fair that they have something to say about it. There are are a lot of variables in the political sector right now like the wars, the fear of terrorism and the recession to name just a few. Nobody can can say for sure how and when this turmoil will end, but we can be sure that change is going to be forced upon us, it's an economic reality and we will not be returning to a Bush era America anytime soon. That's my two cents.

Posted 02/23/10 Carl Wicklander Nashville, IL

The Republican Party doesn't need to be split for it to be business as usual. If the Republican Party becomes reformed and looks more like the Ron Paul movement then it's probably because of the young people. The straw poll victory was indicative of that. As you correctly pointed out, we're the ones who care because we're the ones who will face the repercussions. Just take a look at the so-called Mount Vernon Statement. There wasn't much unique to it - vague platitudes about limiting government and "advancing freedom." It was a statement that could just as well have been used and co-opted by Bush or McCain in their presidential campaigns. I'm afraid there's going to be a lot more damage to the image and economics of the country before there is real change.

Posted by Carl Wicklander on 02/03/10

Originally published at Uncouth Ruminations

 "You saw the Tea Party group basically in action twice in the last two or three years. One was for the anti- immigration-reform thing . . .

The second was after the nomination of Sarah Palin, this enormous surge to McCain, huge crowds coming out when he couldn't get a couple of hundred people before . . .

Now . . . Ron Paul, will do better. He's not going to be nominated, but he will do better than he did before if he runs again because he'll get some of those folks. But right now, quite frankly, the one candidate who can get them better than anybody else is Ms. Sarah Palin."

- Patrick J. Buchanan, January 15, 2010 on "McLaughlin Group"

After weeks of speculation, on Monday, February 1, 2010, former Alaska governor Sarah Palin endorsed Kentucky Republican Rand Paul for the U.S. Senate. Palin, whose political baggage is too bulky to mention here, may prove to be a kingmaker.

Already, Rand Paul is pulling ahead in the polls in a race that was supposed to go easily to Secretary of State Trey Grayson. The Palin endorsement was welcomed by the Paul campaign and comes just two days after Rand's father Ron Paul came to Louisville to campaign for his son and two days after the secretary of state smeared the father and son as "a career politician and pro-choice marijuana advocate," respectively although not respectfully.

The Palin endorsement is intriguing. Hardly anyone in American politics, save perhaps President Obama, elicits such knee-jerk love or hate. In fact, I feel like an oddball in that I neither love nor hate the former governor. What's wrong with me?

Some might also ask what's wrong with Palin herself. Why would she endorse Rand Paul, the son of one of the most famous American libertarians when she has also endorsed pols such as her old running mate John McCain and Texas governor Rick Perry. It's hard to imagine those three endorsees (a libertarian Republican, a progressive Republican, and George W. Bush's lieutenant governor) getting along for five minutes. Maybe Sarah Palin is confused about her political philosophy. Maybe she is endorsing three people she just happens to like. Maybe she is just an old-fashioned politician held captive by the moment.

What to make of the endorsement? The Paul campaign welcomed it but some of the grassroots supporters of both are a little uneasy about it while others are simply distraught.

But in the words of Barry Goldwater, after conservatives threatened to abandon the party when Richard Nixon started pandering to the party's liberals, "Let's grow up, conservatives." Or in this case, let's grow up, Ron Paul Republicans.

Sarah Palin does have some political problems. She touts the bellicose foreign policy of John McCain both on their campaign trail and in her book. She held her hand out to receive stimulus money while she was still governor. She doesn't really show much knowledge of the issues beyond the talking points. But both Sarah Palin and Rand Paul claim Tea Party support and like Pat Buchanan said, "The one candidate who can get [people] better than anybody else is Ms. Sarah Palin."

Some grassroots libertarians are upset at the acceptance of the endorsement because Palin's policy positions are far from perfect, and in some cases, are far from Rand Paul's. But both claim Tea Party credentials and both campaign as the outsider to the establishment. And in a year where a Republican can win in Massachusetts, the endorsement is a good thing.

Why? 3 main reasons:

1. The endorsement might just produce, at the very least, a primary win. But to even get that far, alliances must be made and coalitions built, which by nature means teaming up with people who do not share complete confessional solidarity. A coalition is not a religious creed, where all points must be agreed upon to signify a true believer. Accepting Sarah Palin's endorsement is not an abandonment of principles. It is good political sense.

2. Like it or not, she brings in people. And in a state that went 57-41 for McCain-Palin, Republican opponents like Trey Grayson will have more trouble marginalizing Rand Paul when one of the party's biggest stars comes out for the latter. Will he continue trying to convince voters that Rand Paul is "pro-choice" when one of the country's most prominent pro-life figures endorses him? Is Trey capable of walking the tightrope of vilifying Rand Paul without implying that Sarah Palin is also kooky, nutty, and anti-Semitic?

3. If Sarah Palin does get gutted for supporting Rand Paul, it only confirms that the GOP is the War Party and only the War Party. Federal encroachment, borrowing and spending, bailouts, and amnesty are all tolerable as long as you support torture and imperialism.

Welcome to the Kentucky race, Sarah. I hope you get a chance to listen to Dr. Paul.

Posted 02/03/10 Mister E Loveland, CO

I would bet that there is NOT one religion where every member shares "complete confessional solidarity". Everyone has 'free agency', that is to say 1. Freedom of thought. 2. Freedom of Speech. 3. Freedom of action. The only way that there will ever be a religion with "complete confessional solidarity" is through complete and total brainwashing/indoctrination, or by coming to the understand that every individual constitutes their own 'religion'.

Posted 02/04/10 sjaye Chicago, IL

I just wanted to let you know that you are not alone in having neither love nor hate for Sarah Palin. Probably, the reasons for people's knee-jerk love or hate for her are all things I care very little about (like that thing with her daughter getting pregnant- talk about a distraction from the real issues). I do wish she would come back around on the foreign policy issues. She seemed somewhat critical of intervention before becoming McCain's VP candidate.

Posted by Carl Wicklander on 01/18/10

Originally published at Uncouth Ruminations

With the special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy's senate seat approaching, there is a lot of speculation that Republican Scott Brown's potential victory in the Bay State may be a sign of things to come for the GOP. Brown, who spouts conservative-sounding rhetoric in the liberal commonwealth, is even being presented as proof that the Tea Party movement is making real strides, nudging the Republican Party to the Right, even in states like Massachusetts where the candidate of the Right might just prevail.

Browsing Scott Brown's campaign website shows that the candidate doesn't deviate from safe GOP positions. He's for tax cuts but says little about spending cuts. He is wishy-washy on abortion, but On the Issues records that as of 2002, Brown felt that "abortions should always be legally available." His policy positions on Israel and Iran fall in line with those of the Israel Lobby and should make Dick Cheney and the rest of the gang at the American Enterprise Institute happy that a Senator Brown would represent the Republican status quo on foreign policy. As bloggers Carla Howell and Michael Cloud discovered, Scott Brown in practice has proven himself to be the archetypal big government Republican in a blue state.

This makes Scott Brown January 2010's Doug Hoffman. Hoffman, who ran on the Conservative Party of New York ticket in the special election for New York's 23rd district in November 2009, was the unofficial Tea Party candidate and generated mounds of enthusiasm among the Tea Partiers, even though he was vague on issues and the ones he did articulate upon were well within the GOP mainstream.

So despite polls showing the Tea Party Movement more favorable than the Republicans, the Tea Party Express' endorsement of Brown is proof-positive that no matter how bitter they may appear to be at Republicans, the Tea Parties are expected to return to the Republican fold on Election Day. Their support for Brown over the much more libertarian (and unrelated) Joe Kennedy also demonstrates that, so far, the Tea Party movement is not serious about challenging the Republican Party, even from the inside out.

Here's why. On his Friday radio program, Rush Limbaugh addressed the issue of a third party, an issue that arose during the 2008 presidential campaign, while conservatives were dragging their feet for John McCain:

"[A] Third party, in my view, is the only effort that will derail all the progress and energy and early victories that we've seen in recent months. A third party of the Ross Perot type, the Ron Paul type, bleeds voters away from the Republican Party, not the Democrat Party. . . . The fact that every single Republican senator votes consistently against government-run health care should be a clear indication that we are being heard. The fact that all but one Republican in the House voted against it, does this mean conservatives run the GOP? No. Not yet. But it means we're making progress. It means we're in an ascendancy. . . . And we've gotta stop this third-party temptation. It will only bleed votes from our side."

"Bleed votes from our side."

Beneath the surface, this means that despite pleas to the contrary, Rush Limbaugh is a Republican first and a conservative last. A Republican Party that does not have its conservative act together is better than a third party that does. This is why the conservatives who compose the Tea Party movement must finally reject the Republican Party and their faux conservative hand servants or else overhaul them all.

Not doing so is like saying, "Look, I know the Republican Party isn't perfect, but if we don't elect Republicans, it'll be worse. Plus, now that they're in the minority, they're voting the right way! I'm sure this means that when the Democrats are voted out of office, these Republicans will vote exactly the same way because they're principled conservatives now and there's no way they could simply be partisans voting against their opposition!"

Scott Brown is the latest big government wolf the party and its sycophants are trying to stuff into small government clothing. If he wins on Tuesday, the Republicans will know they can pull the wool over the eyes of the Tea Parties and will gear up for the fall.

Then all of Rush's cited "progress" will truly be lost.

Posted 01/18/10 Caleb Kinley Hot Springs, AR

Casting a vote for an establishment republican is the same as casting a vote for the progressive democrats. I personally believe that Brown is getting the votes only because he says he'll vote "against" the healthcare catastrophe. Perhaps like a vote of "last resort." Should he win, I'm sure he will have to watch how he votes in his new position, otherwise, TEA Partiers will be angry at his "townhall" meetings too.

Posted 01/19/10 justinb Oklahoma City, OK

You emanated my thoughts on Brown to a T, and more elegantly than I could have. As of lately, I'd rather see those votes bled and keep bleeding until we're on the side with the most votes, and the typical neocon is bleeding votes from the true conservative. Maybe then the media will wake up, and the republican party will start backing true conservatives. Until that shift happens, I would rather have the D's in control, so they can take the heat of the negative image that comes with spending the country into poverty.

Posted 01/19/10 mattgeb84 lynn, MA

i agree brown isn't perfect and he is a typical neocon however i still voted for brown, because 1) (yes i know im playing right into the machines hands with this one) joe kennedy had no chance of winning anyway 2) scott brown is at least a little more conservative than coakly and getting someone like that elected in MA is a big step in the right direction. 3) brown for the time being is good enough to at least slow some of the obama socialist agenda 4) the notion of MA electing someone that is a little bit conservative will scare the pants off the rest of socialist (democrat) party

Posted 01/20/10 kderentz Henderson, NV

I support Brown as well. Although he is far from perfect he will at least put a stop on Obama's polices (well some what). Also his election should now be a wake up call for Democrats and potentially get the blue dogs back in line with their people instead of their party. The MA election wasnt so much about Scott Brown, as it was more about the people. The people wanted change in 2008 and ended up with more of the same (just as Dr. Paul said we would have) so this election was a stand for the people. This was a stand that if your or your party dont listen to the people you will be voted out! "Its the people's seat" Justinb unlike you I dont want the D's in charge, although it would look better to have them taking heat, the damage they have done in the last year alone will take life times to repair. A few more years of their current policies and nothing will be left.

Posted 01/20/10 Carl Wicklander Nashville, IL

I appreciate all the comments. It seems to me, that among those of you who supported Brown, that the reason to vote for him is because even if he wasn't perfect, he was at least better than the alternative. I admit that if Brown is able to vote against the health care bill and even allow a filibuster that it would be a good thing. But as a state senator in Massachusetts, he also supported their version of state-run health care, so I don't really see Brown as a net gain on that one. And he's a true blue neocon warmonger, so it's definitely a net loss on that one. As far as taking lifetimes to fix what Obama's done in the past year, as kderentz says, that could very well be true. After all, New Deal programs like Social Security are not only still with us but eat huge portions of the budget and our taxes. I just don't see how most Republicans that run for office are really a step in the right direction. They've had plenty of time to address the problems that have been in place for decades. Even though I would not have voted for Brown if I lived in Massachusetts, I can still appreciate the historic nature and irony involved in this contest. He's the first Republican senator elected in Massachusetts in almost 40 years. But he also won a special election in a race to fill Ted Kennedy's seat. In 2004, when it looked like John Kerry might win the presidency and Governor Mitt Romney would get to appoint a Republican to the vacated seat, Ted Kennedy arranged to have the law changed so that there would be a special election presumably because there would be a better chance that the seat would be filled by a Democrat. Oh well.

Posted 01/20/10 mattgeb84 lynn, MA

i had an idea don't know how effective it would be, but i think ron paul supporters and members of c4l should call brown and tell him to just do whatever ron paul would do. if you don't know how ron would vote on a particular bill just call him and ask, then do whatever he says. mr. brown if you do this ron paul supporters will support you through thick and thin and you will be just as well liked and respected as ron paul is today. we will also throw our full support to you in ever future election your a candidate in. i don't know if im dreaming or not, but if we all called him and gave him a message like that maybe he would just vote however ron paul would if he knew it would get him re-elected over and over again

Posted 01/25/10 GroverWasGreat Millis, MA

Matt - With all respect your suggestions, there is no chance Brown will conform to a Ron Paul-like platform. No chance. Certainly not on foreign policy, torture, and marijuana reform; and probably not on domestic spending either.