Chad Schuldt takes some east coast conservatives to task for suggesting that we rethink how much money the federal government spends on agriculture and highways. As I mentioned earlier today, it is not all that surprising that Chad uses these musings of Jonah Goldberg at National Review's The Corner to attack conservatives because Chad is one of those bloggers who is entirely predictable in his thinking. Indeed Chad does exactly what Jonah Goldberg predicts an antiwar leftist like Chad would do: frame the issue as Iraq war versus New Orleans. Chad's not interesting in thinking hard about difficult budget decisions; he's only interested in scoring political points. For him, "good" means what's good for his side, and "bad" means what's bad for his side.
Chad, you and I disagree on the war in Iraq. So let's take that off the table. Outside of this, is there any federal spending that you do want to reduce? Rather than using Goldberg's ideas for petty political purposes, why not try offering some solutions? Budgeting is about priorities. What are yours? Is there a single government program outside of the those that fund the Iraq effort with which you disagree? One thing Chad and I would agree on is that it would be bad for South Dakota if agricultural and transportation spending were cut. But, you see, every district in the nation could make the same claims about the federal spending that pours into their district. So what are we to do? Responsible people have to think about such things, while political hacks are content with thumbing their noses.
Recent Comments