More information from other posts sheds more light on this, but there is a BIG difference between a governor trying to get taxpayer money BACK into his state and an individual receiving federal subsidies. One cannot rail against big government and intentionally benefit from it at the same time.
I hope the whole farm subsidies thing can be disproven and disproven IN THE PRESS. Something tells me that, even if it’s disproven, the LA times will retract on A23, below the fold.
The editors of the LA Times clearly thought they had caught Michele Bachmann in some sort of hypocrisy, given her support for a smaller, less expensive federal government. Today's paper features a big story running on the front page that breathlessly reports that Rep. Bachmann and her husband have -- gasp! -- benefited from "federal aid."
That's because the counseling clinic run by Mr. Bachmann has received money over the past six years "that in part came from the federal government," because a farm in which Rep. Bachmann is a partner receives farm subsidies, and because she has sought to "keep federal money flowing to her constituents."
The entire premise of the story shows legacy media's limited understanding and selective outrage. Why shouldn't the Bachmanns -- and constituents -- benefit legally from the federal money that's available, even if she thinks it shouldn't be available?
Alternatively, why isn't the Times equally outraged that Democrats who favor tax increases -- the Kerrys, Feinsteins and other rich politicians -- nonetheless take advantage of every tax break and tax cut on the books? If Rep. Bachmann shouldn't be taking federal funds because she opposes them, shouldn't they be paying higher taxes, since they support them?
Worse yet, why is the legacy media so intent on exposing Rep. Bachmann's supposed inconsistencies, while remaining respectfully silent about the Democrat politicians -- like President Obama -- who oppose school choice for poor children but send their own children to ritzy public schools? The analogy to that bit of hypocrisy is if Rep. Bachmann wanted to keep federal subsidies for herself but deny them to the poorest, least advantaged Americans who need them the most. After all, that's what the Dem opposition to school choice really is -- a denial to poor kids of the opportunity for a decent education that they happily provide to their own children.
I guess when Democrats engage in hypocrisy and ideological inconsistency, it just isn't newsworthy -- at least to the legacy media like the LA Times.
Shameful. But when you're that blinded by bias, it's impossible to see clearly.
Dig deep enough and one can find a connection between anyone and anything...the genealogists did this when they found a familial connection between Hussein and Dick Cheney. The perversion comes in when we go along with the finger pointing.
“More information from other posts sheds more light on this, but there is a BIG difference between a governor trying to get taxpayer money BACK into his state and an individual receiving federal subsidies. One cannot rail against big government and intentionally benefit from it at the same time.”
—I’m sure there are a fair number of Conservatives out there who desire- as part of the efforts to help our country survive- that all government subsidies be taken away, and yet they currently claim the mortgage interest deduction on their tax returns. Is this hypocrisy? I’d say it’s more about the actions of rational persons acting in the context of a flawed system.
The greater point is not where we’ve been, but where we’re going...
...There is a point where looking at the previous actions of an individual in terms of assessing future behavior becomes absurd: It would be like the American Revolutionaries saying, “I don’t want that George Washington guy to lead the Continental Army against the Brits... because he used to be in the British Army.”...