Crush Liberalism

Liberalism: Why think when you can “feel”?

"ANOTHER COLUMNIST WAS PAID TO PROMOTE BUSH PROPOSAL"

This is the headline on Drudge’s web site. The story is as follows:

In 2002, syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher repeatedly defended President Bush’s push for a $300 million initiative encouraging marriage as a way of strengthening families.

But Gallagher failed to mention that she had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to help promote the president’s proposal, reveals Howard Kurtz in Wednesday runs of the WASHINGTON POST.

“The Bush marriage initiative would emphasize the importance of marriage to poor couples” and “educate teens on the value of delaying childbearing until marriage,” she wrote in National Review Online, for example, adding that this could “carry big payoffs down the road for taxpayers and children.”

Gallagher explains to Kurtz: “Did I violate journalistic ethics by not disclosing it? I don’t know. You tell me.” She said she would have “been happy to tell anyone who called me” about the contract but that “frankly, it never occurred to me” to disclose it.

National Review Editor Rich Lowry said of the HHS contract: “We would have preferred that she told us, and we would have disclosed it in her bio.”

Sorry, but while I do support President Bush and did vote for him twice, there are a few things about him that bother me. One of them is that for a “conservative”, he sure does spend like a drunken sailor…and I’m not counting the defense budget, since only a liberal would argue for the need to cut defense spending during a time of war.

First, there was Armstrong Williams getting paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars to promote Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program. Now we find out that Maggie Gallagher was paid to promote another Bush idea! Is this the best use of public dollars? The President has persuaded me (and millions of others) on the merits of his ideas…why in God’s name did his administration feel the need to pay people to persuade others?

Sorry, folks, but while I do like the man, I have to call things like I see them…and these two payoffs were horrible moves on this administration’s part!

I don’t condone paying private citizens with public money to lobby other private citizens on behalf of pet legislation…from the left or the right…period. While it may not be illegal, it sure is wrongheaded and wasteful, especially since we’re running a defecit.

Advertisement

January 26, 2005 - Posted by | Uncategorized

2 Comments »

  1. Did you know that when George Bush came to power USA had a 5 trillion dollar surplus, but now its heading towards a 5 trillion dollar defecit?

    Comment by Tom | January 26, 2005

  2. Hi, Tom. Thanks for coming to my blog! All comments are welcome here, provided that they can retain some modicum of civility. Your comments are certainly welcome.

    I never put much faith in ten-year projections, which is what the “projected surplus” and “projected deficit” are based on. The surpluses that were projected during the 1990′s were not even real surpluses. They were accounting gimmicks. I’ll spare the long, drawn-out details, but give the short answer as to what I mean.

    Congress estimated $X billion to be collected in Social Security receipts. Instead, more than $X billion were actually collected. The extra money was not returned to taxpayers, nor was it used to make Social Security stronger. Instead, it was spent by Congress on new programs, projects, etc. This extra money was the “surplus”, which was nothing more than removing money from the Social Security “trust fund” to cover the shortfall of Congress’ spending binge.

    When the economy went south, Congress kept spending the same (and, in fact, more) money…money that was no longer there. Thus, the “surplus” became a “deficit.” If you want to attribute the deficit to Bush, you would be partially correct…the man has never vetoed a single spending measure. But Congress is the one who has the purse, and history has shown that whoever holds the power in Congress spends like crazy, regardless of which party.

    I agree with your overall point about Bush not reigning in spending…it’s horribly out-of-control. However, it is nowhere near his exclusive fault. Clinton raised taxes in 1993, which slowed personal (and some business) savings in this country. Believe me…plenty of blame to go around.

    Comment by Jonathan | January 26, 2005


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers