[oldembed width="320" height="240" src="https://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/flash/pl55.swf" flashvars="config=http://mediamatters.org/embed/cfg3?id=201107260026" resize="1" fid="10"]
Nothing illustrates Republican priorities more starkly than this little piece of video, where Fox News host Martha MacCallum opines that we'd have more of a solid fiscal position to pay for wars if we didn't have Medicare and Social Security.
MACCALLUM: But I want to ask you one more question, because when I watched the president last night he talked about the things that have driven us to this situation, and he said two wars that we couldn't pay for, a prescription drug plan that, you know, was way too expensive to pay for, and the financial crisis that followed and that was, you know, toward the beginning of his watch and overlapping the Bush administration.
But I couldn't help thinking, well, if we weren't in such a precarious situation and hadn't overextended ourselves to such an incredible extent where we are sending out 80 million checks a month - the U.S. government - wouldn't we have been able to handle those things like the two wars in a much better, stronger fiscal position, and isn't that where we really want to be as a country, where a war doesn't bust us because we've got good fundamentals?
Wow. To her, a social safety net isn't a "good fundamental"?