Jump to content


Note What they Do, not What they Say!


Lcyberlina
 Share

Recommended Posts

Note what they do, not what they say

Jun. 10, 2004

By Molly Ivins

 

AUSTIN - As Lily Tomlin observed, "No matter how cynical you get, it's impossible to keep up." But as Con Ed used to say, dig we must. Courtesy of americanprogress.org, we find the following matches between word and deed:

 

Just before Memorial Day, Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi said, "Our active military respond better to Republicans" because of "the tremendous support that President Bush has provided for our military and our veterans." The same day, the White House announced plans for massive cuts in veterans' health care for fiscal 2006.

 

Last January, Bush praised veterans during a visit to Walter Reed Army Medical Center. The same day, 164,000 veterans were told that the White House was "immediately cutting off their access to the VA health care system."

 

My favorite in this category was the short-lived plan to charge soldiers who were wounded in Iraq for their meals when they got to American military hospitals. The plan mercifully died a-borning after it hit the newspapers.

 

In October 2003, the president told troops, "I want to thank you for your willingness to heed the important call, and I want to thank your families." Two weeks later, the White House announced that it opposed a proposal to give National Guard and Reserve members access to the Pentagon's health insurance system, even though a recent General Accounting Office report estimated that one out of every five Guard members has no health insurance.

 

A month before the war started, the White House proposed cutting $1.5 billion from funding for military housing. The House Armed Services Committee had concluded that thousands of military families were living "in decrepit and dilapidated military housing."

 

Progressive lawmakers counterproposed an amendment to restore $1 billion in housing funds and pay for it by reducing new tax cuts that Bush was proposing for the 200,000 Americans who make more than $1 million a year. Instead of getting $88,000 in tax cuts, the poor millionaires would get only $83,000. The House, with White House backing, voted the proposal down. (All thanks to americanprogress.org.)

 

With the release of the 2006 budget, we're constantly finding instances of programs that Bush, the candidate, proudly claims to support, while he prepares to cut them drastically in order to pay for making his tax cuts permanent.

 

According to The Washington Post, the White House guidelines for the 2006 budget include a $1.7 billion cut for education, supposedly his signature program. That neatly wipes out last year's increase -- and, you may recall, the administration has never funded education at anything close to the figures in the original agreement with Sen. Ted Kennedy.

 

Teachers say the No Child Left Behind law should be called "No Dollars Left Behind to Pay for It." Head Start is to be cut by $177 million, and the successful nutrition program for women, infants and children is to be cut by $100 million.

 

Any time Bush goes out into the country and claims credit for, or praises the work being done by, some government program, it is an almost-certain kiss of death. Budget cuts follow.

 

Back to veterans. This year, the administration increased spending on veterans by $519 million. In 2006, it plans to cut that spending by $910 million.

 

Also on the list for substantial cuts are the National Institutes of Health, the Environmental Protection Agency, and police assistance and crime prevention programs. When something like the West Nile virus gets out of control, can't you just envision the independent investigation committee that will have a look into that government failure?

 

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., points out that the House Interior Appropriations Committee had to cut $682 million from the White House budget proposal this year. The budget situation is now so dire that the latest Republican scheme is not to pass a budget at all this year (until after the election), lest people notice what is going on.

 

The White House's latest ploy is to claim that the 2006 guidelines it issued are just a mere wisp of a suggestion, nothing to be taken seriously. But the White House has already submitted legislation to impose spending caps that would continue the cuts every year thereafter until 2009.

 

Are there any grown-ups in this administration? Budgets are the guts of government. "Who benefits?" and "Who pays?" are the only serious questions. Except, of course, for the always timely "What will they do to us next?"

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Wow, pointing out lies politicans in the world's largest bureaucracy have made.

 

This is a fun game. Wanna try it with Clinton and his administration as the subject now?

 

I bet I could dig up 4,367,432,779 examples, while you could only dig up 4,367,432,778 on Bush.

 

Either that or we could just go outside and count stars.

 

News Flash!! All politicians lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the only choices of politicians to choose from both need to be held accountable for lying??

I don't understand what you mean? :blink: What if in an election both politicians running have been caught lying? How can we hold one accountbale w/o rewarding the other? A 3rd party candidate wont win unless a national hold lying politicos accountable movement starts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What if the only choices of politicians to choose from both need to be held accountable for lying??

I don't understand what you mean? :blink: What if in an election both politicians running have been caught lying? How can we hold one accountbale w/o rewarding the other? A 3rd party candidate wont win unless a national hold lying politicos accountable movement starts But this is the thing, you can't keep a blind eye to it no matter what. This is why things get out of hand. People get hell bent on a particular candidate regardless of sufficient evidence pointing to the fact that he or she is a crook, just because he/she belongs to a particular party. If you don't hold your elected officials accountable for their lies and scams, you can't complain when you are the victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I think it's rather idealistic to believe that if a candidate from a 3rd party were to be elected that he/she would not fall into the same pattern of behavior that traditional-party politicians do. Let's take Ralph Nader, who as a public figure has a history of acting honorably and honestly. However, I think the majority of people would never elect such a person because we feel he doesn't have the stomach for politics, for rolling up his sleeves and getting in there and getting things done. Take Jimmy Carter, for example. Most people felt he was a honest and honorable individual, but that he completely lacked the gumption (or whatever you want to call it) to be an effective politician. Is it the case that we are chosing between effectiveness and scruples? That's a difficult question to answer, and brings us back to legacyofCangelosi's point: Do we demand honesty as the primary character trait of politicians, or are others factors more important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its so much more complex though, because I'm in a bind, i cant vote for Kerry because his inherent politics compltely contradict mine. Bush has spent a lot on defense which to me is the lesser of 2 evils, but i disagree with that as well. So what to do? 3rd party candidates will never win not now anyway

I understand your predicament. I look at it this way. If I didn't like any particular candidate, I'd have to vote for the "lesser of two evils", having in mind which particular candidate will do the more damage and which can be controlled. Also, I would look at the idea that 4 years of one guy may not be as bad as 4 years of the other. I can always vote for someone else when the 4 year first term ends.

 

If you don't like Bush, but you don't like Kerry, you can look at it that way. How damaging would be 4 more years of Bush's policies or how bad would Kerry be for those 4 years. You can always vote Kerry out in 4 years when a better Republican candidate runs against him. Or you can have Bush for 4 more years and let him completely destroy every Republican value there is and squash the chances of the Republican party to hold the High moral ground.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its so much more complex though, because I'm in a bind, i cant vote for Kerry because his inherent politics compltely contradict mine. Bush has spent a lot on defense which to me is the lesser of 2 evils, but i disagree with that as well. So what to do? 3rd party candidates will never win not now anyway

I understand your predicament. I look at it this way. If I didn't like any particular candidate, I'd have to vote for the "lesser of two evils", having in mind which particular candidate will do the more damage and which can be controlled. Also, I would look at the idea that 4 years of one guy may not be as bad as 4 years of the other. I can always vote for someone else when the 4 year first term ends.

 

If you don't like Bush, but you don't like Kerry, you can look at it that way. How damaging would be 4 more years of Bush's policies or how bad would Kerry be for those 4 years. You can always vote Kerry out in 4 years when a better Republican candidate runs against him. Or you can have Bush for 4 more years and let him completely destroy every Republican value there is and squash the chances of the Republican party to hold the High moral ground. This is an interesting voting strategy, and I've often tried to figure out a chain of voting events in re: Hillary.

 

The good ol' carbetbagging uber-b***h is going to run for president sooner or later, and right now I'm trying to figure out if it would be a good thing to bite the bullet short term, have Kerry get in and keep a Hillary campaign away for 8 years, instead of 4.

 

Add o this the fact that their is no hier apparent on the Republican side in 4 years and I get really, really worried that Hillary may have a shot in 2008 if Bush is the one stepping down.

 

Needless to say, I'd rather have a strungout, satanist, second coming of Stalin then let Hillary get anywhere near the Oval Office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The good ol' carbetbagging uber-b***h is going to run for president sooner or later, and right now I'm trying to figure out if it would be a good thing to bite the bullet short term, have Kerry get in and keep a Hillary campaign away for 8 years, instead of 4.

 

Add o this the fact that their is no hier apparent on the Republican side in 4 years and I get really, really worried that Hillary may have a shot in 2008 if Bush is the one stepping down.

I don't like or dislike Hillary. But I know that far too many people hate her guts. Many are saying that she and Clinton secretely don't want Kerry to win because they're already planning her run in 2008.

 

I get really, really worried that Hillary may have a shot in 2008 if Bush is the one stepping down.

Unfortunately for you Fish this is very true. Let's be honest, 4 more years of Bush can have disastrous consequences for your party due to his disregard for classic Republican values added to a very extremist agenda that is slowly pushing moderated Reps away from him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont agree that bush will dismantle republican ideals more than any other candidate would. and I believe Guiliani is getting ready to make a presidential run, will he be ready for '08 Im not too sure about that, but I honestly believe that Kerry's proposed cuts in defense spending and increases in social spending are not the answer. So a known evil may be better than an unknown one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hillary in office would be an unmitigated disaster. can't think of a more impossibly bad idea than her in power. The US would go directly in the toilet.

 

I shudder in fear when I think about it.

Fish

:rofl WOW you really hate her.

 

Legacy

 

What "cuts" in defense is Kerry proposing? :blink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...