Read an article entitled "Ryan sought federal aid as he urged cuts". In it, the Democrats favorite news organization - the Associated Press - smugly and predictably reports that Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan, "a fiscal conservative and critic of federal handouts, lobbied for tens of millions of dollars on behalf of his constituents", including money from President Obama's Stimulus program.
Articles criticizing supposedly hypocritical Republicans for accepting or soliciting government funds for their districts are a staple during the political season, since there is no shortage of berserk government spending programs, and no shortage of Republicans criticizing them.
My question is, why is this a story? Given the way that the federal spending process works, once the money is in the pipeline, it is going to get spent regardless of what critics say or do. If the Republicans targeted by these partisan smears did not seek their fair share of these funds, wouldn't they be guilty of failing to represent their constituents? That doesn't mean they should stop fighting the practice, nor does it make them hypocrites for doing both things at the same time.
It's easy to be a Democrat politician in this environment. Compared to Republicans, you are portrayed as virtuous for promoting any and all berserk government spending. It's even easier to be a Democrat voter. Since your decision making process involves no actual thinking, but merely what you read in the paper that affirms your preconceptions, this type of article is tailor-made for you, and in endless supply.
I wait in vain for the Media to run a story about a Democrat - any Democrat - that opposes any aspect of the status quo. Now that would be a story worth reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Friends - Let 'er rip!