Ron Amundson’s Political Blog

Liberals are not opposed to cutting taxes, and thus cutting government programs per se… but more so, which programs get cut. I think you would see liberals jumping up and down for tax cuts, if said tax cuts reduced the amount of money wasted on prisons, defense contractors, national security, F100 subsidies for their irresponsibility, educational overhead apart from the class room etc.

Its not that liberals don’t see a need for the above at all, but that the priorities are different. Ie, there is no question prisons are needed for murderers and rapists, but so much of the prison population is for over than violent crime. Case in point, most liberals feel it is more important to provide cancer drugs for grandpa and grandma on medicaid rather than $80K/year to keep a non-violent criminal in jail. Most liberals feel it is more important to provide for our veterans and current soldiers, than it is to reward incompetance in the defense contractor world. Most liberals want to see decent textbooks and facilities, rather than 70% skimmed off the education budget for overhead and other fish smelling deals like QComp.

Now, some conservatives should say, grandma and grandpa should have set aside $1-$3 million to cover the costs of their health care, or that their families or churches should do so, and not the government. I concede that such does make a valid point… but then what about the person who doesn’t make 6 figures a year? What about the young family who can’t put aside at least $20K/year to save for their care in later life and another $20K to pay for their elders? What about the average 65 member church who can’t spend millions over a period of years to care for the least of these? Should we as society value the lives of the less economically or geographically fortunate as having less value?

Should we as society view those whose employers no longer cover pregnancy and delivery as being worth less than others? Should we as society hold mothers who had a c-section at one time as forever un-insurable, and toss them and their baby out the door (beyond EMTALA) once their hospital bill goes beyond what their parents were able to save up for, or get a loan for prior to delivery?

The above are the concerns of many liberals. Is government always the answer, of course not… but it should provide a safety net. The tricky balance is to provide a safety net, and at the same time not create a disincentive system, nor a circular counterproductive one.