"more reliance on government means bigger budget deficits" -
Robert Samuelson in The Colorado Springs Gazette, today, p. A13.
Of course, it's always interesting to me - reading Samuelson's opinion - how selective conservos are about how they define "more reliance on government". Ginormous military spending more than the next 25 nations? OKAY! No problemo! Enormous tax cuts mainly weighted to the wealthiest? That's fine too! We don't count it as reliance on government never mind it basically ensures vast taxes on future generations.
This leads into the response of Colorado Springs assorted leading lights to the claim they have now gone against their essential memetic conviction of "No reliance on government" - when they went cap in hand to beg for federal assistance in putting out the Waldo Canyon fire. In fact, they were incensed the feds didn't act fast enough! The Colorado Springs Gazette in its op-ed today bleated:
"As the Waldo Canyon fire devastated lives and property west of Colorado Springs, threatening lives and property, the world's finest aerial fire-fighting equipment sat idle in a military base for two days."
1) The powers-that -be, including Springs über-Mayor Steven Bach, never requested any assistance through those two days,
2) The law ('Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 2007') clearly stipulates that: "The intent of the Stafford Act is that Federal assistance be supplemental to local, state, and private relief organizations. Nevertheless, it is not neessary for the community to exhaust its resources before it requests Federal assistance."
SO perhaps, the City Council, the County Commission and Mayor Bach didn't read the law properly. Definitely Rep. Dougie Lamborn (who concocted the 'tarbaby' remark to criticize President Obama's policies) didn't read it. Since Lame-born actually said (ibid.):
"What Congress has decided previously is that in a case like this the private sector has to deplete its resources before federal assets can be brought to bear."
Errrr.....no, Dougie! Read it again! (Good advice because Lamborn has vouchsafed to return to the bill and "look at potential revisions".) My question: How can this character even pretend to be a member of the House when he can't even reference laws properly, and can't keep up with the critical provisions for when a community can request assistance in case of emergencies? But this is the guy that employed the 'tarbaby' epithet before being remotely aware of its racist overtones.
Then we come to Mayor Steve Bach who insisted:
"Federal assistance should be quicker as saving lives and property is a legtimate function of government."
Really, Steve-erino? And what about assistance in respect to medical care, access to affordable health care, to save lives not just in the immediate present but over the long term? Does that not count? Is that not a "legitimate function" of government? Or.....have you not yet read the Preamble to the Constitution where it explicitly states that a prime role of government is "to promote the GENERAL welfare". Get that? The general welfare, which by any logical definition must include affordable health and dental care since without them there can be no other welfare worth discussing.
The bottom line is that all the Springs' conservos whining to the contrary, the Feds did arrive within the scope of the 2007 law, and that was after all the assorted powers-that-be made their needs known.
Maybe the Feds might be quicker to arrive in the near future if you bozos could:
a) Read the damned law properly, and
b) Were more inclined to use other (non-emergency) federal assistance when offered, as opposed to emulating an anti-general welfare douchebag like Robert Samuelson.