Today in Compassionate Conservatism

I ran across this story yesterday and didn't quite believe it. First, from WaPo via Joe.My.God.:

At a news conference Thursday, Mick Mulvaney, President Trump’s budget chief, defended proposed cuts to the Meals on Wheels program, which provides food aid to needy senior citizens, by saying the program is one of many that is “just not showing any results.”

Via commenter Badgerite at AmericaBlog, the riposte:

Sorry folks, but Meals on Wheels ain't workin'. They feed seniors one day and by the next day they're hungry again. #Budget2017

— Tea Pain (@TeaPainUSA) March 16, 2017

And in the real world:

If that doesn’t clear the bar for “results,” as Mulvaney put it, there’s also been a fair amount of peer-reviewed research on the efficacy of the program. A 2013 review of studies, for instance, found that home-delivered meal programs for seniors “significantly improve diet quality, increase nutrient intakes, and reduce food insecurity and nutritional risk among participants. Other beneficial outcomes include increased socialization opportunities, improvement in dietary adherence, and higher quality of life.”

AmericaBlog has more on the "compassion" part:

Donald Trump’s budget director Mick Mulvaney defended Trump’s proposed cuts to Meals on Wheels by arguing that such cuts were actually “compassionate” because it saves money for people who pay for Meals on Wheels out of their taxes.

The rationale:

Trump budget director Mulvaney: I don’t think so. It’s probably one of the most compassionate things we can do to…

Reporter: To cut programs to help the elderly?

Mulvaney: You’re only focus on half of the equation, right? You’re focusing on recipients of the money. We’re trying to focus on both the recipients of the money and the folks who give us the money in the first place. And I think it’s fairly compassionate to go to them and say, look, we’re not gonna ask you for your hard-earned money anymore, single mom of two in Detroit, give us your money. We’re not gonna do that anymore, unless we can guarantee to you that that money’s actually being used in a proper function. That is about as compassionate as you can get.

How about some focus on the folks who don't give us the money -- like the 1%? Because this is really to offset yet more tax breaks for the rich.

Digby has more on the budget as a whole. It's -- well, "appalling" doesn't really go far enough. A concise summary:

She also has a summary of the effects of the ACA "replacement." It ain't pretty.

Is this fucked up, or what?

I can hardly wait until Paul Ryan gets his dirty little fingers on it.