The Claremont Institute: The Endless Party

This opinion piece by William Voegeli at The Claremont Institute explains aptly how conservatives view liberals:

Liberals have a practical reason why they won't say what they ultimately want, and a theoretical reason why they can't say it. The practical reason is that any usably clear statement of what the welfare state should be would define not only a goal but a limit. Conceding that an outer limit exists, and stipulating a location for it, strengthens the hand of conservatives—with liberals having admitted, finally, that the welfare state can and should do only so much, the argument now, the conservatives will say, is over just how much that is.

With that idea in mind, check out these excerpts from Bill O'Reilly's interview with Kathleen Barr of the National Student Campaign Against Hunger and Homelessness:

O'Reilly: "What should the Bush administration be doing (that) it isn't doing?"

Barr: Blah blah blah background, then this: "We'd recommend that the federal government invest more aggressively in affordable housing, homeless assistance ... more programs."

O'Reilly: "From 2000, the last year Bill Clinton was in office to (proposed) 2006, there's been an 82% increase in food and nutrition assistance did you know that? Do you think that's not enough?"

Barr: "Well what I do know is that the 2006 budget ... called for a $1 billion cut in the food stamp program."

O'Reilly: "Here's my stat: Food stamps, school lunches, women, infants assistance, and food: 2006 proposed budget $51 billion up from $28 billion under Clinton's last year in office. Madam! That is a staggering, staggering increase."

Barr: "There are many people out there who are not receiving enough food and nutrition assistance."

O'Reilly: "Every category of assistance to the poor under Bush has gone up incredibly. How much more money do we have to put in there? If you're spending $50 billion on food stamps and school lunches, that is enormous, there's only 300 million people in the country!"

Barr: "I can't speculate on exactly how much we would need eventually, ... but our study found there are people out there not receiving food assistance who can't find shelter ..."

O'Reilly: "Do you know housing assistance is up 1400% [not a typo, that's what he said - ed.] from Clinton to Bush in 2006. I don't think the folks in America, with all due respect Ms. Barr, can give any more money. They're just tapped out."

Barr: "The budget authority for the Department of Housing and Urban Development is 60% less than it was 30 years ago, showing a clear disinvestment in affordable housing."

O'Reilly at this point says that may be true as a percentage of GNP, but the data show that raw dollar funding has not been cut, but rather is at record levels.

Clearly, Voegeli is correct: Liberals will never admit that there is an upper limit on the amount of social welfare they are willing to spend. No matter how much we spend on her pet programs, Kathleen Barr wants more and will never admit to an upper limit for her requests.