The infamous "baby parts" videos of 2015 claimed that Planned Parenthood was profiting from aborted fetuses. Despite being clearly bogus, many in the anti-choice movement saw this as an opportunity to deal a death-blow to Planned Parenthood. The sharks started circling. One of the many fruitless investigations into this non-existent scandal was a series of House Judiciary Committee hearings.
The highlight of the Judiciary hearings was an exchange between our own Congressman, James Sensenbrenner and Priscilla Smith, the director of the Program for the Study of Reproductive Justice at Yale Law School.
Sensenbrenner: "When Congress sets budgeting priorities, you know, we have to decide on ... which has a higher priority and should be funded, and which has a lower priority and should not be funded, in the age of a nineteen trillion dollar deficit. Could you please tell us why Planned Parenthood has to get a half a billion dollars of federal funding every year, when there are other pressing needs, such as feeding hungry children that we should put that money into?"
Smith: "Let's be clear, that Planned Parenthood is not getting any public money for abortions..."
Sensenbrenner: "Well, money is fungible, Miss Smith. ...The question is whether, you know, Congress should appropriate another half billion dollars plus to Planned Parenthood when we could be spending that money feeding hungry children. This is a question of priorities. I would like to know what your priority is, Planned Parenthood, or feeding hungry children."
Sensenbrenner's questions were silly. He knows that only a comparatively small amount of money goes to reimburse Planned Parenthood for important health services provided at their clinics. I hope he knows that every Title X dollar spent for preventive services at PP clinics saves taxpayers an estimated $5.68.
However, Jim was absolutely right on two counts. There is not an infinite supply of money. Congress does need to set budgeting priorities. What is spent on one item cannot be spent on another. He is also right that money is fungible. Money is money, no matter how it is spent.
Last month, Rep. Sensenbrenner introduced a bill in Congress that he imagines will generate enough cash to pay for Trump's Wall. Jim's HR 1067 proposes to use assets seized from Mexican drug lords to pay for the futile, ugly, and expensive Wall.
Sensenbrenner was boasting of his idea at a town hall in Germantown last Saturday, "It will be built...Whether or not we have a Wall is not on the table. It's how to pay for it, and I think I have a better idea how to pay for it than everybody else. "
I have no sympathy for Mexican drug lords. When caught, they should go to prison and all of their assets confiscated. However, as Mr. Sensenbrenner stated, money is fungible. Drug lord money is fungible, too. Money that comes into the government can be spent on anything-veterans, drug rehab, roads, or schools. So by insisting that this windfall drug money be spent on Trump's useless Wall, Sensenbrenner precludes it from being spent on more important things, like feeding hungry children.
And Sensenbrenner's choice between The Wall and starving children is not a theoretical one. While proudly publicly supporting Trump's extravagant Wall (a monstrosity that is estimated to cost us as much as $40 billion) he has actually voted to cut money from feeding hungry children. In 2013 Sensenbrenner, along with 216 of his GOP colleagues, voted to ax an unconscionable $40 billion from SNAP over a decade.
Jim Sensenbrenner has made clear his own response to the question he asked Priscilla Smith during the 2015 House hearings. He has made clear his own priorities. He voted to cut food for hungry children by about $40 billion dollars. He proudly supports building a senseless Wall that will cost us a similar amount of money. He evidently would rather build the Wall than feed hungry American children. Are those also the priorities of his constituents?
No comments:
Post a Comment