« David Brooks: Wrong On The Debates, Wrong On Morality | Main | Or are you just happy to see me? »

October 04, 2004


As I said, we should be ashamed.


This isn't a new story, either: it's been clear for some time now that for Bush "supporting the troops" means words, not action.

And given the trouble that the military is looking at with recruitment for the next few years, cutting benefits to veterans is the last thing any responsible administration would be looking to do. But I agree, it's not just that pragmatically it's downright stupid, it's also just plain wrong.

On a related issue, Josh Marshall noted several years back the Bush Administration was trying to discourage vets from taking advantage of earned benefits.

Tax cuts have to be offset with at least something in the way of spending cuts. Can't cut missions to Mars or missile defense, as the constituencies for these are big contributors. Since vets aren't, and since it's been repeatedly shown that the communities (both geographic and cultural) from which vets arise are either in the bag or not, there aren't even enough votes to justify advancing a different policy.

One can whine about the Admin putting politics over policy, but it's getting old. I wonder if anyone out there can come up with an example where the Admin has made the opposite choice. I can't think of one.

If you want tax cuts and you want Bush/Rove, this is exactly what you are going to get.

Once more with feeling- THEY DON'T FUCKING CARE!!!!!!

Palolo: posting rules forbid swearing on the blog. This is not just because we're trying to keep things civil, but also to allow people to read this behind software that screens for obscenity, e.g. at work.

Weren't you watching the debate, hilzoy?

There's a "tax gap," you know. No one seems to know quite where it came from, least of all the President, but there it is.

Bush slogan: "Millions for millionaires, but not one cent for veterans."

"And why on earth, does Bush's budget call for cuts ...?

The larger policy, as we must all know by now, is to place the baby face down in the bathtub, leave the water running and turn the martial music up so we can't hear its death-throw gurgling.

According to Grover Norquist, the man with the plan, the baby is the Beast.

This is government-wide; every Department, every agency. Fund the programs, but cut so much out of operating budgets that the programs cannot be implemented.

Further, cutting funding and staff for the most visible parts of the government which interface with the public pisses the voters off. But the answer this time will be: "See, the government and bureaucrats are incompetent. Privatize or abolish."

The Republican Party (usual exceptions noted, I guess) is counting on the "hate government" propaganda of the past 30 years to place the blame on government, not them.

The same policy is in place in Republican State governments. So forget about devolution. This is death.

It's working.

I know the "Why on earth.." question is rhetorical, but its time kick it up to "This stops now!"

This stops now !

P.S. For a similar model, see the leveraged buyouts of the 1980's (ie grocery chains, industrial firms). Load the balance sheet with staggering debt; "discover" that jobs, wages, and health benefit cuts must be catastrophic or, geez, nobody gets any groceries and other good stuff. Whoops!

"We should be ashamed" should also be cut out the Democratic vocabulary.

I have nothing to be ashamed about. I didn't do this.

Certainly, neither did you, Hilzoy.

The Party of personal responsibility owns that shame.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad