Mike Conway (R-Tex): The Costitution says we have to spend money on defense, not food stamps.

[Scuba]

Last edited Tue Apr 24, 2012, 06:23 PM - Edit history (1)

“The Constitution is pretty clear that national defense is something the federal government should provide for and we ought to do it well,” answered Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) in the agriculture debate on food stamps. “I’m not so sure that the Constitution says that many of the other areas that we’re talking about today have that same priority for the federal government.”

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=33532A5A-7A5B-409C-A661-2AF0F549CAB4


Related...

For months, House Republicans have been trying to wriggle out of the agreement they made in August that will force deep cuts in military spending. Now we know how they propose to do it: They will take tens of billions out of programs for the poorest Americans, particularly food stamps, along with health care for the middle class.

The House Agriculture Committee voted on Wednesday to cut $33 billion over the next decade out of food stamps. That would immediately end benefits for two million people, and reduce benefits for the remaining 44 million people who use the program. A family of four would find their benefits lowered by $57 a month beginning in September, according to an analysis by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The committee trimmed job training for food-stamp recipients by 72 percent; 280,000 students would no longer be eligible for free meals.

To understand how callous this vote was, consider the choices the committee and the full House could have made. The budget deal reached last August — the one Republicans triggered with their disastrous debt-ceiling crisis — calls for a painful sequester of $600 billion to both military and domestic spending over a decade. The Republicans could have accepted the military cuts they had agreed to or they could have joined with Democrats in reducing the cuts by raising taxes on the rich.

Instead, the 2013 budget, written by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, put all the cuts on the domestic side. Representative Mike Conaway, a Texas Republican, explained that the Constitution requires Congress to pay for defense but that food stamps and other domestic programs were lower priorities.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/24/opinion/callous-choices-in-the-house.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120424

[CJCRANE]

1. As I understand it

the Founding Fathers were mostly against having a standing army.

I think repubs just say whatever they feel like saying regardless of the facts.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Exactly right.

Were it not for stupid, Republicans would exhibit no brain function whatsoever.

[4th law of robotics]

21. "the Founding Fathers were mostly against having a standing army"

And with good reason.

A powerful army can be used both against foreign powers and against it's own population.

There's a reason the rise of absolute monarchs in Europe correlated with the rise of the modern (for the time) centralized army.

Obviously the militia system with every farmer using his hunting rifle and having a minimum of training isn't so practical these days.

But we could certainly stand to tone it down quite a bit.

/I'd favor a drastically reduced professional infantry force supplemented by an increased national guard (militia of sorts) with a declaration of war being required before it could be sent outside of our borders.

[gratuitous]

2. In Guns vs. Butter, Guns win again!

Perhaps someone should point out to Mr. Conway some interesting words I found on a quaint old document: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Looks like "the common defence" is fourth on that little list; how does it get promoted to first so blithely, and when were "We the People" consulted about that?

[sinkingfeeling]

4. Funny, it says as much about general welfare as it does about defense.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

[hootinholler]

11. Yeah but defense is first!

Plus it says provide defense and promote general welfare.

I'm pretty sure that's how he's parsing it. I wonder what he has to say about the tranquility insurance.

[Fresh_Start]

5. But it doesn't specify that we need to spend more then the next 10 countries combined

its not as if the budget cuts eliminated defense.

Pathetic excuse

[atheous]

6. the constitution requires what?

It requires us to have a military so big we could defeat every nation on earth combined? Well, that's not good enough because the Borg might attack any day now.
Mere citizens don't count because they're all going die anyway someday.

[Downwinder]

7. BS. Health and Education are Defense. A starving or undernourished

population would not be able to defend themselves.

[Hugabear]

8. I think the Founding Fathers would be aghast if they saw our country today

From the way we involve ourselves in every other country, to the way that we treat the least fortunate amongst us.

[Downwinder]

10. Too broad a brush, Hamilton would have welcomed it.

[Hugabear]

14. Correction - MOST of the Founding Fathers would have been aghast

Didn't Hamilton favor a monarchy for the US?

[white_wolf]

23. Hamilton was an ass.

Give me Paine over him any day.

[Downwinder]

24. If Hamilton hadn't supplied pistols with rigged sights,

Burr might have missed him.

[unblock]

9. the constitution also says you have to spend money on post offices.

i'm guessing he's not in favor of higher funding for the post office, though.

[coalition_unwilling]

17. Hah! Good one. Beat me to it - n/t

[CJCRANE]

12. All it takes

is for one pundit to ask "back up that assertion. Where does it say that?"

[tularetom]

13. If you don't spend money on food stamps all the poor kids will starve

And you'll have to draft rich kids to fight all your dumb fucking wars.

There, asshole. Is that a good enough reason to keep funding food stamps?

[haele]

15. Blockhead -a reason for food stamps and school lunches was to improve the health of the military

- by ensuring that the people entering Selective Service - potential military members - were strong enough to handle the stress of service. There was a huge problem during WWII with young men who had been starving during the Depression being physically and mentally able enough to serve - whether they were drafted or wanted to serve.
Because they didn't have a sufficient amount or variety of food while they were growing up, these young people were smaller, subject to tiring easily, and rather simple both emotionally and mentally.
I guess it's easier to rule desperate, sick, and difficult to educate people.

Republicans, you might as well have your Marie Antoinette moment -

"They don't have food in their kitchens? Then let them go out and get a McD's value meal..."
(Yes, I know she didn't actually say "They have no bread? Then let them eat cake...&quot

Haele

[onenote]

16. Is that an actual quote of a statement made by Conway

As the OP indicates, this is the statement attributed to Conway in the article:

“The Constitution is pretty clear that national defense is something the federal government should provide for and we ought to do it well,” answered Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) in the agriculture debate on food stamps. “I’m not so sure that the Constitution says that many of the other areas that we’re talking about today have that same priority for the federal government.”

Now I will admit that the quote in the OP subject header captures Conway's feelings, but if we're going to go after Doocy (as we should) for manufacturing quotes, we ought to be a bit more careful about doing it ourselves.

[Scuba]

19. No, the title of my OP does not have an actual quote. The actual quote is in the text.

[onenote]

22. Then why not take the quotations off of your OP title?

I don't mind the paraphrase. I just think its better form not to make a paraphrase appear to be an actual quote.

[Scuba]

27. Done, thanks.

[4th law of robotics]

25. It is kinda misleading

he didn't say we should have a miltary and not food stamps.

[Scuba]

28. Done, thanks.

[4th law of robotics]

33. +1

[Initech]

18. Have these idiots even READ the constitution or what our founding fathers said?

Or do they just say whatever the fuck they feel like and assume it's fact? It must be nice to have a Republican brain and not have to think for yourself or check facts.

[savalez]

20. Remember that's the first thing Boner had them do in 2010?

That was the sure sign that they (the Repubs) were going to betray it.

[Initech]

26. That was a truly arrogant epic fail. Apparently it didn't sink in.

[Alexander]

29. Welfare is in the Constitution.

As in "promote the general welfare".

[kentuck]

30. I don't think the Constitution says anything about "spending money"...

I think it says "provide"...That is open to interpretation. It also says "establish justice". What is just? And "promote the general welfare". What is the "general welfare"?

[chrisa]

31. The Constitution states that I am entitled to $4 billion dollars.

I just made that up, but so did he.

[randome]

32. Does the constitution say anything about paying this douchebag a salary?

And if it does, does it also say anything about indexing it for inflation?