Running Scared!

Oh the Horror!

It would appear that the NRA’s continual press on Claire McCaskill, the only woman who could really give old Sacajafullofit a decent run for her money in 2020, has been enough to cause her to dip to the bottom of the rhetorical barrel in her quest to bleed her union workers and welfare recipients for donations:

…it turns out President Trump’s idea of “taking care of people” is slashing funds for Meals on Wheels and, at the same time, handing $300 billion in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.

The Republican budget priorities are backwards and would be devastating for Missourians and for working Americans across the country. I refuse to let the GOP get away with this, and they’ve taken notice: Right-wing groups have already launched FOUR attack ads to defeat me in 2018.

Yeah, and we’ll be taking out lots more Claire, as 2018 approaches.  You’re in the gun sights (figuratively speaking only).

So, here’s the next question:   where is it written in the Constitution that Meals on Wheels is a fundamental right? If you don’t have your Kazir Khan handy-dandy pocket Constitution on you (perhaps his has the text in Pashtun), let me help you out: it isn’t in there. The fact is that liberals always take the most extreme example or program, and then claim that Republicans are giving the wealthy tax breaks with the implication being that the GOP is starving seniors to pay billionaires.

Here is my thought. Meals on Wheels (MOW) is a wonderful program. It operates in hundreds of different cities and counties, but not everywhere. It feeds seniors and shut-ins, and it does good work. No complaints. It is a program that should continue.  But it doesn’t have to be funded by the taxpayer.

Does MOW have an unending right to continual federal funding? The grants to get the programs started are now routinely renewed without any thought to whether the program is operating efficiently. These programs are staffed by volunteers, except at the administrative level. Isn’t it time the administrators earned their money and found new sources of funding. I’m thinking faith-based groups, charities, and the like might want to chip in. Why is it we always create programs in the federal government and never assess whether there might be some other way to pay for them. Volunteers already get mileage tax breaks. People who get fed ought to, if they can, pay a fee for the food (they would if they went out). And administrators ought to take pay cuts when their leadership fails to develop additional sources of funding.

Instead of telling the whole story, McCaskill paints the GOP as heartless bastards taking the food out of folks’ mouths. Shame on them!  This is especially true where the purpose of the tax breaks is to bring companies back to our shores, put our people back to work, and stop the destruction of the American economy.  If putting millions back to work is not more important than a federal program with limited national exposure that could be funded by the state or private groups, then what is?

McCaskill is running scared.  That’s good news.

But here’s the even better news. If McCaskill loses in 2018, that reduces the number of filibuster votes on the Donkey side. It increases the likelihood that Conceal and Carry Reciprocity will pass and go into law. It makes it much more likely that any other SCOTUS nominations will be filled by great judges as opposed to those ideologically committed to abortion and constraint of gun rights.

Think about that for a minute. The same bunch that wants to “stop gun violence” is all in favor of murdering infants in the womb with chemicals or medical instrument. Whether a beating heart is stopped by a bullet or a drug, the person is still just as dead. So why is life so important when we’re talking about guns, but not so much when we’re talking about babies?

Oh well, you’ll go nuts expecting the left to be rational on any subject, but particularly on these two.