The Advocate reports that an anti-gay congressman has stripped funding for L.A.'s Gay and Lesbian Center from the federal Transportation, Treasury, Housing, and Urban Development bill. Anti-gay animus is bad, but just where in the Constitution is it a role of the federal government to fund local gay centers? And let's just leave aside the fact that L.A. has its own vibrant and wealthy gay community. This little story sums up so much about what's wrong with the political situation in Washington.
Not about the above, but still regarding Republicans and Democrats, Right Side of the Rainbow ponders, "I can't be the only one who feels trapped between the unprincipled and the psychotic." Can you guess which is which?
3 Comments for “The Fools on the Hill.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Steve: “This little story sums up so much about what’s wrong with the political situation in Washington.”
You got that right.
Pork has always been close to the hearts of politicians, and I don’t suppose that federal funding of a gay/lesbian center in LA has any better or worse federal purpose than a lot of other pork.
When I lived in Chicago, our Congressonal delegation — Denny Hassert included — brought home funding for a $17 million underground parking garage for the Science and Industry museum, a garage that was built next to Lake Michigan below the water line and requires 24×7 pumps to keep it from turning into a swimming pool. Everyone knew it was stupid at the time, but Chicagoans aren’t dumb enough to leave good money laying around unused, so we have our garage.
For all the divisions between left and right, the one thing that they agree on is that pork=votes.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
This is why socialism is so spiritually sapping and such a bad idea. What government giveth, it can also taketh away. But what government taketh (taxes), it never, EVER gives back.
I love to asks advocates of socialist “single payer” health care, or socialist “pension” retirement Ponzi schemes, a simple question. It’s much more effective than pointing out the massive structural flaws which make these programs expensive boondoggles. I simply ask “would you trust Tom DeLay to personally oversee your mother’s care in a nursing home?” They always say “of course not!”
I then say “do you trust George W. Bush to manage your retirement accounts?” Invariably, they say “hell no!”
I then say “do you believe that Bill Frist has your best interests at heart when it comes to getting the prescription drugs you need to stay healthy?” By this point, they’re all fired up and say “absolutely not!”
Then I move in and say “so why are you proposing to create a set of programs which would put Tom DeLay in charge of your mother’s elder care, George W. Bush in charge of managing your retirement income, and Bill Frist in charge of making sure you get your prescription drugs?” The shocked look on their faces is priceless.
A similar question should be asked of gays and lesbians. Why are we dependent on the federal government for so much stuff? We should be pushing our own independence from the feds and government in general, to further underscore the fact that systematic discrimination against gays in marriage and other government policy areas has created a class of people who consume little and pay a lot, and who can easily take their incomes elsewhere if need be.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why are we dependent on the federal government for so much stuff?
Because “gay rights” as a cause has been hijacked by leftists and socialists for two reasons: one, it is in the personal financial interest of Democratic lobbyists like Hilary Rosen and Elizabeth Birch to turn gays into a willing and compliant money and vote source for socialists and leftists, and two, because in order to be really “gay”, you have to oppose everything that even looks remotely “establishment”.