After Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed ending welfare and closing down most state parks to cover California's budget deficit - which was caused in part by his own mismanagement - progressive voices have quite properly criticized his plans. They point out that almost all of his budget cuts would hit the poor.
But what's the Schwarzenegger administration's response to this criticism?
State finance director Mike Genest (pictured here) said the cuts hit the poor because "government doesn't provide services to rich people."
Seriously, he said that.
If that's true, then why have I spent the past 15 years exposing how rich neighborhoods get much better government services than poor areas?
My former school district recently closed the elementary school in a working-class neighborhood and forced students to be bused several miles out of town to a more affluent area. How is that not giving more services to the rich?
And what about this bank bailout garbage? The amount of California's budget deficit is less than 0.2% of the value of the recent Wall Street bailouts.
Oh, I get it now. Those aren't handouts to rich people. Those are handouts to rich corporations. Well, isn't that even worse?
If you think government doesn't provide as much services to the rich as to the poor, why does it seem like almost every new spending project goes to areas that are relatively well-off?
(Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/31/us/31calif.html)
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Dumb right-wing quote of the day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
They had to cut welfare because they are not allowed raising property taxes.
ReplyDeleteThey are not allowed raising property taxes because of some voter referendum that Reagan got passed.
They should first cut off services to the counties where the ref passed. If these rich counties don't want to pay taxes, they shouldn't get services that are paid for by everyone else.