The National Review stands tall against our real enemy: poor people and battered women

[ccharles000]

http://usjamerica.wordpress.com/2009/02/11/the-national-review-stands-tall-against-our-real-enemy-poor-people-and-battered-women/

Despite their consistent support for a pretty impressive constellation of (utterly) reprehensible things, there are times when I’d like to think that Republicans aren’t simply naked apologists for wealthy corporate interests*, unvarnished militarism, and quasi-authoritarian government, and actually have the best interests of Americans at mind.

But then, I read stuff like the National Review’s 50 De-Stimulating Facts, and remember again why I don’t trust the Republican Party to pursue the best interests of the American people. I encourage you to read the editorial; you’ll get a pretty good sense of what I meant when I said that Republican opposition to the stimulus package wasn’t serious. Before I let you go though, I just want to highlight one portion of the editorial which struck me as particularly ridiculous/needlessly callous:

"Then there are the usual welfare-expansion programs that sound nice but repeatedly fail cost-benefit analyses. The bill provides $380 million to set up a rainy-day fund for a nutrition program that serves low-income women and children, and $300 million for grants to combat violence against women. Laudable goals, perhaps, but where’s the economic stimulus? And the bill would double the amount spent on federal child-care subsidies. Brian Riedl, a budget expert with the Heritage Foundation, quips, “Maybe it’s to help future Obama cabinet secretaries, so that they don’t have to pay taxes on their nannies.”

Providing nutrition for low-income women and children sounds like pretty solid stimulus to me; money spent on foodstuffs goes immediately back into the economy. And the same goes for grants to combat violence against women this is money that goes towards maintaining shelters and paying for counselors and such - it keeps people employed. But my point wasn’t to defend the measures (they seem self-evidently stimulative), it is just to note that yes, the National Review has taken an Ebenezer Scrooge approach to government, and now opposes efforts to help poor women and children. Ladies & Gentlemen, this is your modern conservative movement.

[mediaman007]

1. I think "movement" is the right term!

[donco6]

2. And it's the loose, gurgly kind. n/t

[Trajan]

3. I went to an Electronics Trade/Vocational school on the CETA program

CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act) was cut a mere 3 weeks after Ronald Reagan took office ...

I just now passed my 30th year of service in an industry for which my CETA experience prepared me ...

I have made good money, and have paid oodles of taxes ever since ....

I am very appreciative for the opportunity I was given ...

It is pure nonsense to deny the validity of such social programs as a mechanism to provide for a productive population .... I made money for myself, my employer AND my country ....

I repaid my debt many times over ....

Conservatives are idiots ...