I have a feeling Planned Parenthood was saved b/c otherwise campaign $$$ from pro-choice groups

[FLAprogressive]

would have stopped. I'm glad the federal funding was saved, but it will be interesting (and sad) to see what other services which help low-income (that don't have big advocacy groups that give Obama/Dems campaign $$$) people got the cut.

I don't think Obama-Reid saved it out of the goodness of their hearts, and if there wasn't campaign money at stake, it would have been cut like everything else.

[inademv]

1. A Mormon and an Evangelical

Not like one can honestly expect them to be entirely pro-choice.

[bluestateguy]

2. Obama's an evangelical?

I don't know of a single evangelical who would assign that label to him.

[phleshdef]

3. Pres. Obama has been consistently pro-choice. And he proclaimed it in front of Warren's church....

Yea, thats the kind of thing closet evangelicals do. They go out to churches and proudly proclaim to the whole congregation that they are pro-choice and thats that.

Aside from that, the reality has nothing to do with a pro-choice issue. The fact that Title 10 funding has anything to do with availability of abortions is the big right wing lie this whole attempt was perpetrated on to begin with. The facts are, there is no federal money for abortions, abortion is 3% of Planned Parenthood's services and none of those abortions have ever been paid for by one dime of tax payer money.

[Hamlette]

4. BS

Jesus, even when the Dems do the right thing, draw the line in the sand on our side, you still blame the dems

[FLAprogressive]

6. Planned Parenthood is a distraction so they can cut other vital programs for the poor.

[phleshdef]

5. Reid and Obama have both worked to and voted to fund public services for years now.

You are just being contrarian at this point.

The fact of the matter is, if you look at their records, whether it be as a Senator, State Senator, President, etc... both have been on the side of passing legislations to fund public services of this nature over their entire political careers. A lot of this funding that isn't getting renewed to previous levels was PUT at those levels by Barack Obama as President and Harry Reid, as Senate Majority leader, in the first place. Considering all this, its really silly to try and make a case that they don't have their heart in supporting those kinds of services. Both men have done quite a bit in supporting social safety nets and beneficial government regulations whenever there was enough political capital and voting power to make it happen.

You can't judge a politicians character simply based on something they agreed to cut at some point in their career. Criticize their level of willingness to compromise if you must. But don't pass judgement on a person's intentions in a bubble of circumstances.

[FLAprogressive]

7. So it's OK that there are billions to cuts for vital social services while the rich do not get taxed

as high as they should?

[phleshdef]

8. Of course not. But until there are filibuster proof PROGRESSIVE majorities elect, it can't BE ok.

Thats the way this system works. Its what no one wants to hear, what no one wants to admit. But its true. I don't like it. But pretending that its not that way doesn't change it right now either.

People act like the President decides what gets cut and Congress has to approve the cut. But it works the opposite of that entirely. Congress approves what gets FUNDED at all, and how much funding it will get, and the President can either take it or leave it.

People act like the President whos taxes go down and whos taxes go up and Congress has to approve the changes. But it works the opposite of that entirely. Congress decides what tax levels get extended and the levels that don't get extended expire to previous levels by default and the President can either approve the extensions or let them all expire.

When it comes to fiscal budgeting and revenue raising, some people always criticize the President from a premise that is opposite of reality.