Why do liberals always want to hurt kids and the sick?
It seems every time someone proposes budget cuts, or opposes raising taxes, a Democratic politician comes out and says that without tax hikes, government will have to cut spending to help poor sick women.
The New York Times sounds the same note today in an editorial calling for multiple tax hikes on everyone in America. In dismissing the notion of spending cuts to address the national debt, the Times writes:
Lawmakers could eliminate the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Pell Grants, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health and Head Start and still not cut $110 billion annually.
Are those really the programs that the Times would cut first? Because I might start by ending our unconstitutional war in Libya, farm subsidies, the Department of Commerce, new subsidies from the Export-Import Bank to Boeing and General Electric, ending pensions for Congressmen who have become lobbyists, and trimming Defense Department waste as a start.
Does the Times think Boeing subsidies and Trent Lott’s pension are really more important than the FBI? No. This is a standard dishonest liberal and Democratic ploy of pretending that the first things to be cut should be the most popular.
I say, fine, take them at their word, and ask the Times’ editors why they think corporate welfare is more important than Pell Grants.
