December 19, 2012

Baracks & Husseins are supposed to be anti-pork

Well, usually they are.

At least when it comes to the kind of pork that originates with animals that say “oink”.

However, when it comes to the kind of pork that constitutes the blatantly irresponsible allocation of the taxpayers’ money, the same Barack Hussein, like the rest of his commie “progressive” ilk, revels in throwing around copious quantities of the stuff.

And why not? When it runs out, they can either borrow more from overseas or simply raise taxes! Brilliant!

All this gross overspending needs to justify itself is a stated purpose that sounds compassionate, like disaster relief, for example. For that matter, it can fall under the heading of welfare, food stamps, anything at all that has to do with helping underpriviledged, downtrodden, unemployed, disabled or whatever, and it’s…justified.

Unfortunately, the politicians over there on the left use these fine, upstanding remittances as cover for opening the floodgates of taxpayer largesse to recipients, bureaucracies and other lucky entities that have little to do with the targets of the legislation enabling these payouts.

They’ll “spend” billions of dollars on a hundred million dollar need, squandering and more squandering, and then when the Republicans object to the unnecessary overspending, the Dems and their tame media will announce that the “uncompassionate” Repulicans want to deny those in need, let them starve, let them suffer, etc, when all the folkson the right are trying to do is have the money handled more responsibly for the sake of the above mentioned taxpayers.

And we’re not talking merely being gouged by overpriced goods and services, we’re talking using a lot of the money “stealthily” to bribe voting blocks and repay campaign favors.

Political Outcast provides a perfect example.

President Obama is requesting $60.4 billion in disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy. If you’re opposed to disaster relief funding, then that means you want disaster victims to continue to suffer as much as possible. Conservative representatives in Congress would only vote against such legislation because they’re cold and heartless individuals. This is generally what liberals and big government Republicans think of those who are not in favor of the federal government giving handouts to storm victims.

But we’re not cold and heartless. It’s been shown time and time again that conservatives are actually more generous with their money than liberals are. Liberals prefer having their money taken through taxes to fund government programs that only make people poorer and more dependent on government. Conservatives give more of the their money away to charitable organizations that actually do help people in need.

It’s unconstitutional for the government to extract money through taxes and then give that money to other people or businesses no matter how good the government’s intentions are. But another reason these “relief” bills are bad is that politicians use them as excuses to stuff a bunch of money for pork projects that buy off their constituents. The NY Post reported:

“The pork-barrel feast includes more than $8 million to buy cars and equipment for the Homeland Security and Justice departments. It also includes a whopping $150 million for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to dole out to fisheries in Alaska and $2 million for the Smithsonian Institution to repair museum roofs in DC. An eye-popping $13 billion would go to “mitigation” projects to prepare for future storms. Other big-ticket items in the bill include $207 million for the VA Manhattan Medical Center; $41 million to fix up eight military bases along the storm’s path, including Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; $4 million for repairs at Kennedy Space Center in Florida; $3.3 million for the Plum Island Animal Disease Center and $1.1 million to repair national cemeteries.”

Some of these things don’t have anything to do with helping Sandy victims, yet they’re all part of Sandy relief package. How is giving $150 million to fisheries in Alaska supposed to help someone in New York who lost his home? How is spending money to fix up Gitmo going to help a business in New York whose building got destroyed by the hurricane? Or spending millions to help repair damages at the space center in Florida?

This is why conservatives are opposed to this kind of legislation. Would it end up helping some people and businesses in New York? Perhaps, but at the expense of the taxpayer. But now, it’s little more than a mini-bailout for politicians’ buddies. And if you’re opposed to it, that means you want children to suffer and be homeless.

Well put!

by @ 12:19 pm. Filed under Liberal Agendas, Liberal Economics, The President
Trackback URL for this post:

Comments are closed.