Jack is rightly cautious about Ryans recent posturing as champion of the poor. As far as Im concerned this man showed his true colors when he launched a series of attacks on the working class and the vulnerable as House budget chairman. Moreover, his opportunity grants are a transparent ploy to privatize social welfare; surely there are private firms lining up to get a piece of the guaranteed revenues (this will be similar to the private companies that are given tax payer funds to administer the student loan program and similar government functions). Guess who the neutral third parties will be, too. Finally, does anyone really feel good about the prospect of turning over care of the poor to the likes of Scott Walker and Rick Perry? Thats what turning it over to the states means. Subsidiarity does not mean good. In my state, Arizona, theres a lot of grousing among conservatives about the fact that the Fed own about 70 percent of the land (such as huge national parks). Subsidiarity sounds nice, but what it too often means is making more of our public resources available to rich local people. They would love to get their hands on our public lands and plaster ugly, soulless developments all over them or otherwise destroy them. Similarly, private interests are chomping at the bit to get a hold of the massive revenue streams involved with social welfare and start funneling them into their bank accounts.
Posted on: Sun, 03 Aug 2014 00:11:57 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015