Michelle Malkin » What else is in Pelosi’s recession rescue toolbag?

What else is in Pelosi’s recession rescue toolbag?

By Michelle Malkin • January 26, 2009 10:59 AM

As you’ve all heard, Nancy Pelosi defended contraception funding in the Democrats’ stimulus bill over the weekend. Abortion cuts costs:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?

PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children’s health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those – one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?

PELOSI: No apologies. No. We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

Up next: Emergency funding for suicide manuals and euthanasia education.

We have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.

***

Greg Pollowitz includes a fuller portion of the transcript and points out more San Fran Nan Pelosi whoppers:

PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy. Food stamps, unemployment insurance, some of the initiatives you just mentioned. What the economists have told us from right to left: There is more bang for the buck, a term they use, by investing in food stamps and in unemployment insurance than in any tax cut.

Nonetheless, we are committed to the tax cuts because they do have a positive impact on the economy, even though not as big as the investments.

And here’s what Stephanopoulos asked next:

STEPHANOPOULOS: The crisis in America’s financial institutions is not abating, either. And administration officials have signaled that they might need billions more from the Congress to direct to the banks. Are you open to that?

So Stephanopoulos lets two whoppers from Pelosi fly right on by: One, there’s no follow-up question as to how having fewer children—fewer workers, fewer taxpayers—would be good for the U.S. economy in the long term. Two, Pelosi in the course of two sentences totally flips on her view on tax cuts. Stephanopoulos should have asked, “Nancy, if you and your mystery economists ‘from right to left’ really think there is more ‘bang for the buck’ with government spending than with tax cuts, then why have the tax cuts at all?”

***

Jan. 23: “How you can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on contraceptives – how does that stimulate the economy?”

Posted in: Nancy Pelosi, fiscal stimulus

Printer Friendly

comments (98)

trackbacks (13)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#602917

On January 26th, 2009 at 6:58 pm, AFBen said:

So, let me get this straight…They basically force us to suckle off the teat of the government through mandatory education and health care for every child. Then, they turn around and say it’s too expensive and that we should cease procreating? WHY NOT, INSTEAD, GET GOVERNMENT’S HAND OUT OF MY CHILI? WON’T THAT ALSO LOWER COSTS?

I’m not an extremely smart guy, but this just seems so obvious. The government is trying to force us all to become so dependent upon them. It’s disgusting.
#603054

On January 26th, 2009 at 9:33 pm, garydt said:

What a hypocrite Nancy is. She is worried about population control and still advocates opening up the borders down Mexico way? How does she figure the population control will benefit the economy if she favors opening up the borders and inherits millions of illegals. I keep asking demos how does this help the environment?
#603055

On January 26th, 2009 at 9:33 pm, garydt said:

What a hypocrite Nancy is. She is worried about population control and still advocates opening up the borders down Mexico way? How does she figure the population control will benefit the economy if she favors opening up the borders and inherits millions of illegals. I keep asking demos how does this help the environment?
#603184

On January 27th, 2009 at 1:03 am, chotii said:

I keep having a couple of thoughts that won’t go away:

The more educated people get, the fewer children they tend to have. Certain countries (Japan, Russia, France) are already well below their own replacement birth rate and NEED extensive immigration to make up the shortfall. Unfortunately, at least in France, these immigrants tend to be poor, less educated, generous breeders of children, and suckling at the government tit. They are not providing what the society needs, and the society is worse off. Japan does not seem to have a lot of immigration, and their population is heavily overbalanced with the elderly.

Encouraging education will go further toward achieving the desired goals than handing out free condoms or even free abortions: you get people capable of functioning in a greater number of roles than otherwise, and you still get fewer births.

Still, you have to have enough workers to support the elderly. They have to come from somewhere. Do we *really* want all our replacement people to come from immigration? If we do, we better do something to make legal immigration a whole lot easier….and maybe offer a bonus/fast-track to people with higher education.
#603325

On January 27th, 2009 at 9:32 am, AFBen said:

What’s even scarier is that while the developed world is having a replacement birth rate crisis right now is to look at countries that have birthrates well above the 2.1/woman birthrate required to simply keep population steady. Places like Yemen, Indonesia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, etc. have birthrates upwards of 5/woman. Scary if you ask me.
#603326

On January 27th, 2009 at 9:32 am, AFBen said:

What’s even scarier is that while the developed world is having a replacement birth rate crisis right now is to look at countries that have birthrates well above the 2.1/woman birthrate required to simply keep population steady. Places like Yemen, Indonesia, Somalia, Zimbabwe, etc. have birthrates upwards of 5/woman. Scary if you ask me.
#603421

On January 27th, 2009 at 10:20 am, cheapseat said:

agenda lunacy over serving the country. do you suppose sh e gets funding from the NOW gang? nah!