What Would We Do Without Him?
I'm referring, in the title, to EJ Dionne of the Washington Post. If it wasn't for guys like him, folks like me would have to find someone else to laugh at.
EJ this week is ticked about "cuts" to programs for the poor. For instance, (and I posted it yesterday) the House voted to trim $700 million from food stamps. Sounds Draconian and mean, until you realize that we spent $53 Billion on it last fiscal year, and it was expected to grow to $57 billion in the next year. So the $700 million isn't a cut, it's a reduction of growth, to just about double inflation. OOOOOHHHH That's horrible.
But E.J. show's the standard liberal way of dealing with anything that isn't more money to someone. Liberals won't focus on actual growth, or numbers, because if they did, middle class folks who work for a living would be in an outrage. So instead, you call it a cut to the poor, instead of what it is, a reduction of growth.
EJ, and the rest of the media have been very complicite in this since the administration ordered "$3 billion in cuts" from the USDA budget over 5 years. They hammer that "in cuts" when in fact, USDA's budget is still going to grow by about $7 billion, it's 3 billion in less growth over five years. But it's hard to make folks believe every poor person in America will starve to death if we say "USDA's Budget Will Grow By $7 Billion in the Next Five Years" in headlines.
So, now that you know the truth about the cuts, are they cuts?
EJ this week is ticked about "cuts" to programs for the poor. For instance, (and I posted it yesterday) the House voted to trim $700 million from food stamps. Sounds Draconian and mean, until you realize that we spent $53 Billion on it last fiscal year, and it was expected to grow to $57 billion in the next year. So the $700 million isn't a cut, it's a reduction of growth, to just about double inflation. OOOOOHHHH That's horrible.
But E.J. show's the standard liberal way of dealing with anything that isn't more money to someone. Liberals won't focus on actual growth, or numbers, because if they did, middle class folks who work for a living would be in an outrage. So instead, you call it a cut to the poor, instead of what it is, a reduction of growth.
EJ, and the rest of the media have been very complicite in this since the administration ordered "$3 billion in cuts" from the USDA budget over 5 years. They hammer that "in cuts" when in fact, USDA's budget is still going to grow by about $7 billion, it's 3 billion in less growth over five years. But it's hard to make folks believe every poor person in America will starve to death if we say "USDA's Budget Will Grow By $7 Billion in the Next Five Years" in headlines.
So, now that you know the truth about the cuts, are they cuts?
posted by Crazy Politico at 4:50 AM
0Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home