Apparently our Governor appeared on the news-like programming of Fox News and said that passing on that debt to future generations is “practicing child abuse in a literal sense.”
First, a note to the headline writer, Gov. Daniels didn’t *compare* debt to child abuse, he said it *is* child abuse. If there was any doubt that perhaps he was just using a metaphor for comparison, use of the word “literal” erases that doubt. Unless the Governor doesn’t know the meaning of the word literal. (For a probably not-safe-for-work take on improper use of the word literally, see David Cross.)
Second, given Gov. Daniels’ challenges with his Family and Social Services Agency which is in charge of real, kids are starving and/or being beaten and/or being neglected type child abuse, he probably does not want to go throwing around the term lightly.
I truly think that if there was a shiny nickel that Daniels spotted on the pavement of I-465 while motoring somewhere, he would have his State Police bodyguard stop the vehicle that they were in, order the trooper to go out and fetch it, amidst all the other traffic. If the trooper was able to obtain it, he then would claim it as his own and go into his speech that the Democrats almost had the state in bankruptcy for 16 years until he took office on 1/11/05.
Is anyone naive enough to believe that he will decline the benefits of Medicare when he retires?
Doug: I agree with him. It is an abuse of our children. Our children will not have the opportunity we have (and those of Generation Y will not have the opportunities of the Baby Boomers) because eventually, money will have to be taken out of the economy to pay the debts of previous generations. I would argue that the present situation of year after year peace-time deficits (under R’s and D’s) is a violation of the equal protection clause.
I fully respect the argument that running a debt is bad policy, the costs of which rest more heavily on our children. But it’s not “literally child abuse.” There are a lot of cases of real, honest to goodness, kids getting beaten, neglected, malnourished, and the rest of it. The Daniels administration has not been active enough or successful enough in addressing that real child abuse to where it can credibly point to debt reduction as another front in its vigorous efforts against child abuse.
Doug: I was giving Daniels (a “trained” attorney) the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to state “abuse of our children” while giving the connotation closer to the more commonly used sense of the word. However, I can understand your disagreement. (enjoyed the David Cross link btw)
Regarding your 2nd point, obviously, we need more to be done regarding child abuse, and I do not claim to know Mitch’s treatment of the FSSA compared to other areas of the state budget. However, it seems unfair to require Daniels to do more to resolve one form of inter-generational abuse (the beating of children) before he can even speak regarding another form of inter-generational abuse. This is especially true when an increase in govt. spending (which is what would be required) would be ill-timed at best, and possibly cause Indiana to become less competitive to attract businesses (or lose its current surplus).
He can choose his priorities, but I think the “child abuse” rhetoric is awfully misguided.
I see why people are upset by this, but he is correct in the literal sense. I also consider a policeman who decides to let a speeding ticket slide because he knows the person to be a case of “corruption”.
While the term may often describe the most horrible instances, that doesn’t automatically make it an incorrect term to describe the smaller cases.
I think maybe you’re being too generous. He is exploiting the emotional charge associated with actual child abuse to advance his policy argument. If the real kinds of child abuse didn’t infuse the words “child abuse” with emotional weight, he wouldn’t have bothered using the term.
Flummery.
First, what was the source of the National Debt that Ronald Reagan ran against for sixteen years before he was elected (and nearly quadrupled it)? Answer: WWII, whose debt its generations (now haply left out of the equation) merely passed on to their children. Second, what’s the source of the vast increase in public debt since? Answer: incontinent military spending, which insists we finance a military more expensive than the fifty next countries combined. Somehow that never quite makes it into the equation, either. Somehow a trillion-dollar war with no justification and who knows what future costs just slipped Mitch’s notice; correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall Dick Lugar voting Nay on a defense appropriation bill while he was benefitting from Mitch’s peacetime counsel. But that’s always exempted, somehow, as though a fifteen carrier navy and 250 Stealth bombers with no discernible mission are something we owe the future while health care, education, and the most minimal social safety net in the developed world are not.
As the star reported–I am not running for another office. I am not running for president. I am not interested in running for president. Cherri says he is not running based on what he told her.
A form of child abuse–this from a man who has focused cutting programs and funding to the poor and children of this state–education, DCS, the childrens home, etc.
As president, he would have to consider the impact on all states, not just the states that are doing so well as Indiana. Of c ourse, we are not doing so well-except for his business pals.
And last, mitch is the one who put the tax cut expiration dates into the 2001 budget. He balanced that budget and financed his cuts by looking to the future revenue brought in after the tax cuts expired. A sham way of doing it, but no journalist understands it and so will not ask him about his tax cut expirations causing so many problems now. If Obama leaves them in place, mitch will blame the deficit on him–but mitch caused them both. Do some research. Report.
Mitch is slime and has plotted for this run since leaving the bush people back in 2002. That is why he visited Iraq.
Did you see where he ran out of gas on his motorcycle the other day? He cannot even make sure he has enough fuel to get to where he is going. I bet some state trooper is in the doghouse now. Too bad.
Mitch ran out of gas on the motorcycle? LOL ROFL
So he doesn’t look at the gas gauge? What a putz.
FOX NEWS newslike? Clueless liberals as usual. Hows CNN and MSNBC doin? FOX NEWs straight news is the best in the business. I have no use for Daniels. Worst vote I ever cast was for the left wing idelogue Obama. We are gearing up to elect Dr.Larry Bucshon for 8th district congress over Van Haaften. Messmer will beat Steiner for 63rd rep so we can hopefully help oust Bauer from his speaker ship. The one politician from Indiana we have always supported and loved was Brad Ellsworth we will do all we can to elect Coats since Mr.Ellsworth first dodged his constituents last August during the congressional recess and has marched in lock step with this radical president,speaker,and senate majority leader on major policies his district and for that matter state did not want. Latest polling 50% Coats,29% Ellsworth though I believe Coats is a weak candidate and final margin will be closer than that.
Mr.Obama won 15 of Indiana’s 92 counties,he will lose the state in 2012 though with massive losses in the upcoming elections he will be forced to moderate his postions on issues. The end f this ultra liberal experiment is near in November as a check will be put on Mr.Obama’s power. One thing is for sure Mr.Obama does not govern by polls. He goes against public opinion on almost every issue whether suing Arizona,healthcare,mosque near ground zero very consistent.
How are MSNBC & CNN doing? Poorly, but better than Fox News. CNN is bland an inoffensive to the point of uselessness. MSNBC, among other things, is the “liberal” network that gives Joe Scarborough like 15 hours per week. Love to see Fox News turn 3 hours of its morning program each day over to Dennis Kucinich or someone. And I’m pretty sure any cable news show you care to mention gets pounded by, say, pro-wrestling in any case.
But, generally, television “news” is terrible. Their profit motive is to simply keep your attention through the next commercial. Informing citizens doesn’t serve that purpose too well. Emotional appeals are easier.
Doug, tell me with a straight face that 6p to 10p on MSNBC (Ed, Olbermann, Maddow) is any less “newslike” than Fox during the same time slot. Both are giving their extreme viewers what they want to hear. The difference is, I think MSNBC is less extreme outside that time slot.
I DO love Morning Joe, though. Not because I believe everything Joe Scarborough says, but because they actually have intelligent discussion on that show. Mika Brzezinski balances out Joe’s views, and neither one of them are so liberal of conservative that they don’t call out their own party when they’re doing stupid things. The guests they bring to that show come from all sides, and again, they actually have discussion rather than a shouting match like you see on all the cable news networks at night.
Compare that to Fox, where their morning show is just as much a Tea Party love-fest as the rest of the shows are.
I’ve said hands-on research (Internet, books, etc) is the balanced meal of news. Newspapers are the hamburger, and TV news is the deep-fried Twinkie.
Jason, I think you’re being unfair to deep-fried Twinkies. (Though, I do think Maddow has a gift for deconstructing a topic and for taking a partisan stand without being a jerk about it.)
And, for me, Morning Joe depends on whether “good Joe” or “bad Joe” shows up. Good Joe is intelligent, genial, and thoughtful. Bad Joe is willfully obtuse and belligerent.
All three points taken.
Debt .. akin to Child Abuse?
Didn’t he virtually sell off our “Children’s Asset”, the Toll Road, which would have been a long term source of income for our children, so he could raise cash in order to look good??
Does that then make him a “Child Abuser”?