The House passed spending cuts that will cut money from such unnecessary programs as food stamps, student loans, child support, and Medicaid. It won't cut anything from Medicare. This is perfectly logical, since it's far more important to take care of rich old people than poor kids. And nothing is more important than making sure the rich don't have to pay more taxes. Yes, there are kids that need their insulin and want to go to college, but Mr. Throckmorton has to afford that fourth house somehow.
Hell, if I had realized that drilling in ANWR would produce an extra $2.5 billion (according to the Senate provision) for programs aimed at poverty reduction... fuck the caribou. Honestly, why was there more of an outrage over ANWR drilling than over cuts in Medicaid? Where's the logic in that? About the only person even mildly steamed about the budget cuts was my rabbi, and he's not even eligible to vote yet (I don't think).
I'm feeling pretty dumb right now for writing a letter about torture and not about the budget bill. Granted, the Senate bill was not as bad as the House bill - far milder cuts in Medicaid, no cuts in food stamps, more cuts in farm subsidies - but it's still obnoxious. (And granted, my representative is one of the more liberal reps out there and voted against the bill. Writing a letter to him would be sort of like preaching to the choir.)
No one wants their taxes raised, but if we learned anything from the past four years in VA, it's that people will be okay with tax hikes if their money's going to a good cause. Medicaid, student loans, and food stamps are all undoubtedly good causes. And most Americans realize that we are in the middle of a war (whether we should be or not) and that wars generally mean sacrifice on our part. The House and Senate want the bulk of the sacrifice to be laid upon the poorest Americans - who, incidentally, send disproportionately more troops to war than their richer fellow citizens.
So that's my rant on that. There's still a conference committee to go through, another round of voting, and a signature before it becomes law.
A few words on an unrelated and far less important topic - the judiciary:
- Will somebody please talk about Alito's views on the war on terror? It's all abortion, all the time with this guy. I'm suffering from Roe burnout. Actually, I've been suffering from that for a few years now, come to think of it.
- The next person to say the following untrue phrases in a serious manner gets a "Shut Up, Moron" award from me:
"The Supreme Court banned school prayer."
"Liberals want to sanction flag burning."
"Liberals want to take God out of (insert institution here)."
"The ACLU is anti-religion."
Hmmm, let's look at some of the ACLU's recent cases on religion and government, shall we?
September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader’s right to sing “Awesome God” at a talent show.
August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.
November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.
November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.
Yup, seems anti-religious to me. They're definitely trying to keep religion out of public life with cases like these. Also, George Washington was anti-independence. And Frederick Douglass was pro-slavery. I encourage my readers to keep me up to date on who deserves these awards, because I will mail them.
Wow, I was in a sarcastic mood today. I'll shut up now.