Like The Gentlemen They Are
From the accounts I've read so far, the GOP presidential candidates comported themselves as gentlemen during today's debate. They even agreed with each other on some stuff, especially when it comes to cutting government spending, according to this AP report:
Republican presidential rivals called for deep cuts in federal spending Wednesday in a debate remarkably free of acrimony, and agreed the reductions they seek need not require painful sacrifice by millions of Americans who rely on government services....
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani called for across-the-board cuts of up to 15 percent, including reduced federal spending on health care. "Rather than relying on a nanny government, let's rely on people to decide their own health care," he said. ...
Thompson, alone among the White House contenders in both parties, has called for steps to reduce the benefits promised to future retirees. He has also said he supports changes in Medicare, but has yet to outline a specific proposal.
Won't require painful sacrifice by milions of Americans, eh? Doesn't sound like it to me. Of course none of this chatter suggests anything new from the Republicans. The last Congress and the current resident of the White House has already done some cutting, and the fruit of that surgery is beginning to be felt in all sorts of horrific ways, as this article from yesterday's Minneapolis Star Tribune makes clear.
After waiting most of the year for a restrictive new Medicaid rule, Minnesota counties got the bad news late last week.
The rule apparently will cut about $50 million in federal Medicaid money for an innovative service that helps 70,000 troubled, abused or foster children and their families in Minnesota.
It also may cut deeply into $38 million that counties receive from Medicaid for 20,000 adults and children with mental health problems and 7,000 retarded adults.
"It looks like all of that [child welfare] money is gone," said Deborah Huskins, the county's director of children, youth and families. "I'm quite worried about what we'll have to do."
When he signed the law in February on which the rule is based, President Bush said this and other cuts would bring needed restraint to Medicaid spending. The administration wants to cut $25 billion from Medicaid over the next five years. Next year, the federal portion of Medicaid is estimated at $196 billion. [Emphasis added]
If Republicans really wanted to save some money, say $25 billion, there are other and better places to cut expenditures. I'm sure we can all think of at least one. Like maybe, oh, I don't know, the Iraq War? All we'd have to do is plan on bringing the troops home on a reasonable timetable. Since we're spending roughly $170 million a day fighting that illegal misbegotten war, it would only take five months of peace to reach that $25 billion, according to my math. And that would just be the first five months. Think of what we could do with the savings after that.
Morons.
Republican presidential rivals called for deep cuts in federal spending Wednesday in a debate remarkably free of acrimony, and agreed the reductions they seek need not require painful sacrifice by millions of Americans who rely on government services....
Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani called for across-the-board cuts of up to 15 percent, including reduced federal spending on health care. "Rather than relying on a nanny government, let's rely on people to decide their own health care," he said. ...
Thompson, alone among the White House contenders in both parties, has called for steps to reduce the benefits promised to future retirees. He has also said he supports changes in Medicare, but has yet to outline a specific proposal.
Won't require painful sacrifice by milions of Americans, eh? Doesn't sound like it to me. Of course none of this chatter suggests anything new from the Republicans. The last Congress and the current resident of the White House has already done some cutting, and the fruit of that surgery is beginning to be felt in all sorts of horrific ways, as this article from yesterday's Minneapolis Star Tribune makes clear.
After waiting most of the year for a restrictive new Medicaid rule, Minnesota counties got the bad news late last week.
The rule apparently will cut about $50 million in federal Medicaid money for an innovative service that helps 70,000 troubled, abused or foster children and their families in Minnesota.
It also may cut deeply into $38 million that counties receive from Medicaid for 20,000 adults and children with mental health problems and 7,000 retarded adults.
"It looks like all of that [child welfare] money is gone," said Deborah Huskins, the county's director of children, youth and families. "I'm quite worried about what we'll have to do."
When he signed the law in February on which the rule is based, President Bush said this and other cuts would bring needed restraint to Medicaid spending. The administration wants to cut $25 billion from Medicaid over the next five years. Next year, the federal portion of Medicaid is estimated at $196 billion. [Emphasis added]
If Republicans really wanted to save some money, say $25 billion, there are other and better places to cut expenditures. I'm sure we can all think of at least one. Like maybe, oh, I don't know, the Iraq War? All we'd have to do is plan on bringing the troops home on a reasonable timetable. Since we're spending roughly $170 million a day fighting that illegal misbegotten war, it would only take five months of peace to reach that $25 billion, according to my math. And that would just be the first five months. Think of what we could do with the savings after that.
Morons.
Labels: Budget, Election 2008, Iraq War
posted by Diane at 2:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home