""The measure would require federal employees to contribute more to their pensions, saving taxpayers more than $80 billion over the coming decade,""
meals on wheels is a smokescreen.
A few months back I suggested that the only value that the Republican Party embraces today is Sadism.
http://classic.theeroticreview.com/discussion_boards/viewmsg.asp?MessageID=156451&boardID=39&page=60
And it appears that, once again, the GOP has proven me right.
One of the best government programs ever created, and one program that I've volunteered my time with, is Meals on Wheels. It's purpose is simple. Deliver food to elderly people who live in or close to poverty.
It's the government equivalent of helping an old lady across the road. From my experience, I can tell you the people who participate in this program are good people. Normally all these people need is a warm meal, a friendly face, and a gentle hug. It costs little, and it means the world to them.
Which, of course, is why the GOP is pushing to cut the program. Why do they want to cut the program? Because if they don't trim the budget, automatic defense cuts are enacted.
So, in order to save a plethora of very wealthy defense contractor companies, when the defense budget of the United States is already over a half a trillion dollars, the GOP would prefer to risk starving elderly poor people.
The most vile aspect of this, is that the purpose of the Defense Department is to kill people. The GOP wants to protect funding used to kill people so they can starve elderly poor people, in their hope to kill them too. This is the same party that declares itself to be "Pro-Life".
They aren't pro-life. They worship death. They're Sadists.
The "values" you seek can be seen by the republican philosphy of sticking to the Constitution. No one would argue that it is a worthwhile cause to help out the needy, lil ole poor ladies, and so forth. The problem is that it's not the role of the Federal Government to do so. Those communities that Obama worked with, the churches, etc.... are more suitable for this role, afterall, wasn't it Jesus who feed the flocks with a single loaf of bread?
Government on the other hand is on firm footing to buy guns, staff and army, and go defend the homeland by shooting people in other lands to keep them from getting here.
Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government any authority to feed anyone. So, the values you seek won't be found by looking for a republican who wants to feed somebody; it will be found in the republican value of enforcing the Constitution to drive it's form of government.
No one in Congress is arguing that Meals on Wheels is unconstitutional. The argument has not been made. The program has existed since 1950, for Christ's sake.
But in regards to your point, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to feed people. The Continential Congress before this nation was even founded, had to raise funds to feed soldiers fighting in the Revolution.
As the author of the Constitution, and as President, James Madison vetoed legislation passed by Congress to feed the poor. He gave his reasons for doing so, and the limits of Congressional power were not mentioned.
Rather, Madison's problem was that the feeding of the poor was being administered by a church, and Madison believed this violated the principles of the separation of church and state.
You talk about defense spending only benefiting defense contractors. Seems to be a lot of Jews benefited from Defense spending in 1945. Seems to me a lot of the freedoms we all enjoy today are a benefit of defense spending.
Funny how liberals want to cut the programs that benefit us all to support programs that benefit the few, and in many cases, the few who owe their circumstances to the bad choices they made in their life.
Kind of like the Union member who chose not to go to college and then bitches that the college educated boss makes so much. Pretty pathetic.
No Jew benefited from Defense spending in 1945. That's because defense spending was ZERO in 1945. The Defense Department didn't even come into existence until 1949. What saved Europe from the horrors of fascism is War spending. When it was called the War Department, it spent it's money on national defense (for the most part). Since it's been called the Defense Department, it's spending has been used to colonize other nations and protect American corporate interests.
I'll ignore your sly insults. You know you're better than that.
You at least include facts sometimes...
I have to admit though, you trying to talk about the difference between "War" spending and "Defense" spending reminds me of the guy in the link...
...but I think it matters a lot more than you might think.
It matters what you call things. The War Department had a certain duty. It limited it's activity to a far greater degree than the Defense Department. Part of the reason why you'd call it a Defense Department, is because if you object to defense spending, you're objecting to a notion that is universally viewed as a positive. Therefore, you can get away with doing more shit.
We think in language, Snow. Change the language, and you change the way people think. So, for instance, you can use our military to invade and overthrow a tiny and insignifant nation like Panama, killing 2,000 people, and that's not viewed as an open act of aggression or a war crime because the DEFENSE Department did it.
The scary thing is that it reminds me of...
Since liberals can no longer call themselves liberals, but have to call themselves "progressives". Must be some real negativity associated with the word liberal...
Hell, I've been a conservative all along and still call myself one. Perhaps that says something about how people view your beliefs vs. mine 
just like Glenn Beck tried to demonize the word "progressive".
Strange, the root word of liberal is liberty.
""The measure would require federal employees to contribute more to their pensions, saving taxpayers more than $80 billion over the coming decade,""
meals on wheels is a smokescreen.