Monday, April 11, 2011

Richard Mourdock On The Budget Deal

Some of our newly-minted GOP congressmen from Indiana who serve on the House Budget Committee have been gloating over this "historic budget deal" the Republican-led House reached with President Barack Obama and the Senate Democratic leadership late Friday night to avoid a government shutdown. State Treasurer Richard Mourdock, who is challenging Sen. Richard Lugar in next year's Senate primary, cuts right to the chase in describing what the deal really means and why he would vote against it in a Facebook post:

I've been asked "would you vote for the $38 billion in cuts?" A fair question. The unequivocal answer is "No." It is too little. Our annual deficit is $1.65 trillion. That equates to $4.5 billion each DAY. By cutting $38 billion the Congress and President will eliminate the deficit spending for 8 days but for the other 357 days nothing changes. To those who deem that progress, I can only say, "get real."
House Republicans didn't even get an agreement to end funding for NPR, even after that revealing interview where top executives with the publicly-funded propaganda radio broadcaster for the Left acknowledged NPR could live without federal funding and would probably be better off if it didn't receive any federal funding.


Bob said...

I didn't expect enough journalistic integrity that you would issue a retraction for what you had written about the NPR hack-job... but I sure didn't think you would be run out and intentionally step in that pile of dog crap again.

The tape was heavily edited. Things were taken out of context - including the part about the funding.

The truth is that NPR is one of the few excellent news sources still operating.

And while NPR may not suffer-- local stations would (A point that was edited out)

It's fine that we need to cut spending... but don't think that means that the Republicans are going to defund programs they don't like while giving tax breaks to their buddies.

If there isn't some shared sacrifice, Republicans will be tossed out.

Concerned Taxpayer said...

That's because the majority of "republicans" are now RINO. At least the ones who have entrenched themselves at the public trough.
The only goal for both r's & d's now is to keep themselves re-elected each term.
They don't give a WHIT about us or the condition of the country.

Advance Indiana said...

No, Bob, the NPR executive was quite clear. The vast majority of their funding does not come from the federal government so they wouldn't go out of business if the government stopped funding them. If editing was the problem, why was the executive axed?

Bob said...

Please Review the unedited tape. He said the impact on NPR would be negligible - but that some local stations, particularly rural stations, would not survive the cuts.
(which is true). I also agree with him that NPR is used as a political football.

The surreptitious recording and heavy editing is enough to discredit the source beyond any legitimate media standards.

Imagine if some of us used the same tactics with conservative groups. I wonder how many tax-exempt status we could get pulled on churches who endorse candidates.

Indy Student said...

It's worth pointing out that the bill that defunds NPR only makes it so the Corporation for Public Broadcasting can no longer give them grants. That money that NPR gets would simply go somewhere else. It doesn't actually cut a single dollar from the budget.

Paul K. Ogden said...

There simply is no reaon for NPR or PBS to be funded with tax dollars anymore.

Concerned Taxpayer said...

And if churches campaign heavily for certain named candidates, by name, and allow them to speak numerous times, they SHOULD lose their tax exempt status.
Churches can stand for philosophies, morals, etc. but NOT specific candidates.
Every black church in Indy would lose their status if this were upheld.