Whatever happened to compassionate conservatism?
LEIGH POMEROY
Hypocrisy is a big theme with us. It was exhibited well in the President's State of the Union address: the old "say one thing and do another" routine. But we're not going to discuss the President's speech because it is covered more than adequately elsewhere.
What we are going to discuss is the hypocrisy demonstrated by the recent vote in the House of Representatives to cut $39 billion from domestic programs. Proponents say the amount is small but necessary. Opponents counter that it will hurt the poor, elderly, disabled, children, working parents and students — in other words, those who can least afford to help pay for the costly war in Iraq and tax cuts for the richest Americans.
Kudos to the 214 members of the House who voted against the budget bill and the budget cuts, including the entire Minnesota Democratic delegation. Kudos especially for Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad, who bucked his party's bosses — and the White House — by voting against the bill.
Despite the obvious cost to Minnesota's most vulnerable citizens and the communities that support them, three of Minnesota's Republican lawmakers — Gutknecht, Kennedy and Kline — followed their party line and voted for the budget cuts. Each has his own excuses, but the truth is that tax breaks for their wealthy contributors and billion-dollar contracts for Halliburton are more important than, say, the 120 Minnesota organizations that opposed the bill, including the ARC of Minnesota, Children's Defense Fund, Lutheran Social Services, Minnesota Nurses Association of St. Paul, and the Minnesota Senior Federation.
If Gutknecht, Kennedy and Kline continue their hypocritical ways, they will vote to extend the tax cuts that primarily benefit the ultra-wealthy and put this country further in debt. If they want to be consistent, however, they will reject the tax cut extensions and thus better serve the citizens of their districts.
Hypocrisy is a big theme with us. It was exhibited well in the President's State of the Union address: the old "say one thing and do another" routine. But we're not going to discuss the President's speech because it is covered more than adequately elsewhere.
What we are going to discuss is the hypocrisy demonstrated by the recent vote in the House of Representatives to cut $39 billion from domestic programs. Proponents say the amount is small but necessary. Opponents counter that it will hurt the poor, elderly, disabled, children, working parents and students — in other words, those who can least afford to help pay for the costly war in Iraq and tax cuts for the richest Americans.
Kudos to the 214 members of the House who voted against the budget bill and the budget cuts, including the entire Minnesota Democratic delegation. Kudos especially for Republican Rep. Jim Ramstad, who bucked his party's bosses — and the White House — by voting against the bill.
Despite the obvious cost to Minnesota's most vulnerable citizens and the communities that support them, three of Minnesota's Republican lawmakers — Gutknecht, Kennedy and Kline — followed their party line and voted for the budget cuts. Each has his own excuses, but the truth is that tax breaks for their wealthy contributors and billion-dollar contracts for Halliburton are more important than, say, the 120 Minnesota organizations that opposed the bill, including the ARC of Minnesota, Children's Defense Fund, Lutheran Social Services, Minnesota Nurses Association of St. Paul, and the Minnesota Senior Federation.
If Gutknecht, Kennedy and Kline continue their hypocritical ways, they will vote to extend the tax cuts that primarily benefit the ultra-wealthy and put this country further in debt. If they want to be consistent, however, they will reject the tax cut extensions and thus better serve the citizens of their districts.
Powered by Blogger
4 Comments:
With all due respect to the author, how much entitlement spending is enough? Out of a $2.2 trillion dollar budget, entitlement spending is over 55%. Are you suggesting that $39 billion cannot be trimmed from over $1.2 trillion in entitlements? As for spending on the war, Congress appropriated $421 billion, about one-third of what is spent on entitlements.
As for the tax cuts for the rich and the references to Halliburton (which by the way received no-bid government contracts under Bill Clinton's administration), they are red herrings. The debate is between two visions: the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past or the vision which trusts individuals and families to keep their own money.
I always love the anonymous posts. These individuals have the benefit of knowing who we are, but we have no idea who they are. Are you guys trying to hide something?
But to answer the question: Government giveaways come in all shapes and sizes, and for many purposes. For example, witness the tax breaks and credits given to the oil and gas industry in the latest energy bill — incentives, by the way, far greater than those given for the alternative fuels that the President championed in his recent State of the Union address.
The term "entitlement" is often employed by some, including the commenter above, in a derogative way, as if recipients of entitlements are receiving something for nothing. That is simply not true, as he should well know if he pays employment taxes.
I suggest the commenter read the article "Key Vote on Federal Budget February 1st Could Mean Profound Changes" to learn exactly how these cuts will affect at least one of our communities.
It is unfortunate that some individuals, when they can't find supporting evidence for their arguments, fall back on old, tired clichés. In this case the commenter wrote, "The debate is between two visions: the failed tax-and-spend policies of the past or the vision which trusts individuals and families to keep their own money." Aw, c'mon. If we're going to have a debate, let's not fall back on these boilerplate phrases that lost their veracity, and usefulness, long ago....
Come on, LP. If we're going to have a debate, let's debate facts -- not assign motives to words. I know that you're a good liberal with a different ideology, I don't attack you for it. Also, if you don't like anonymous postings, then remove the option.
Also, when you talk about cliches, I love the old "tax breaks to the wealthy" one and the fact that people on the left consider letting people and corporations keep more of their own money (instead of forking it over to Washington) spending.
I also love that any time slowing the growth in entitlement spending is proposed, we hear from Chicken Little that the sky is falling. The numbers I posted are true. Out of a budget that's over $2.2 trillion, entitlement spending makes up $1.2 trillion and Congress is only proposing to slow the growth on $39 billion of it. It seems pretty reasonable to me.
In a rare episode of political history, the Liberals have been proven right. Since the start of the Bush administration, Republicans identifying themselves as compassionate conservatives have been en vogue. In my opinion, the idea of this identiying adjective for elected Republicans was so they could look more like Liberals(who we all know have a monopoly on caring for other people). Well, we found out that it wasn't enough for elected Republicans to act less like Conservatives and more like Liberals. They were still thrown under the bus by the Liberals whenever it was politically expedient. If you notice, Liberals only complain about deficits when they aren't the ones buying votes with entitlement spending or getting the credit for being compassionate. Elected Republicans should give-up on trying to be Liberals and go back to their roots. That is, keeping as much of working folks money out of the hands of any politician, who sees spending as an election strategy. Now that's compassion! FYI VOX - The reason I, and maybe the other writer before, choose to be anonymous was so not to lose their content while creating an account. Don't blogs want people to contribute? If so why would you immediately insult the writer for being "anonymous and then their fact-driven and concise comments for not taking an hour to read. "Anonymous" had real facts backed with a pithy summarization of philosophy. Unlike myself, who prefers dry wit, sharp sarcasm and keen observation. - The Equalizer
Post a Comment
<< Home