Did Nancy Pelosi REALLY Think We Were That Stupid?
By now, you’ve heard of the infamous attempt by Nancy Pelosi to defend the blatantly irrelevant ‘family planning’ agenda item inserted into the quite pork-laden stimulus bill:
Controversy over the contraception provision was sparked over the weekend when George Stephanopoulos asked House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about it on ABC’s “This Week.”
“Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?” asked Stephanopoulos.
“Well, the family planning services reduce cost,” said Pelosi. “They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those — one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.”
“So no apologies for that?” asked Stephanopoulos.
“No apologies,” said Pelosi. “No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy…”
If there were any justice in the world, Nancy Pelosi would be expelled from politics (and decent society) for life for trying to pass off such a blatant load of hogwash. As the Heritage asked today, what’s the multiplier on a pack of condoms?
Barack Obama, however, has once again proven himself to be far more astute than the Democratic congressional leadership, and while he payed lip service to the idea behind the provision, he said it was out of place in the stimulus bill (no kidding!) and called Henry Waxman to pressure him to remove it (successfully).
So, even if this was all a bit of ‘good cop, bad cop’, I once again find myself pleasantly surprised by the new POTUS. Now, if he would only realize that increasing emission standards is a very stupid thing to do when the auto industry is going bankrupt…
A) What is the multiplier on a pack of condoms? Sex is pretty recession-proof. Heck, if you don’t have a job, what are you going to do all day?
B) We wouldn’t have to increase emissions standards while the auto industry is going bankrupt if we had just taken the opportunity to increase them when the economy was fine. Eventually we have to do it, and there’s no particular reason why we should put it off more. We finally have a government run by people who aren’t feckless, slobbering morons; we may not get this chance again for a while.
“Eventually we have to do it,”
Why eventually?
What, no jokes about condoms controlling emissions?
“What, no jokes about condoms controlling emissions?”
I’m still speechless because Ryan described a government run by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, Harry Waxman, etc as being run “by people who aren’t feckless, slobbering morons.”
We need more people spending more money on more goods and services, how does preventing pregnancies make that happen?
WSJ had a column up yesterday comparing Pelosi to Malthus. In short, standard of living typically goes up with population, not inversely as Malthus suggested. Declining birth rates are
part ofthe reason social security is going bankrupt. The fact that the US has a higher birth rate than Europe and Japan is the reason we aren’t experiencing the demographic time bomb to the same magnitude that they are.Are any of the above known to drool, DB? I think just “feckless morons” would be an accurate description.
Hmm. Let’s see.
According to the UN, the countries with the top 5 birthrates in the world are
1. Democratic Republic of the Congo
2. Guinea-Bissau
3. Liberia
4. Niger
5. Afghanistan
The countries with the lowest 5 birthrates in the world are
191. Japan
192. Germany
193. Singapore
194. Hong Kong
195. Macau
The US is #139.
Yup, sounds like the WSJ Op Ed page has outdone themselves, yet again.
Jacques – Speaking of feckless morons…
DBrooks and Aaron – Say what you will about Nancy et al (and I am no fan of Harry Reid by any measure), but they aren’t Republicans. That’s enough for me.
No, Ryan.
Morons would, occasionally, blurt out something true.
I have not observed that behaviour among the writers of the WJS Op ed and Editorial pages. I, therefore, conclude that they are not morons.
On the other hand, those who believe anything they read on the WJS Op ed and Editorial pages …
Hey, say what you like, but I LOVE the WSJ op-ed pages, and always have. There is actually a wider spectrum of opinion there than you give credit for – on the opinion pages, if not the editorial.
If that makes me a moron, well, I enjoy what I enjoy…reading op-eds in the NY Times is like listening to Air America – it’s very partisan, true, and maybe the WSJ is guilty of the same crime – but worse, it’s no fun to read. The WSJ is almost ALWAYS an interesting read, even if you disagree with the writer…