I'm so full of lovingkindness after my vacation that I love Eric Cantor, even though he's as smart as a pot-holder. A pot-holder who has been elected by the American people, or some fraction of them, by the way.
In any case, Cantor has an odd view of the government:
Despite the devastation caused by Hurricane Irene this weekend, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today stood by his call that no more money be allocated for disaster relief unless it is offset by spending cuts elsewhere. The Washington Post reported this morning that FEMA will need more money than it currently has to deal with the storm’s aftermath and is already diverting funds from other recent disasters to deal with the hurricane, but Cantor’s comments suggest Republicans won’t authorize more funds without a fight.In the attached video Cantor patiently explains to us, once again, that the government is just like a family! If a member of the family needs expensive medical care, then there will be no new car or addition to the family home. That's how it works, and that's how the government works.
Cantor took the position following the tornadoes that devastated Joplin, Missouri and elsewhere in the spring and summer, and after last week’s earthquake, the epicenter for which was in his district, but the hurricane’s level of destruction is far beyond that of those disasters. Still, Cantor told Fox News that while “we’re going to find the money,” “we’re just going to need to make sure that there are savings elsewhere to do so.”
Of course, Cantor's imaginary family appears to have no health insurance, to begin with.
Then there's the VERY big problem of equating governments with families. If we took it seriously, every family would have a small stock of nuclear weapons in a freezer in the basement and border control around their yards. If we took it seriously, no family would ever have taken out a loan, not even to buy a home, because Cantor argues that families just don't do that. And if we took it seriously, all families would be very, very concerned about not forcing the employer of any family member to give him or her raises or even the same old wages (thanks to Gromit for the last observation).
But Cantor makes a slightly subtler mistake than the one about governments having a mummy and a daddy and 2.1 children in a suburb somewhere. That subtlety has to do with how he defines how much the government should take in as tax revenue: That sum is based on Mr. Eric Cantor's Right-Wing Opinion.
He then sets the amount as written in stone and argues that any attempt to raise it is like trying to squeeze blood from that same stone. Or from a pot-holder. Remember that the sum is not etched in stone in reality, and remember that if the government really was like a family, that sum would be the family income. Which the family is supposed to not try to raise. Finally the government-as-family is supposed to balance its books (based on income defined by Eric Cantor) every single calendar year.
And this is regarded as part of political debate! I do love the silliness of it all.