Would Eric Cantor or Paul Ryan (let alone Rand Paul or Glen Beck) have saved the Chilean miners?

[BzaDem]

"PBS reports that the cost of rescuing the 33 trapped Chilean miners was $10-20 million. A third apparently came from private donations, with the rest from a mix of the state-owned copper company in charge of the effort and the government of Chile itself. Every American law student is told that there is, in the United States, no "duty to rescue." It is, of course, just such a notion of "good Samaritanism" that is the foundation of the welfare state, in which haves see their funds redistributed to have-nots lest the latter end up starving or freezing on the streets or watching their houses burn down because they can't afford to pay the user fee to the local fire department.

The modern Republican Party and its rising "top guns" are Social Darwinists who seem altogether happy with the idea of dismantling the welfare state and leaving it up to rugged individualists to take care of themselves. Glen Beck tells us that "compassion," at least if it takes a governmental form, leads straight to Naziism, and he, even more than Rush Limbaugh, has become the de-facto leader of the current Republican Party. So I ask, entirely non-rhetorically, if anyone who takes pride in this assault on the welfare state--let's repeal Medicare and Social Security, etc., etc., etc.--would have supported spending even a penny of federal funds on a similar rescue in the United States. After all, there are lots of better alternative uses for $10-20 million than rescuing miners who "assumed the risk" of mine accidents. It's scarcely a secret that mining is one of the most dangerous occupations in the world, after all.

Or, let me ask the question in another way: If one was genuinely inspired by the display of social solidarity both by the miners themselves and the Chilean people, including their government and President, can one sturdily cabin that admiration and continue to support those who would dismantle the welfare state? (No doubt some will reply that relying on the market will make things better for everyone, including trapped miners, though there is, of course, not a scintilla of evidence for this ravingly ideological proposition.)"

--snip--

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/10/would-eric-cantor-or-paul-ryan-let.html

[fasttense]

1. Hell NO.

We didn't do much to save our trap miners. Kind of just let them die, if I recall correctly.

[BzaDem]

2. I think we did try, but were unsuccessful.

(Though that doesn't mean the anti-welfare-state libertarians agree with that.)

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. They Would Bow To Overwhelming Public Opinion And Try To Save The Miners

~

[HopeHoops]

4. All Cantor cares about is trying to be Santorum - and he's only got ONE advantage on that front.

The advantage: Cantor is actually slightly dorkier looking than Santorum.

[lunatica]

5. It would be a shocker if they tried to save anyone from a corporation

They would act exactly as they act now. They consistently vote against any aid to anyone who isn't their owners. Why would they ever change that?