Dems Vote to Punish School Children
On pretty much a party line vote, Democrats rejected Senator Coburn’s proposal to shift other national heritage funding so as to restore White House tours for taxpayers — the people who, in fact, subsidize the operation of what is supposedly “the people’s house.” (http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/20/senate-poised-vote-forcing-wh-resume-tours/). Had the positions of the parties been reversed, no doubt most of the MSM would be trumpeting headlines like that above.
Complete with crying children, angry parents and self-servicing and self-righteous Congressman promising vengeance. 🙂
The GOP should be trumpeting that fact to everyone who will listen. Every time Democrats do this, we should be asking why there seems to be money, for example, for the President to throw swanky St. Patrick’s Day parties for the elite and connected — like Chris Matthews ( http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-parties-with-chris-matthews-for-st.-patricks-day/article/2524864) — but no Democrat can seem to find a way to let school children into The White House.
If Republicans are serious about improving their standing with normal Americans, it’s a good time to start pointing out that the party of Big, powerful government is the party that fosters exactly the kind of cronyism and insider dealing that should be anathema to a free people. Democrats loooove to talk about insider dealing on Wall Street — but we have an alphabet soup of agencies designed to inhibit and punish that kind of self-dealing. In contrast, at the moment, there seems to be no Democrat in the Senate who is at all disturbed at the patent self-dealing practiced by the government class at the expense of the people.
Now that’s a message to take to the country. (Townhall)
I agree, but are the Republican man enough to shout back at the Ministry of Truth and stand up to the bully??
Democrats’ sequester tower of terror continues to collapse, floor by floor. Amidst the media fact checks and stomach-turning posturing, Republican members of Congress are using hearings to hold bureaucrats’ feet to the fire over the claims and actions of their departments. Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) blew the cover off of the administration’s duplicity on supposed cuts to pediatric vaccinations a few weeks ago; yesterday, it was South Carolina Congressman Trey Gowdy’s turn at bat. Watch as he grills a Department of DHSHomeland Security Under Secretary as to why his team released ten “level 1” aggravated felons from federal custody, (And he pretends he doesn’t even know what one is!!) supposedly due to sequester cuts:
GOWDY: “There was nothing else [you] could do as a cost savings measure. Is that your testimony?”
BORRAS: “No, that is not my testimony.”
My personal favorite exchange was the bit where Gowdy “asks” Borras how long the department had to prepare for sequestration, knowing exactly what the correct response would be: More than a year and a half. And yet they were hoping the American people would simply accept the notion that they couldn’t spare $1,200 bucks to keep violent felons locked up, ostensibly because of small across-the-board federal spending reductions. Not cuts, reductions in the rate of growth. Remember, the president proposed and signed this law, then attempted to pawn off its supposed ill-effects onto Republicans — hoping to count on the credulous media the spread the distortions. When the GOP wouldn’t cave, the administration mobilized to set the vast apparatus of the federal government to work against the interests and well being of the American people in order to justify their hysterical predictions of widespread misery. I’ll leave you with the infamous quote that sums up this deeply cynical and reckless approach to governance: “It is our opinion that however you manage that reduction, you need to make sure you are not contradicting what we said the impact would be.” (Guy Benson)
the administration had approved $37 million in foreign aid for Pakistan at the expense of a tuition assistance program for veterans. Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, plans to introduce a bill that will stop foreign aid funding until military tuition is restored:
“Why are we funding education programs for [Pakistan] when we can’t fund — or don’t fund — the education for our military? And to Pakistan of all places, where hatred for America is at its highest. Washington should watch its spending and prioritize.”
Poe went on to defend the program, claiming that:
“The cost of the program is .1 percent of the Defense Department’s budget, and one that has helped graduate 50,000 individuals. The Marines spent roughly $47 million from the program last year”.
Yeah, and sequestration was a 2% cut in an increase in spending and supposedly it was the end of the world!!! 🙂
Veteran unemployment already hovers around 9.4%, almost two points above the national average. And despite the president’s assurance last year that “no one who fights for this country overseas should ever have to fight for a job”, the elimination of this program tells a contradicting story. Various departments have already made multiple cuts to make Americans feel the effects of the sequester, though as previously reported, the reasoning is purely political. (townhall)
Now the punchline:
The public by nearly 2-1, 61-33 percent, supports cutting the overall budget along the lines of the sequester that took effect last Friday. But by nearly an identical margin, Americans in this ABC News/Washington Post poll oppose an eight percent across-the-board cut in military spending.
Whoops! The Ministry of Truth has a Lot of work to do!
In a similar vein, Matt Yglesias over at Slate calls this poll “deeply misleading,” on the grounds that people tend to favor overall cuts, but when it comes down to deciding what specific areas TO cut, they’re more cautious. In other words, he feels that if the individual programs had been extended beyond simply military cuts, people would have said they were opposed to those, too.
Long story short, public opinion on budgetary matters is poorly structured and there isn’t a clear and internally consistent policy agenda that you can read from the polls. So if you constructed any ABC-style poll where you first ask about spending cuts and then ask about one particular program, you’d get the ABC result that people want big spending cuts but also want to exempt Program X from the cuts. But that’s just a kind of cheap trick. Relative to other programs, cuts to military spending are among the least-unpopular cuts around.
So he takes issue with the idea that Americans want cuts, but not from the military—of course, as he says himself, it’s hard to read the data and find a coherent policy mandate regarding any cuts.
To that end, then, it remains to be seen if the cuts that are about to take effect are as palpably felt—or objected to—as the administration has said they will be. Despite claims that airport lines would double and teachers would be immediately laid off, neither has happened (or in the case of the teachers, certainly not as a result of sequestration).
For all the hype about a 5% budget cut, it’s a pretty small amount compared to the deficit. Who knows? We may find that talking about cuts is more painful than actually executing them. And so long as your airport waiting time isn’t abnormally long, who’s to say you’ll notice? (Townhall)
So you can cut them but not Me!
I see that all day everyday at work. It’s called Narcissism (or NOT IN MY BACK POCKET). And we have generations of them now. From the elderly who created them to their great grand kids who were raised to expect it.
But I support across the board cuts. Even if my Ox gets gored.
But I’m an exception.