As reported by Politico, "some on Capitol Hill are beginning to say the attack shows why Congress should've stopped automatic spending cuts from taking hold in March." It is unclear how a prevention of the sequester, which was a reduction of spending proposed by the Obama Administration and signed into law by the President, would have impacted the horrific terrorist attack on Monday. That didn't stop Steny Hoyer or Rep. Xavier Becerra of California, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus from speculating about the need for revenue. These people are shameless! In the wake of a terrorist attack (or any crisis), some cannot resist the urge to use the occasion to point fingers and ask for more taxpayer money.
Former U.S. Representative Barney Frank also chimed in with his opinion of the need for "revenue" in the wake of the bombing. Really? Even the interviewer took exception to Frank's clear agenda.
Listen the interview here:
Ironically, as reported by the Daily Mail, Robert Liscouski, former Homeland Security Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection revealed:
"Under President George W. Bush, the Department of Homeland Security had $20 million allocated for preventing the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) by terrorists working inside the United States. The current White House has cut that funding down to $11 million."
It is highly unlikely that had the budget stayed the same, the Boston Marathon Bombings would have been prevented. The point is that the mainstream media will likely avoid challenging those who outrageously exploit any crisis to further their political agendas.
Photo Source: The Daily Free Press and Kenshin Okubo via the Washington Post