Agreements Are For The Unenlightened.

Suppose you had ten kids. Suppose you had just barely enough food to feed them. Suppose you decided to feed the three strongest kids more than they needed to live. Then suppose you fed four of them enough food to live comfortably. Then you wouldn't have enough food left for the three weakest kids. What would you do for those three kids? What would you do with those three kids? Well, that's where we are with our federal budget. Last year congress came to an agreement that if they didn't come up with acceptable decreases for the budget, then major cuts would have to be made to defense and social entitlements. Neither party liked that option. That's why they all thought they would work something out. Just how naive did you think they were? Well they were even more naive than that. So now the fat is in the fire. Now the Republicans have suggested that the military not be cut. In fact they suggest an extra eight billion for defense. To make up for that, they suggest all that funding come out of social funding. Things like food stamps should be cut way, way back. Oh and some should come from a fund to help disabled older folks be able to live at home instead of being made to go into an institution. Guess who's against that idea? Well besides the folks on food stamps and disabled elderly, the Democrats are against that idea. Maybe the Democrats should suggest that funding for their favored programs be increased and the lost funding come from the defense budget. Who do you suppose would be against that idea? Well besides the military, the Republicans would be against that idea. Does that help you understand why Washington can't get anything done? Defense is very important. But then so are the poor and elderly. And there was that agreement. But then, in Washington, agreements are just wallpaper. Ask any Indian tribe.