The US Conference of Catholic Bishops struck out again last week when a “federal judge ruled against the bishops in a fight over whether the group could impose its views on contraception and abortion through its control of taxpayer dollars.”

According to the Mother Jones article linked above, the Bush Administration contracted with the bishops to provide services to victims of human trafficking.

The bishops had been administering virtually all the federal money allocated for such services, about $3 million a year, doling it out to subcontractors who served victims all over the country. The USCCB had prohibited the contractors from using the federal funds to pay for staff time to counsel victims on contraception or abortion, or to refer them for such services.

In 2009 the ACLU sued HHS, arguing that such restrictions on the use of taxpayers’ money violates separation of church and state. The suit was still working its way through the courts last fall when the Obama Administration chose not to renew the contract, mostly because the Bishops refused to provide some of the services the victims actually needed.

The decision set off a firestorm in Congress, where House Republicans accused the administration of bid-rigging and violating the bishops’ religious freedom during a marathon oversight hearing in December.

Right, because the Constitution gives churches the right to use taxpayers’ money to further their own sectarian interests … oh, wait …

Anyway, the federal judge said,

To insist that the government respect the separation of church and state is not to discriminate against religion; indeed, it promotes a respect for religion by refusing to single out any creed for official favor at the expense of all others….This case is about the limits of the government’s ability to delegate to a religious institution the right to use taxpayer money to impose its beliefs on others (who may or may not share them).

Yes. Thank you. And excuse me for the snark, but contracting with the Bishops to provide services for victims of human trafficking seems a bit like contracting with the Daughters of the Confederacy to run racial sensitivity programs.

Mittens can’t understand why younger voters support President Obama over him (or any other Republican).

“I joke, and I don’t mean to be flip with this — because I actually see truth in it — I don’t see how a young American can vote for a Democrat,” Romney said when asked what economic message he would have for young people.

“I apologize for being so offensive in saying that, but I catch your attention. But I mean, in the humor, there’s some truth there. And I say that for this reason: that party is focused on providing more and more benefits to my generation, and amounting trillion-dollar annual deficits my generation will never pay for.”

He argued that while Democrats support “the greatest inter-generational transfer of wealth in the history of humankind,” the Republican Party is “consumed with the idea of getting federal spending down and creating economic growth and opportunity so we can balance our budget and stop putting these debts on you.”

“These debts are not frightening to people my age, because we’ll be gone,” he said.

Jeff Jacoby wrote a standard SOB (Same Old Bullshit) article seconding Mittens. Jesse Singal responds.

Jacoby himself admits that the “debt wasn’t piled up without plenty of Republican help. During George W. Bush’s presidency, annual federal spending skyrocketed from $1.8 trillion to $3.4 trillion, and $4.9 trillion was added to the national debt.”

Now, he goes on to argue that Obama ran it up even more, but we all know that Obama’s spending had a lot to do with recovery measures that were a response to the situation he inherited—not to mention wars he didn’t start an an expensive Medicare drug bill he wasn’t around to vote for.

Behold, the chart (click to enlarge):

Which President Caused the Deficit?

So I’m not sure where this leaves his argument. Young voters should support Republicans because… they run up debts, but not as quickly as Democrats? This actually hasn’t been true, historically.

Click to enlarge

But beyond the fact that it’s Republicans, not Democrats, who are the real big spenders, I suggest that Mittens and JJ try to put themselves into a young person’s shoes, so to speak. The evil federal deficit is an abstraction compared to the tangible effects of policy in their lives. Student loan debt is eating their economic future right now. And Mittens, and Republicans in general, have been colossally insensitive on the problems being caused by student loan debt. The basic Republican plan for student loans is shut up and pay up. Oh, and give the student loan business back to the sharks.

Jobs going overseas? Republicans refuse to address the issue but instead blame unions. And then if you ever do get a decent paying job and pay off your student loans, your parents will be finding that their Medicare vouchers aren’t worth the paper they are printed on, and you’ll be on the hook for their medical bills. Soylent Green, anyone?

Meanwhile, they foment culture war and show themselves to be utterly out of touch with younger people on social issues across the board. The question is not, why don’t more young people vote for Republicans? It’s, how stupid does a young person have to be to vote for Republicans?

But wingnuts are equally clueless about other demographic groups that don’t like them. They go on a hysteria-hate binge over female contraceptives and then wonder why there’s a gender gap. Their insensitivity on racial issues is legendary, but their explanation for why a huge majority of African Americans tend to vote for Democrats is that they’ve been “brainwashed” to stay on the “liberal plantation.”

Seriously, anyone who is not already a mega-billionaire has got to be brainwashed to vote for Republicans these days.