Why can’t politicians ever say any of this crap? FFS*.
For instance, someone could easily work in a non-scandalous phrasing of the following points:
[M]aybe it would be easier to reinstate this critical $44 billion and cut the other $3.8 trillion, which is apparently responsible for nothing other than Harry Reid’s beloved federally funded cowboy-poetry festival and the cost of the dress uniforms for the military detachment accompanying the first lady at her Oscars appearance.
Congresswoman Maxine Waters, ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, warned of “over 170 million jobs that could be lost” thanks to the sequester. There are only 135 million jobs in America, but the sequester gods are so powerful they can eliminate every job in Canada, Britain, and Germany too.
Even the IRS can’t keep up: “Tax season” is upon us, and yet they’re not accepting tax returns from millions of Americans because the IRS hasn’t yet managed to process the tax changes passed in the dead of night at New Year.
Or dare I say:
Can you pierce the mists of time and go back all the way to the year 2007? Back then, federal spending was 40 percent lower than it is today. In a mere half-decade, has all that 40 percent gravy become so indispensable to the general welfare that not even a teensy-weensy sliver of it can be cut?
* A couple weeks ago, the WSJ had a Weekend column devoted to the coming baby bust, which said off a flurry of articles about it, and Peter kept coming home both after the original WSJ one and its responses reciting all the gloomy statistics and worrying trends that were being reported. Like besides the tax-payer-supporting-the-welfare-state issue, the fact that who’s going to want the house you’ve sunk your life savings into, who’s going to want your stocks, your bonds, your securities, your beanie baby collection, etc. And I kept telling him “Mark Steyn’s been writing about this for YEARS.” And seriously. Steyn has a very specific (and hilarious!) style of writing, which makes him so wildly popular, and frequently sued, so fine, stick to the facts, but there’s no reason why a politician running for office somewhere could have explained his stance on various issues with a more sensitively phrased version of what Steyn’s been on about for the past decade or more, so when it hits the WSJ the entire Twittersphere isn’t hearing of it for the first time.