Rush Limbaugh explains how the MSM uses the poor as pawns by wrongly calling the reduction in unused spending as spending cuts that attack the poor:
On the other side of this, let me share with you a story that infuriates me. It's in the New York Times, so until I can confirm this is true we'll have to just go on the assumption that it's true, because it's in the New York Times. Here's the headline: "Senate Panel Drops Plan to Cut Back Food Program."
We talked about this last week. They wanted to cut some $500 million from the food stamp program from other programs, because the money wasn't being used anyway. They're advertising for the food stamp program. It wasn't a cut anyway. It's just a cut in how much more money was going to be spent. Well, here's the story -- and again, they say this is from the New York Times. "Fearing a backlash over spending reductions that could be portrayed as singling out the poor, a Senate panel on Tuesday dropped plans to cut the food stamp program by more than $500 million, as Congress embarked on a contentious round of budget cuts. Keith Williams, a spokesman for the Agriculture Committee, said the action came at the request of several committee members who had reservations about an effort that could have cut off food stamps to an estimated 300,000 people," who aren't using them, anyway. So we can't even cut 500 million; do you know that is not even a measurable percentage of the $2.6 trillion we're spending? We can't even cut 500 million that's not even being used? Our story last week pointed out how $2 billion wasn't being used, and they were trying to sign more people up for the food stamp program. We weren't even trying to eliminate the total amount of money not being used, just 25% of it -- and, lo and behold, here comes some critics, "You are being cold-hearted to the poor." So I read the story like this, and I say, if it's true, where's the backbone? Why can't these people on the Senate, the Republicans, stand up and say, "No. This has nothing to do with the poor. It has to do with saving money. We keep hearing you every day talking the size of the deficit and how much waste there is and how much spending is going on. We're trying to trim some back. We're trying to pay for Hurricane Katrina. We're trying to pay for Hurricane Rita. We may have Hurricane Wilma to pay for. We're trying to cut a little bit, and when we cut, well, we can't cut here because we affect the poor; we can't cut there because we're going to affect women; can't cut there because it's going to affect animals; can't cut there because it's going to affect the environment."
If I had my way, these guys would stand up and tell these unknown critics where to go! It's $500 million. It's not $500 million less than what was spent. It's $500 million lopped off of an already sizable increase. This is the same Senate that voted to increase spending on college. We can't cut! But, boy, we can spend more! See, folks, this is the dirty, rotten shame about all this. It is spending that buys votes, it's spending that secures power, it's spending that does all of this. I mean, not everything happening out there makes me feel like it's hunky-dory and a bowl of cherries. But the idea that some people are not advancing the agenda because they're being distracted by what the media is doing with this Valerie Plame investigation? Let me tell you something, folks: If you don't think it's important that the left who can't win at the ballot box are trying to criminalize the things that we believe, then you have got your priorities wrong and we're trying to straighten them out for you.
