what was spent on last week's attack could lead to less spending needed going forward via deterrence (or spent in the past due to a "limp wristed" approach). I hope that proves true. And that this approach doesn't mean we can't find substantial spending reductions in defense otherwise. (not meaning to speak for TK, and can't verify if his call for defense spending is valid, just consistent)

I'm glad you brought up the travel, because as I've posted before, that does bug the chit out of me. I've never criticized Obama or other POTUS' for playing golf, traveling to Crawford, etc. because I'm fully aware they are never not working, no matter where they are. But in Trump's case, when he's constantly talking about "draining the swamp", and suggesting drastic spending cuts (which are definitely needed imho, but do impact the lives and incomes of real people), the cost of his trips to the Winter White House are horrible optics at best, and foolish, pointless spending at worst. (I don't slam the Trump Tower spending because some security would be there regardless, just as it was at Obama's Chicago home, etc. and I don't fault them as parents for wanting Baron to finish the year at his current school - and eliminate the security cost that would be needed at Gonzaga, Georgetown Prep or wherever he would be.)