“I’ll put it this way. You don’t deserve to keep all of it and it’s not a question of deserving because what government is, is those things that we decide to do together. And there are many things that we decide to do together like have our national security. Like have police and fire. What about the people that work at the National Institute of Health who are looking for a cure for cancer,” Schakowsky said.Well first of all, National Security is a Constitutional mandate--one of the few things that the federal government was specifically tasked with--so no one argues that. But that expense is dwarfed by a spending on things that aren't Constitutionally-mandated or even authorized...like "police and fire" which are local government responsibilities, and even that National Institute of Health, whose "cancer research" is duplicated and far surpassed by universities and private pharmaceutical companies, each of whom has plenty of motivation to cure cancer and numerous other diseases.
Schakowsky also says one reason the 2009 stimulus bill did not succeed was because it was not large enough.
But here it is, folks--the defining difference between Democrats and Americans. They believe that if you earn it, they should get to decide how it gets spent and who should benefit from it, and too bad if you don't like it because they've got lawmaking ability and guns to back those laws up if you or I don't want to give up our money or any other property that they covet. And like this loon says, the only thing keeping their socialist wealth redistribution schemes from creating the perfect utopia here is that they haven't taken enough from us yet. But then that's probably pretty high on the list of things that Obama's new army of union thugs is supposed to help him with...just as soon as their matching brown shirts get here from whatever factory in China is making them.
Oh, and in case anyone wonders what sort of a steward of the public treasury Congresswoman Schakowsky is...
On March 11, 2004, Schakowsky's husband, lobbyist Robert Creamer, the executive director of the Illinois Public Action Fund, was indicted in federal court on 16 counts of bank fraud involving three alleged check-kiting schemes in the mid-1990s, leading several banks to experience shortfalls of at least $2.3 million. In August 2005, Creamer pleaded guilty to one count of failure to collect withholding tax, and bank fraud for writing checks with insufficient funds. All of the money was repaid. Schakowsky was not accused of any wrongdoing. Schakowsky served on the organization's board during the time the crimes occurred, and Schakowsky signed the IRS filings along with her husband. U.S. District Judge James B. Moran noted no one suffered "out of pocket losses," and Creamer acted not out of greed but in an effort to keep his community action group going without cutting programs, though Creamer paid his own $100,000 salary with fraudulently obtained funds. On April 5, 2006, Creamer was sentenced to five months in prison and 11 months of house arrest.
Congresswoman Schakowsky was re-elected after her husband's indictment and has been re-elected three times since his conviction and sentencing.
Those Illinois voters sure can pick 'em, can't they, America?