Is anybody still alive?
Is anybody reading this?
The sequester is hitting and with all those predictions of doomsday I was concerned none of us would exist today.
Bob Woodward had it right. What the Obama Administration is doing here is, as Woodward said, “madness.”
But the question here has to be why? These people are not stupid, they know what they are saying is a load of hooey that defines common sense. So why do this?
Rush Limbaugh, I think, gets it right.
This is an exercise in demonstrating how America cannot live without Big Government. Take a good listen to all these supposed horror stories. Teachers pink-slipped, prison doors opened, no more help getting a job. One of my favorites, per The Washington Post is the horror that will be the cut in funding for the “STOP Violence Against Women Program.”
This gem flows, I believe, from the Clinton era, with President Clinton signing VAWA, as it was known, into law in 1994. In typical liberal style, with X number of cowed Republicans going along for the ride, the act set up an office in the bureaucracy (the Justice Department in this case), hired more bureaucrats, and got bucks – some $1.6 billion in the day.
Since that day, as is the pattern with these things, this has become the typical liberal sacred cow. To even whisper against this is to commit heresy.
Now let’s ask an obvious question here.
How many of you live in an area where local law enforcement things violence against women is just nifty keen? How many live in areas where rape is not a crime? Domestic abuse?
Taking a wild guess here, I suspect the answer is that nowhere in America are these problems not dealt with by local law enforcement.
The sole purpose of this act, in effect, is to inject the federal government into local law enforcement on behalf of a liberal interest group – liberal feminists etc. I once discussed this issue with a local ex-district attorney who believed that the feds made the violence against women problem worse, not better. Why? For the obvious reason: Who in Washington, DC has a better grip on a local problem than local law enforcement? And who tends to complicate and bureaucratize the problem, getting in the way of local law enforcement, to the real detriment of actually dealing up-close with women threatened or victimized by violence?
The answer is, again, obvious.
But stop the “STOP Violence Against Women Program”?
To actually vote to do this means you will quickly bring down a cascade of scorn as being “anti-woman” and all the rest.
This is the core of the game played by modern liberalism. To stand up and disagree, to call for budget cuts, to question anything about the need for program A, B or C means one will be assailed as – pick one – a bigot, a fool, a jerk, or somebody who just doesn’t get it.
Which brings us back to the real point of the Obama sequester game. The Post list of cuts for the “STOP Violence Against Women Program” shows, state by state, just how far the federal tentacles have burrowed into the state governments. Even small cuts ($12,000 in Wyoming for example) mean 100 Wyoming women will suddenly be deprived of “help” – help that only the feds can provide.
What happened before 1994? Women were protected and assisted by their local governments. The world rolled on.
Now the world must stop. In Wyoming the world will end because of a cut of $12,000. For 100 Wyoming women, they are now at risk.
Taking another wild guess today? I’m betting Wyoming is still there. I’m betting there are still police and district attorneys in Wyoming. And I bet they will still be helping women subjected to violence.
But you are never going to know that. Why?
Because the sequester is the end of the world. And 100 Wyoming women are no longer safe.
Did I mention this is your fault for electing Republicans?