What this NYT story--"As Automatic Budget Cuts Go Into Effect, Poor May Be Hit Particularly Hard"--calls for is some of George Will's puckered indifference, born of having been handed every opportunity to be successfully "independent" in life:
[Sequestration will cut] housing programs..., with about 125,000 individuals and families put at risk of becoming homeless ...
[cut] the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants and children ...
[cut] hot meals to the elderly ...
[cut] programs that aid children with special needs ...
[and] include a reduction in jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed.
Well hell if these people had just had the foresight to be sired by a philosophy professor so they could properly prep for Oxford and Princeton, as George did, they wouldn't find themselves in this fix. Puck 'em.
Why is it that the first cuts to be made are the same ones that always have a negative impact on the most vulnerable? Why can't we start with the people who would be effected the least, like big oil and the idle rich, and work our way down? It must be because the poor and children don't have enough money to make big political contributions. Maybe the Supreme Court was right. Money = speech and the more money you have the more you have to say.
Posted by: AnneJ | March 04, 2013 at 04:15 PM
Good thing Obama bought into the GOP austerity narrative. That's working out really well.
Posted by: wtf | March 04, 2013 at 06:17 PM