by JASmius
In a budget that increases discretionary spending by an overall $65 billion, I'd say that's right:
I get the context in which Scarborough rails about cutting the pay and benefits of senators, representatives, their staffs, the Executive Branch, etc. - if some government employees are going to have to take it in the sack, why shouldn't it start with them? I don't tend to join in such shallow populism, but you have to admit there's ample traction - and an ample case to be made for it - here.
And, once again, in a budget that busts the Sequester caps for the next two years. This isn't an argument over where cuts should fall; it's outrage over why other areas are getting more they shouldn't be getting while veterans' pensions are still getting whacked. Why, one muses, did Paul Ryan accept that little feature? How could he not know what a hand grenade that would quickly become?:
"Whether you're a Republican or Democrat, know that in 2014, you vote for this, we're not voting for you." Fortunately, this only affects two of the dozen 'Pubbies who voted "aye" (Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and Susan Collins of Maine); since every Democrat voted in favor, you can toss that burning tire on the stack of Harry Reid's bonfire of the vanities, and underscore the underlying message to the victorious GOP a year from now:
You will not have held the House and retaken the Senate because the voters like you; you will have done so because the voters hated the Democrats even more. And the window of opportunity to change that perception will be shorter than Miley Cyrus' virtue list.
They can start by giving back veterans what they've already earned.
UPDATE: Illegals will now be able to claim illegal kids not even in-country? At least Republicans tried to stop that one.
No comments:
Post a Comment