The House Republicans have approved, on a 336-87 vote, a $649 billion defense spending bill which increases the current budget by 17 billion. This is very puzzling to me. Why have the Republicans been running around screaming that we have to cut spending, and then go and increase the defense budget? Medical research, funding for NASA, funding for college education, and the like are all on the chopping block. Yet, they say we need national security to protect us from certain harm, but this argument can apply to many social programs also!!! That is the irony of not being consistent in alternative positions.
If I have no food, I become malnourished. If I become malnourished for too long, I can end up dying. Therefore I need food in order to protect me from certain harm. If I become ill with cancer and don't go to the doctor because I don;t have the funds and only go when I am already in the end stages of cancer where it's vastly more difficult to reverse it, providing me with health care protects me from harm. This is a poor excuse for an argument when it is used inconsistently. I agree that we need a military and a modest defense budget for protection purposes, but allowing people to die from starvation or not proving them with medical care also is not protecting people either.
No comments:
Post a Comment