Republicans Want to Gut Worthy Stimulus Programs
House Republicans are dragging their feet all over the Senate stimulus package.
They’ve come up with their list of wasteful provisions, according to CNN.
But many of these provisions would not only help stimulate the economy. They’d also address some pressing public health, environmental, infrastructure, and educational needs.
For instance, on public health, Republicans are opposing $100 million that would go toward reducing the hazards of lead paint. What? They want more kids to die?
And Republicans are opposing $400 million for the CDC to prevent sexually transmitted diseases. Not like those are a problem!
Republicans are also opposing $25 million for tribal drug and alcohol abuse programs, and $75 million for anti-smoking programs. Addiction is evidently not a Republican concern.
On the environment, they’re opposing $600 million to buy hybrid vehicles for federal employees, and $200 million for alternative energy vehicles at military installations, and $6 billion to turn federal buildings green, and $850 million for Amtrak. But who needs to get off of fossil fuels, anyway?
On the infrastructure, which is collapsing all around us, the Republicans had the chutzpah to oppose $10 million to inspect canals in urban areas and $500 million for flood reduction projects on the Mississippi River. They’ve forgotten about Katrina already? They’re also against $125 million for improving the Washington sewer system, as though there isn’t enough raw sewage seeping out of the Capitol.
On education, they’re opposing $200 million for public computer centers
at community colleges. God forbid that poor students get to join the Internet Age.
And even though youth unemployment is likely to be extremely high this summer, they’re opposing $1.2 billion for young people, including some summer jobs programs.
Republicans can call all of this “pork” if they want to.
But it all looks kosher to me.
And their opposition to it is not only economically foolish, it’s cruel, and class-based, and woefully shortsighted.
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
CURRENT ISSUE: JUNE 2012
Cecile Richards
| "Millions of women are counting on us for care. And if we're gone, there's no one else there," says the head of Planned Parenthood.
What's at Stake in Wisconsin
Much more than Scott Walker's future hangs in the balance.
The Mother of Midwifery
Eleanor J. Bader | Ina May Gaskin has delivered more than 1,200 babies and revolutionized the field.
Scott Walker, the Monster.
See more at http://www.zinasaunders.com -- On June 5th, the voters of Wisconsin will decide whether to recall Scott Walker, the monster created by an unholy alliance between the radical right and big business, who has made attacking unions the hallmark of his administration. Cover for The Progressive magazine June 2012: http://www.progressive.org
Come to Progressive Talks and Events
June 4, Madison, WI
Terry Tempest Williams on "The Power of Voice"
Ruth Conniff and Matthew Rothschild on
"What's at Stake in the Recall."
5:30-7:30 pm at the Lakeside St. Coffee House, 402 W. Lakeside St, Madison.
It's a fundraiser for The Progressive. Contributions are tax-deductible.
If you can't make it but would like to contribute anyway, please send your check to The Progressive, 409 E. Main St., Madison, WI 53703.
Comments
The difficulty I have with debating conservatives is they
they keep changing the argument.
First you said:
"How do you explain George H. W. Bush winning in 1988, largely on Reagan's agenda, when it is rare for a VP to win"
Then:
"I pointed out that only one was chosen by the voters to carry on the policies of the sitting president"-
(now its sitting president)
Next:
"My argument was that Reagan so satisfied the voters that they chose his VP, hoping that he would carry on the Reagan agenda "
The fact is:
VP running to carry on past Presidents agendas have won
regularly
Johnson was elected to carry on Kennedy's agenda
Truman was elected to carry on Roosevelt agenda
Or that is what they ran on and won on.
When a Vice President takes over the presidency they are pretty much locked into continuing with the past presidents policies
An so if you look back in history at VIPs who assume the office of the president then ran for the presidency in the next election cycle. You will find that they don't and really can't run on change.
So like Bush They run on a platform of on carrying on past policies.
If Reagan had died in office would Bush run a different campaign one on change, no.
When arguing that "they chose his VP, hoping that he would carry on the Reagan agenda "
To exclude Johnson and Truman and other VP that ran for office after assuming the Presidency where they carried on dead presidents policies is cherry picking.
Of course to argue that the only reason a VP would fail in his run for the presidency is a lack of support for the past president is wildly simplistic.
Nixon screwed up in the debates (and that dog thing),
Ford had a number of problems including (as Johnson put it) " He's so dumb he can't fart and walk at the same time" thus explaining why the man kept falling down.
Gore (who won) was so boring his speeches could have been sold as sleep aids an couldn't win his own state.
Benson could not win his own state.
You have proven you can research subject matter the fact you can't find any economic indicators to prove that the Reagan years are "as good as they get" only supports my argument they were not