Courtesy of haystack over at RedState (Dave Poff, who lives in New Hampshire now by the way) we get word of the particulars on the passage of a funding bill in which was stuffed a union hand out disguised as a job creator along with federal money for Medicaid payments.
That probably means that John Lynch can rejoice in the passage of funding he needs to help fill in his massive dependency deficit. The governor can continue to punt the grow government first spending addiction that created the deficit in the first place. So how did they do it?
To pass the bill the democrats had to appease the RINO’s from Maine, Snowe and Collins. To do this they agreed to cut spending on other “democrat priorities” at least one of which is to cut funding for food stamp programs.
Really? One of their priorities is to cut food stamp funding?
Snowe and Collins flipped if we cut food stamp funds? Does that sound odd to you? It’s got that “executive order” to prevent federal funding of abortion feel to it. That means, as usual, Snowe and Collins were just looking for a reason to vote with the democrats and a promise to cut pay as they go and cut "somewhere else" was all they needed. Well that’s exactly what we wanted, but in a 4 trillion dollar budget with agency and department budget expansions three to four times pre-obama spending in just a year or two, the best they can come up with is ‘some democrat priorities" and cutting food stamp funding?
And it should not be lost on anyone that the party that objected to the deal that included cutting food stamp funding for what the liberals like to call "the neediest Americans" was not the democrat party. This unfortunately is of little use since we all know the democrats have no intention of cutting anything as long as they control congress so the real issue is that they are lying again–there will be no cuts.
Back here in the Granite State we are stuck with Lynch and the upcoming post-stimulus, post medicaid, post sugar daddy ATM machine budgets of the future in which the term "difficult spending cuts" will take on a whole new meaning. Which lend itself to another discussion.
Can we "Blame Lynch" for the next decades worth of successive budget woes (or any other problems) created (or not) by his spineless inability to veto democrat spending; or due to his addiction to money from the federal government to cover his incompetence? It sounds like a plan to me.
