Saving Marriages With Your Tax Dollars

Could this absurd $1.5 billion proposal have been inspired by his brother Neil's recent messy divorce? Would brother Neil might qualify for a grant? Hmmm.

Comments

OL | January 15, 2004, 1:16am | #

You couldn't have paid me enough to stay with my ex-wife, although $1.5 bil should be enough to maintain separate residences.

Jack | January 15, 2004, 1:17am | #

Rick, while as a life-long Republican I would love to see a traditional Republican challenge Bush in the primaries, it ain't going to happen except by write-in. Most of the filing deadlines are already past.

Douglas Fletcher | January 15, 2004, 2:47am | #

Maybe this is a dumb question, but if the government doesn't get involved in space travel & settlement, who's going to defend the private entities that are up there when the Chinese space army invades them?

Okay, maybe it's a little like '70s James Bond, but I think somewhere in there I have a point.

Warren | January 15, 2004, 3:53am | #

This has got to be the most irresponsible administration ever.

Rick Barton | January 15, 2004, 4:06am | #

Clinton's might have been but the Republican congress wouldn't let him.

ed | January 15, 2004, 5:11am | #

"This has got to be the most irresponsible administration ever."

Jeez, have we forgotten JFK already?

notJoe | January 15, 2004, 9:30am | #

"This has got to be the most irresponsible administration ever."

Warren,
Have we forgotten Carter? How 'bout GHWB?

Ed,
JFK? Sorry for my ignorance (I missed that presidency): please elaborate.

StMack | January 15, 2004, 10:22am | #

Change the headline to buying votes with your tax dollars and it would be more accurate.

Madog | January 15, 2004, 10:31am | #

What pisses me off is that people complain about Bush's space proposal and say the money should be spent on domestic programs without thinking about the kind of domestic programs Bush is likely to favor. Would you rather see $1 billion given to NASA for something that will at least give us a litle scientific and technical knowledge or $1.5 billion spent on social engineering?

Ronald Bailey | January 15, 2004, 10:36am | #

How about spending on neither?

Rick Barton | January 15, 2004, 10:45am | #

I'd rather see it left in the owner's pockets.
Bush is no conservative. He spends our money like
a drunken lottery winner. There is an aching need for a challenge to him from a real conservative in the Republican primaries.

David | January 15, 2004, 10:51am | #

The social cons are only against social engineering when the left is in charge. Just as long as their programs are implemented, social cons believe that increasing the welfare state can solve problems caused by the welfare state. They also want to send taxpayer dollars to social con organizations that have been previously excluded from federal funding. It’s all about sending money to their allies.

dhex | January 15, 2004, 11:31am | #

i don't know if a family held together by federal grants is much of a family. bribery and love are not often interlinked these days.

Rick Barton | January 15, 2004, 12:18pm | #

Yeah; "neither". That seems to be a concept that too many politicians don't undertstand.