Earlier this week John Kasich told a reporter from the Washington Post that the U.S. needs “boots on the ground” to defeat ISIS in the Middle East.

Fair enough.

There’s no question that ISIS is a threat to global security and the economic well-being of the U.S. and the world.

However, Kasich’s comments were made during an interview about his signature 2016 presidential campaign theme: a federal balanced budget amendment that would cap federal spending at levels of expected federal revenue.

Here’s the obvious follow up question WaPo didn’t ask wannabe president Kasich: “If the U.S. did pass a federal balanced budget amendment, what current federal spending would a Kasich administration cut to fund the billions and possibly trillions of dollars it would cost for another ground war in Iraq and Syria?”

His answer should be interesting since, as governor of Ohio, Kasich has never been forced to make cuts to any programs he personally thinks are important. Having inherited an improving economy from Strickland and Obama, Kasich has massively increased state spending by tens of billions of dollars, while also cutting billions from education and local governments.

Can we assume Kasich would follow the same model at the national level? Cutting funding to states while expanding spending nationally to pay for his own pet programs? Would we see him dissolve the Department of Education?  Or make giant cuts to funding for highways and transportation? Cuts to benefits for low-income moms and kids? Maybe cuts to veterans’ benefits or Medicare or science grants?

I’m guessing yes, yes, yes and… yes-yes-yes. Unless Kasich could find a way to sell off some highways or national parks or…. scientists to fund the difference.

Whether you agree with Kasich’s proposed military strategy or not, it’s clear the guy must be dealing with some serious cognitive dissonance at this point: proposing a cap on the federal budget while simultaneously proposing massive new federal spending on military intervention in the Middle East. There’s a reason Forbes’ Magazine said “John Kasich Isn’t Ready For Prime Time On The Federal Budget.”

It’s clear Kasich is planning another run for U.S. president, and it’s been clear for a few years now. He made a pretty awful run at it in 1999, and his 2016 chances look to be even worse. But guys like Kasich are driven by more than logic or common sense or polls. They are driven by narcissism and self-love and an ever-growing posse of financially-dependent yes-men who continue to stroke his ego and push him toward ridiculous, unachievable goals.

And with that push comes ridiculous and totally incongruent recommendations like: “Hey, you should totally call for another ground war in Iraq!” and “Hey, you should totally call for a freeze on federal spending!”

John Kasich wants to be President of the United States. John Kasich has always wanted to be President of the United States.

Thankfully, John Kasich will never, ever be President of the United States of America.

At least not with the moronic advice he’s getting at the moment.

 
  • davescottsc
  • sufferingsuccatash

    Anyone who compares the federal budget to a household budget and then makes the argument that since you have to balance your household budget it therefore makes sense that you should have to balance the federal budget is economically illiterate. There is simply no comparison between the two—-none.

  • dmoore2222

    Wait until he has to explain to the national media why Ohio’s economy is near the bottom. That should make for some pretty spectacular word salad.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:


Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!