The Fiscal Interests of the Unborn.

Jonathan Ernst | Reuters
U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mick Mulvaney (R) listens as U.S. President Donald Trump meets with members of the Republican Study Committee at the White House in Washington, U.S. March 17, 2017.

In a stunning display of republican “compassion”, Mick Mulvaney defended the $3.6 trillion cuts to domestic programs in the tragic Trudget. Rather than address all those who desperately need assistance to simply put food on their table; people who already face a tangle of red tape to get the slimmest of benefits, Mulvaney waxed dispassionate about the fiscal rights of the non-existent. It’s great, just fabulous, to take food away from living children, because of Mulvaney’s grandchildren, who are at this point, non-existent. But hey, the potentiality of grandchildren, well, that’s important! Much more important than poor children, who barely have enough food to keep them alive.

It should not need to be pointed out that food which allows for subsistence is a terrible thing when it comes to children. Children who are not eating enough have an awful time trying to concentrate, they do poorly in school, and aren’t very active physically, because that takes energy, and when you don’t have enough fuel, well, you get the picture. The domestic programs in place can barely manage to get enough food to families, it’s not as if it’s a massive bounty. There is a massive, horrible problem in America when it comes to hungry children. That problem keeps getting buried, stuffed in the back of closet, and given the Trudget, it seems as though republicans think it’s okay if they just get on with starving, as those hungry children are not important at all when weighed against the non-existent.

During a hearing about the $3.6 trillion in cuts to domestic programs included in President Trump’s proposed budget, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney made a case that the fiscal interests of the unborn should take precedence over the lives of present-day Americans — or at least those who rely on food stamps to eat or public schools to educate their children.

During a hearing on Wednesday, Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) grilled Mulvaney about the budget’s 25 percent cut to food assistance for the poorest Americans.

“Mr. Mulvaney, at least 20 percent of people eligible for SNAP don’t even receive SNAP because of stigma and other reasons,” she said. “So there are more people who need SNAP benefits… And you have a 13 percent cut in the Department of Education. The most vulnerable kids who need — ”

Mulvaney cut her off and made an impassioned case that people like Lee aren’t sufficiently concerned about his “unborn grandchildren.” He said:

What about the standard of living for my grandchildren who aren’t here yet? Who will end up inheriting $30 trillion in debt? Fifty trillion dollars in debt? A hundred trillion dollars? What about their standard — who’s going to pay the bill, Congressman? That’s what this is all about. That’s what this new perspective is. Who is going to pay for all the stuff you just mentioned? Us? Or somebody else? And I suggest to you if it’s important enough to pay, to have, then we need to be paying for it. Because right now, my unborn grandchildren are paying for it, and I think that is morally bankrupt.

And there you have it, the rethuglican rationale in all its ugliness – the non-existent are paying, and that’s bad, really super-evil! I had no idea the non-existent had pockets to pick.

Think Progress has the full story.


  1. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I heard the proposed budget described as a Koch brothers wet dream last night. Sounds about right.

  2. Knabb says

    This whole argument that if social programs are important enough to have they’re important enough to pay for would be a little more convincing if it wasn’t being made by someone actively stripping the government of its budget to someone with a tax plan that actually pays for it.

  3. Kengi says

    How about paying for his grandchildren out of his $830,000 net worth? Or does “personal responsibility” not apply to him? If he’s so fucking concerned about the future debt, then he certainly wouldn’t be adverse to taxing his estate when he gives that wealth to his family.

    Yeah, his fucking (hypothetical) grandchildren destined to inherit his wealth are the kids to worry about. Not the (real) kids who don’t have enough food to live on today. I think he’s channeling Marie Antoinette.

  4. johnson catman says

    Faux outrage over spending for social programs while welcoming the extra $50 billion that they want to spend on military bullshit. Fuck the damn republicans and the F-22 they rode in on.

  5. komarov says

    His grand children will still be looking at 100 trillion dollars worth of debt and might ask silly, naive questions. Questions like, “Those nuclear missiles, they may be cutting edge, but what are we actually supposed to do with them?”, or, “Why do we have a huge occupying force in half the middle eastern countries, and why are they dropping million-dollar bombs on fortified refigerator boxes?” And, not to be forgotten, “With all that debt, why is everything falling apart? Who wouldn’t spend the money to keep vital infrastructure from crumbling into dust?”

    “*mumble mumble* funding priorities *mumble* investment in the future *mumble*”

Leave a Reply