THE GOVERNMENT YOU VOTED FOR

On rare occasions, someone writes a piece in which almost every word carries weight.  Paul Krugman did just that on Sunday, August 4 (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/05/opinion/krugman-republicans-against-reality.html?nl=opinion&emc=edit_ty_20130805)  I wish everyone would read it.  Prof. Krugman writes:

Think of it this way: For a long time the Republican establishment got its way by playing a con game with the party’s base. Voters would be mobilized as soldiers in an ideological crusade, fired up by warnings that liberals were going to turn the country over to gay married terrorists, not to mention taking your hard-earned dollars and giving them to Those People. Then, once the election was over, the establishment would get on with its real priorities — deregulation and lower taxes on the wealthy.  (emphasis added)

Then they held the pointless vote on Obamacare, apparently just to make themselves feel better. (It’s curious how comforting they [Republicans] find the idea of denying health care to millions of Americans.)  (emphasis added)

An article quoted by Prof. Krugman says, The June bill included $20.5 billion in proposed cuts to the food stamp program, plus amendments calling for mandatory drugs tests for recipients and employment requirements. Democrats protested the food stamp cuts, while many Republicans said the cuts did not go deep enough.*  (emphasis added)  But now it appears the Republicans are proposing a cut twice as large though there is to be an automatic cut in food stamps amounting to $29/mo. for a family of three to $319/mo. in any event as a result of the Stimulus bill that carried a temporary increase in food stamps. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/02/us/politics/gop-push-to-slash-food-stamps-puts-farm-bill-in-jeopardy.html) 

The House already had passed a meaningless farm bill stripped of food stamps and proposed a series of benefits to wealthy farmers.  Some of the members or their spouses of the Senate and House Agricultural Committees benefit from the farm subsidies the committees oversee. 9http://www.taxpayer.net/library/article/political-contributions-conflicts-of-interest-taint-u.s.-ag-policies)

Cuts are being made to the Federal budget anyway because of across the board cuts in the Sequester (But congress made an exception for air controllers so they wouldn't be inconvenienced in flying.).  Though no one says they like the Sequester, Republicans let it happen because it did make cuts in programs for the poor.  Democrats aren't too upset because at least there are some cuts to the defense budget and the Sequester seems the only way to get these.  Congressmen are not to be inconvenienced.  A part of Obamacare was that congressmen were to get their health insurance from the Exchanges like everyone else, but it looks as if they will also accept a subsidy from the government as well.

Then there is the canceled vote in the House on a transportation bill because not enough Republicans showed up.  Prof. Krugman writes:  But it turned out that a significant number of representatives, while willing to vote for huge spending cuts as long as there weren’t any specifics, balked at the details. Don’t cut you, don’t cut me, cut that fellow behind the tree. (emphasis added)

* This seems to be the new way to get a bipartisan agreement.  Democrats vote against it because the cuts for the poor go too far and Republicans vote against it because cuts for the poor doe not go far enough.