"Posterity Has No Vote"

[Kathianne]

The President (Party of Trump) and the Democrats have a bi-partisan agreement for 2 years on spending. Cute.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...by-320-billion

Trump announces bipartisan budget agreement, would raise spending by $320 billion
by Zachary Halaschak
| July 22, 2019 06:25 PM

After negotiations with both Republican and Democratic leaders in Congress, President Trump announced the parties had come to a compromise on a two-year budget agreement.


“I am pleased to announce that a deal has been struck with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy - on a two-year Budget and Debt Ceiling, with no poison pills...


“...This was a real compromise in order to give another big victory to our Great Military and Vets!” Trump tweeted Monday evening.

The agreement would increase spending by $320 billion and lift the government’s debt ceiling with spending on domestic and military programs increasing equally. Some conservatives in the House expressed concern for the concept and the effect it would have on the deficit.


“I have communicated consistently there will be a large number of conservatives in the House who will not be able to vote for the deal, if these are indeed the terms,” Republican Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana and head of the Republican Study Committee, told the Washington Examiner on Monday.

What really matters, no problems with caps until after both new Presidential and Congressional terms are set. That's what they care about.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

The President (Party of Trump) and the Democrats have a bi-partisan agreement for 2 years on spending. Cute.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...by-320-billion



What really matters, no problems with caps until after both new Presidential and Congressional terms are set. That's what they care about.

Was thinking exactly that ---^^^--- as I read this. I was going to say, "amazing what kind of bipartisan things they can do when there's a major election coming up on 11/20."

[Kathianne]

Was thinking exactly that ---^^^--- as I read this. I was going to say, "amazing what kind of bipartisan things they can do when there's a major election coming up on 11/20."

Hell's bells, what's few hundred more billions when the debt is already $22 TRILLION? Seriously though, please let's not call this President a conservative.

[Elessar]

I view it as an act to get away from the constant 6-months budget fights since when GWB
and Obama were in office.

Grow up and move forward!

[Kathianne]

I view it as an act to get away from the constant 6-months budget fights since when GWB
and Obama were in office.

Grow up and move forward!

Like Rush, now that we have President Trump, debt growth is no longer a problem? Interesting.

I guess it's the new start of the Democrats showing bi-partisanship!

[jimnyc]

Hell's bells, what's few hundred more billions when the debt is already $22 TRILLION? Seriously though, please let's not call this President a conservative.

I will say I think they re ALL wrong, too much! I say that with everyone though.

As I wrote in the past, this is one of those things that requires reaching across the aisle reaching and bipartisanship or unfortunately it just won't work. I disagree with the numbers but unfortunately neither side will ever get what they want without compromise. It's usually only monster deals like this where I say there's no choice. But by no means is President Trump the one responsible here. He shares his responsibility for signing, absolutely. And then every person in Congress that wrote this that didn't do it with the most proper intentions is wrong. And then both sides do it until the bill is passed.

And yes, while I hold for Obama ultimately responsible as well, I did not blame him for each individual bill and said that it required compromise back then as well. But then they got full control and we were screwed but at least with one on each side it was able to be compromise. (house/senate).

President Obama was a far-left liberal. If I ever enjoyed anything that happened in his administration I certainly still consider him a liberal. Just as I have no doubt that Trump is a conservative but not everything comes out smelling like conservative roses. I wish every last thing would be conservative but unfortunately that's not going to ever happen. At least not unless he was a true dictator.

[Kathianne]

I will say I think they re ALL wrong, too much! I say that with everyone though.

As I wrote in the past, this is one of those things that requires reaching across the aisle reaching and bipartisanship or unfortunately it just won't work. I disagree with the numbers but unfortunately neither side will ever get what they want without compromise. It's usually only monster deals like this where I say there's no choice. But by no means is President Trump the one responsible here. He shares his responsibility for signing, absolutely. And then every person in Congress that wrote this that didn't do it with the most proper intentions is wrong. And then both sides do it until the bill is passed.

And yes, while I hold for Obama ultimately responsible as well, I did not blame him for each individual bill and said that it required compromise back then as well. But then they got full control and we were screwed but at least with one on each side it was able to be compromise. (house/senate).

President Obama was a far-left liberal. If I ever enjoyed anything that happened in his administration I certainly still consider him a liberal. Just as I have no doubt that Trump is a conservative but not everything comes out smelling like conservative roses. I wish every last thing would be conservative but unfortunately that's not going to ever happen. At least not unless he was a true dictator.

What else do you remember seeing such compromise? What else do you think we'll see it? This is another omnibus spending coming into and lasting until after the next federal elections. There is no 'compromise,' everyone gets what they want, to spend and no worrying about repercussions til after the people vote.

That's not compromise and that's not conservative.

[Kathianne]

At least this is honest, still wrong, but honest. "I know it's important. I know none of them care-NONE of them."

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/336733/

JULY 23, 2019


DAN MITCHELL: Trump’s a Big-Government Big Spender.
He’s right, notwithstanding Trump’s excellent deregulatory efforts, but that’s what the American people seem to want, and keep electing. As I’ve written before, it’s not that I don’t care or worry about the booming debt, it’s just that I don’t think anything will be done about it until there’s a crisis. And as the Insta-Dad said about the stimulus back in 2008, the bad news is, that exercise convinced the federal government that it could borrow a lot more money than it had previously thought it could.

[jimnyc]

What else do you remember seeing such compromise? What else do you think we'll see it? This is another omnibus spending coming into and lasting until after the next federal elections. There is no 'compromise,' everyone gets what they want, to spend and no worrying about repercussions til after the people vote.

That's not compromise and that's not conservative.

So much of what Trump has accomplished have been conservative goals. But not with these funding bills much. I am speaking overall as a president.

And unfortunately, one side has declared obstruction like a war, so there hasn't been much work reaching across from the OTHER side.

But it's not like we have a liberal president.

[Kathianne]

So much of what Trump has accomplished have been conservative goals. But not with these funding bills much. I am speaking overall as a president.

And unfortunately, one side has declared obstruction like a war, so there hasn't been much work reaching across from the OTHER side.

But it's not like we have a liberal president.

So, he's conservative but being 'outplayed'? Even I don't think that.

[jimnyc]

At least this is honest, still wrong, but honest. "I know it's important. I know none of them care-NONE of them."

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/336733/

I see funding as one animal, and most other things individually as they come as well. But the funding bills are like dropping money off the top to lower tier, and everyone scrambles around like crazy for their portion. WAY more crap involved in 99% than should be. And no, when it comes to spending, they all seem guilty. But someone closed the government over things once and everyone/most blamed Trump. He shares blame in this, without a doubt, I'm only saying that it's not entirely his fault, and I don't think he is a liberal.

[jimnyc]

So, he's conservative but being 'outplayed'? Even I don't think that.

Said nuttin about being outplayed. Like I said in the past, with these bills their MUST be compromise, or it'll never happen. It should STILL be much better than this, but Trump isn't the one negotiating here. He could potentially veto or shut things down again - but based on reactions from the crazy media, and some republicans, he didn't/wouldn't risk the same again, IMO, even if he or others would threaten as much.

[Kathianne]

Said nuttin about being outplayed. Like I said in the past, with these bills their MUST be compromise, or it'll never happen. It should STILL be much better than this, but Trump isn't the one negotiating here. He could potentially veto or shut things down again - but based on reactions from the crazy media, and some republicans, he didn't/wouldn't risk the same again, IMO, even if he or others would threaten as much.

I'm not being snarky. I have said, repeatedly, that many of his policies have been good-though few 'conservative' in the sense of keeping the federal government from expanding and spending like it's ok to just keep printing dollars.

How bad is this? Remember that Obama did have his own omnibus spending pass, along with Obamacare. Yet, here's where things stand regarding spending-thus far:

...

I’ll close with a chart I prepared based on the numbers for domestic discretionary spending from the Mid-Session Review, as well as Table 8.1 from the Historical Tables, both from the Office of Management and Budget.


The numbers show that we had more fiscal restraint under Obama (blue line) than Trump (orange line). And Trump’s numbers will now be even worse with the new deal...

[Kathianne]

Whistling in the wind... No chance any mitigating this, doesn't matter that there will be repercussions down the road, for our posterity:

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...-trump-1425878

House conservatives urge Trump to reject budget deal
By MELANIE ZANONA 07/22/2019 05:23 PM EDT Updated 07/22/2019 06:32 PM EDT

...

“You should veto this bill because it is fiscally irresponsible," the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Trump, according to a draft obtained by POLITICO. "It blows well beyond what was intended with the 2011 [Budget Control Act] caps. Furthermore, it continues spending hundreds of billions more than what we take in a year and does not put our nation on a path towards a balanced budget."


And, they added, "it raises our debt ceiling for two years, indulging our national spending addiction."

...

Fiscal hawks are angry that the cost of spending increases are only partly offset. While White House acting budget director Russell Vought had pushed for at least $150 billion in cuts, the deal only includes around $75 billion worth. Conservatives also don't like that there are nearly equal increases for both defense and non-defense spending programs under the compromise.

...

[jimnyc]

Already stated I agree with funding/spending bills. The republicans are growing to be just as guilty as the democrats in that department. They also allow WAY too much by the left, so that they can get the stuff in there they want. That's what they consider reaching across the aisle and working together. But it's not, not at where they should be. Ultimately, by both sides, they get funding for things they think are important. Usually the left is almost all pork BS entirely, and can be done without. The right somewhat the same, often unneeded crap from them too, and of course some decent things, but generally not a lot, and the MOST important things often get set aside.

2nd amendment
economy
serve your constituents who voted (both locally, and in this case, the country aka America)
No Robin Hoods
Help for veterans finally?
Huge and effective "stick"
NO to socialism crap
...

Those are things I wanted, 1/10th actually, same as I posted in the past. Most goals reached, a few failed, a few stalled & a few just can't get by democrats. But not all fault leaves home, he certainly hasn't been perfect, far from it, but still very good, IMO.

I'll give a few links of things I have been reading, some older than others - many repeating the lists of accomplishments I have already posted, or lists of conservative agendas and what has been met and/or failed. And a ton all around the net, of accomplishments we have heard very little or nothing about - thank you CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, MSNBC - or reading the news: NY Times, CNN online, Huffington Post, Poltico, Buzzfeed, (rest of TV's online versions), Yahoo news Google, WSJ, Anything on FB or Twitter (as right things get censored too often), Bloomberg, NPR, Washington Post, USA Today, Vox, Slate... I'm sure quite a few more, but those are some you see being used and believed and widespread by the left quite often, and of course get traction.

--

Anyway, here's an oldie/goodie. Accomplishments, not all conservative, but a many are.


138 things Trump did this year while you weren't looking

Behind the crazy headlines, more conservative priorities got pushed through than most people realize. An exhaustive list of what really happened to the government in 2017.

In Donald Trump’s first act as president, he signed a high-profile executive order intended to dismantle Obamacare, instructing federal agencies to take any measures they could to roll back the Affordable Care Act. In retrospect, the vaguely worded directive was only symbolic. The Trump administration did eventually make moves to obstruct the law, but they took months and another executive order to implement. For all the theater, it’s hard to say whether that order had any effect at all.

Less noticed on Inauguration Day was a surprise move by the Federal Housing Administration to scratch a planned reduction in mortgage insurance premiums. That change helped shore up the financial health of the FHA’s mortgage insurance fund —but came at a real cost to homeowners, who would have saved an average of $500 a year if the Obama-era plan had stayed in place.

If you didn’t hear about the $500 you may have lost that day—well, that’s how the year went. The attention gap between the empty executive order and the real-life mortgage insurance rollback turned out to be representative of the whole first year of the Trump administration.

Again and again, Trump has taken the stage to an adoring crowd and declared victory on some issue, or announced lavish new promises, without any real results or plans to back them up. Meanwhile, very steadily, and almost totally separately from Trump’s speeches and tweetstorms, his administration has been ushering in a new conservative era of government—taking specific aim at Obama-era rules, and broader aim at the big regulatory mission of government.

At The Agenda, we’ve been tracking these policy changes weekly since June, ignoring the noise and explaining what the Trump administration actually accomplished each week. This week, we’re pulling them all into one mega-list—a portrait of a quiet but very serious Republican push against the scope and ambition of government.

What does it look like? There are a few consistent themes: Rolling back President Barack Obama’s legacy on everything from labor regulations to environmental protections, and more broadly tearing down rules across the government. Some topics have been largely missing: his infrastructure push has gone nowhere. Many of the rules are still in progress, or being delayed so long that it’s anyone’s guess what will really happen. (As you’ll see, some of our items are recurring episodes in long-running dramas, like what will finally happen to Obama’s fiduciary standard, which required stockbrokers to act in the best interest of their clients.) And finally, there are some perplexing surprises. After all the rhetoric against China and Mexico, the year’s big trade-war enemy has been … Canada?

Welcome to the annual wrap-up of our weekly guide to what Trump did while you weren’t looking.

June 3-9

1. A boost for Uber and McDonald’s
It’s the most controversial question in the labor world these days: When is a worker an employee, and when is he or she an independent contractor? That question has been especially controversial for “gig economy” companies like Uber and Postmates. But increasingly, regular businesses are also opting to classify their workers as independent contractors, which can cut their labor costs sharply by not obliging them to offer benefits like health insurance or pay employer payroll taxes. According to one recent study, the percentage of workers employed as contractors grew almost 30 percent from 2005 to 2015.

In 2015, the Obama administration gave workers a win on this one: It issued a guidance document explaining how the Department of Labor would interpret the law, outlining the economic tests it employed in determining whether an employer was misclassifying its workers. The agency had been using that policy in enforcing the law, but putting it in writing sent a clear message to employers across the country that the Obama administration was serious about cracking down on worker misclassification.

On Wednesday, the Trump administration withdrew the guidance document. This was a win for business owners in any number of sectors — not just Uber, but industries such as farming and construction, which increasingly use independent contractors. The withdrawal of the document doesn’t change the underlying law, the Fair Labor Standards Act, or the DOL’s current interpretation of it but sends a strong signal to employers that Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta plans to interpret it differently than his predecessor. “The big story is not that, for whatever reason, they pulled down guidance,” said David Weil, who issued the document under Obama. “The real question is what else comes with this.”

Acosta also withdrew another Obama-era guidance document on how the department will determine whether a parent company, like McDonald’s or Subway, is jointly responsible for its franchises’ labor violations. As with worker misclassification, the Obama-era DOL interpreted the joint employment standard favorably for workers; its withdrawal is a victory for businesses.

2. A trade war with Mexico averted—for now
Trump has stormed on about the North American Free Trade Agreement, calling it a “trading disaster” and vowing to rip it up, suggesting that a trade war with Mexico may be on the horizon. But on Tuesday, the United States and Mexico went the other direction and actually came to a deal, averting a potential trade crisis when they ended a dispute on Mexican sugar exports. The showdown was seen as a first test for the two countries as they, along with Canada, seek to preserve and update NAFTA later this year.

The sugar deal is a quintessentially in-the-weeds trade agreement: It raises the minimum prices for raw and refined sugar and cuts the percentage of Mexico’s sugar exports that are refined from 53 percent to 30 percent, while redefining the purity level for refined sugar. The U.S. sugar industry objected to the deal, arguing that it did not address loopholes that give Mexican producers an unfair advantage in the U.S. market. It wasn’t the win that industry wanted, but many experts were encouraged that the administration’s first big dispute with a major trading partner had an amicable ending.

3. The end of a DOJ “slush fund”
Three years ago, when the Department of Justice settled a $17 billion settlement with Bank of America over its mortgage lending practices, it came with a requirement: The bank had to pay $100 million to various legal and community groups, a sum intended to help homeowners hurt by Bank of America’s wrongdoing. Many other DOJ settlements with financial institutions during the Obama administration required similar payouts to outside groups.

Conservatives have long objected to this practice, which was used by Obama and, before him, George W. Bush: They see it as a way for a president to direct money to his favored organizations, illegally sidestepping the congressional appropriations process. The Obama administration argued that so-called third-party settlements were simply another tool for reparations: The money, they said, didn’t go to random organizations but to groups that could help repair the damage caused by financial misdeeds. Opponents called it a “slush fund.”

That ended Wednesday , when Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo prohibiting U.S. attorneys from including such third-party payouts in any settlements. When the Department of Justice settles a case from now on, third-party groups won’t get a dime.

4. A win for nursing homes
Last October, the Obama administration banned any nursing home that receives federal funding — which is most of them — from requiring that prospective tenants sign an arbitration agreement as a condition to be admitted, a common practice in the industry. Such agreements prevent residents from taking the facility to court, requiring them to appeal to an arbitration tribunal. Nursing homes prefer arbitration because it’s usually cheaper than getting sued; critics say it’s unfair to residents, who often have no idea they signed away their right to sue in court until they actually try to file charges, at which point the nursing home shows them the fine print.

The nursing home industry fought the rule, suing the Department of Health and Human Services. In November, it won a temporary injunction against the regulation, so it never actually took effect. And now it may be dead. On Tuesday, the Trump administration signaled its view on arbitration agreements: the DHS issued a new proposed regulation that rolled back the Obama rule. Because it’s not final, the new rule doesn’t immediately overturn the ban on arbitration agreements; it has to go through the same process as any other rule. But it sends a strong signal for where the administration will ultimately land.

5. Get THAAD out of here
Not every major policy change affecting America originates in Washington. On Wednesday, South Korean President Moon Jae-in blocked the deployment of an American missile defense system intended to block missile attacks from North Korea.

The Pentagon’s Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system became a hot-button issue in Asia: China sees the North Korea angle as a cover story for a system that’s really intended to block Chinese missiles, an incursion on its sovereignty. (The Pentagon disputes that argument.) It already was a delicate issue in South Korea; Beijing had been successfully using state media to persuade Chinese consumers to boycott South Korean stores and cancel vacation plans, which has hurt many Korean businesses. Then Trump rattled relations with its ally by insisting in April that South Korea foot the $1 billion bill for the system, an idea later walked back by his national security team.

Moon — a left-leaning leader who supports a more open dialogue with North Korea than his scandal-plagued predecessor—was already reluctant to host THAAD at all, but allowed its continued deployment until he discovered last week, to his surprise, that the Pentagon had sent four more launchers into the country. On Wednesday, he stopped any further deployment of the system—just a day before North Korea conducted its 10th missile test of the year.

June 10–16

1. U.S. and China make nice on beef, dairy and poultry
Throughout his campaign, Trump railed against Chinese trade policies, vowing to label the country a currency manipulator and scaring the business community that a trade war was on the horizon. But Trump backed off his promise to officially label Beijing a “currency manipulator.” And in May, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross announced the U.S.-China 100-Day trade agreement, calling it a “herculean accomplishment.”

Still, trade experts who looked at the details of the agreement, were less convinced. Many of the ten policy changes were already underway; on the new changes, China made few firm commitments.

This week, a trio of trade announcements revealed there was more substance to the deal than originally thought, if not quite “herculean.” On Tuesday, the Department of Agriculture announced it had finalized an agreement with its Chinese counterparts to allow U.S. beef imports into China, breaking a 14-year ban that Beijing has more-than-once promised to end. On Thursday, the U.S. and China signed a memorandum to promote U.S dairy products in China , and , on Friday, the USDA published a proposed rule to allow Chinese poultry products into the U.S.

These aren’t huge changes to the U.S.-China trade relationship, and some were in the works long before Trump took office. In fact, China promised last September to lift the ban on U.S. beef exports; the dairy agreement wasn’t actually part of the “100-Day” trade deal. But the trio of agreements show that even as Trump rails against Beijing’s trade policies, the two sides are still capable of compromising. For all the eye rolls that Trump’s initial “100-Day” deal invited, it’s looking a lot more real two months later, especially once beef shipments actually arrive in China, which Ross estimated could be as soon as 10 days. “Everyone has been justified in taking a wait and see attitude,” said Bruce Hirsh, a former assistant U.S. trade representative. “Even now, until actual shipments are accepted, it's best to wait and see.”

2. Education Department targets Obama-era student protections
With student-loan debt a trillion-dollar issue, the Obama administration announced a new policy last October that would allow defrauded borrowers to have their federal student loans cancel ed—an expensive proposition for the government, which would cover the cost. Student advocates, who had long pushed Obama to adopt such a rule, cheered the news, arguing it was simply a matter of fairness.

One problem: The rule wasn’t scheduled to take effect until July 1—and now it looks like it will never take effect. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos announced this week that the agency was delaying the implementation of the so-called “defense to repayment” rule indefinitely, on the grounds that it is the subject of an ongoing lawsuit. In effect, this means the idea is almost certainly dead: DeVos also announced that the department intends to rewrite the rule altogether, along with another major Obama-era education rule, known as “gainful employment,” that required colleges to meet certain standards or risk losing access to federal student loan dollars.

Unlike “defense to repayment,” the “gainful employment” rule was finalized in 2014 and had already taken effect, so the Trump administration will have to undertake a full rulemaking process to rewrite it, a time-consuming process.

The changes are a defeat for defrauded students and a big victory for for-profit colleges, which are disproportionately represented among both loan-fraud cases and colleges that leave students with high debt levels. For-profits loudly argued that the Obama administration was effectively trying to choke out the industry altogether. This week, DeVos gave it new life.

Rest - https://www.politico.com/agenda/stor...es-2017-000603


A little more recent, from March 2018


The Incredible Trump Agenda – What Most Americans Don’t Know About the War the President Has Waged

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• The once-in-a-generation tax reform passed in December reflected the fundamental changes we recommended to transform the tax code.
• Conservatives cheered the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, a strong constitutionalist, to the U.S. Supreme Court.
• But the scores of principled conservatives President Trump has brought into the executive branch have very much kept their eye on the ball.

President Trump’s style has dismayed many on the right as well as the left. But when it comes to actions, conservatives find much to delight them.

While the 2016 presidential elections were underway, policy analysts at The Heritage Foundation (my employer and one of the nation’s leading think tanks) compiled a six-volume series of conservative, research-based policy recommendations for the next president.

The recommendations were calculated to help the incoming president and Congress jumpstart the economy, strengthen national security and halt the increasing centralization of power in the federal government.

At the end of 2017, we reviewed all 334 recommendations presented in our “Mandate for Leadership” series and found that the Trump administration had embraced fully 64 percent of them. That’s nearly two out of three – and that’s very good indeed.

Most Americans are already familiar with some of the conservative agenda items adopted in the last year.

The once-in-a-generation tax reform passed in December, for example, reflected the fundamental changes we recommended to transform the tax code from one that penalized economic growth to one that promotes it. Already, the American people have begun to reap the benefits: higher take-home pay, tax cut-fueled bonuses and a burgeoning job market.

And many are aware of how Congress acted on another key recommendations to exercise its authority under the long-ignored Congressional Review Act (CRA) to overturn ill-considered rules implemented by regulatory agencies. During the first few months of its session, Congress used CRA resolutions to eliminate 14 major rules finalized by the Obama administration in its waning days.

But relatively few Americans are aware that the president has waged his own war on over-regulation. For example, President Trump has lifted the Obama-era moratorium on coal leases on federal lands. And he has instructed executive branch agencies to review and reconsider pending rules, with a goal of eliminating two regulations for every new one implemented.

By year’s end, the Trump administration had withdrawn or delayed 1,500 proposed regulations. It has made a difference. On Dec. 14, the administration reported that the regulatory rollback had saved the American economy $8.1 billion, and would save another $9.8 billion in fiscal 2019.

Conservatives cheered the nomination and confirmation of Neil Gorsuch, a strong constitutionalist, to the U.S. Supreme Court. And President Trump followed this up with many other outstanding judicial appointments.

By the end of 2017, the Senate had confirmed 12 circuit court of appeals judges – the largest number of appellate judges confirmed during the first year of any president in history. Why does that matter? Because most federal cases stop at the appellate level. Only one of every 700 cases heard by these courts goes on to the Supreme Court.

President Trump has eschewed President Obama’s practice of filling these slots with activist judges who interpret the laws as what they think the laws should say, rather than as they are actually written. It’s a huge change – and a tremendous boost for the rule of law.

From pulling America out of the unaffordable and unworkable Paris Protocol on Climate Change to ending the damaging Obama era regulations on net neutrality, the Trump administration has advanced a broad conservative agenda on dozens more fronts in 2017.

Yes, there is much more work to do. The Senate badly fumbled ObamaCare repeal last year, leaving millions of Americans saddled with increasingly unaffordable health coverage. Welfare reform remains a major challenge, and restoring some sense of fiscal responsibility to Washington seems as elusive as ever.

But make no mistake, 2017 was a banner year for conservative policy victories. On that score, President Trump can confidently stack his record right up there next to President Reagan’s first year.

The politicians and pundits of the left would lead you to believe that the administration has been just as distracted and discombobulated by the president’s tweets as they have been. But the scores of principled conservatives President Trump has brought into the executive branch have very much kept their eye on the ball. The conservative agenda is marching forward.

https://www.heritage.org/conservatis...ut-the-war-the