First from CNN/Rubin Navarette Jr., commentary on the now stripped funding for birth control.
"You know the nation's cupboard is bare when politicians propose limiting the number of births as a way of improving the economy. That's a conversation we shouldn't be having.
There is nothing more private -- that is, none of the government's business -- than the personal decision that a family makes about how many children to have. Besides, Pelosi's comments had an ugly ring to them."
Navarette goes on to compare Pelosi's comments to Margaret Sanger's ideas of birth control eugenics, social engineering, etc. Scary right? Good thing that funding is not in the bill any more, but it shocks me that it was even there in the first place. That we have politicans considering that kind of encroachment on the family unit as a solution to our economic crisis. Why don't we try tax cuts first? Give the American taxpayer a break.
Second, from U.S. News: Less than 25% of the bill is actually stimulus. Compare that to 40% of the bill that is actually agenda-relating.
Third, from Flip, a nice graphic that can help us grasp how much $1 trillion really is:
And last, yet another list of excessive spending and our politicians turning a blind eye:
"New York's Charles Rangel and five other Democratic members of the House enjoyed a trip to the Caribbean sponsored in part by Citigroup (see above) in November - after Congress had approved the $700 bailout for financial firms (including Citigroup)."
Anyone got some good news for me today??? Anyone?
2 comments:
Did you know that the state pays for 70% of the births in Georgia? Yeah...70%. Now, I am a big pro-lifer. Once a child is conceived, it's alive and attempting to abort and inocent life breaks my heart. But, I have no problem with attempts to avoid conception. You can buy a lot of condoms or pills for the cost of one birth. Yes. This is the Utilitarian solution. But, utilitarians make good economists.
So, while I do not support state sanctioned abortion (with a few exceptions like rape victims), I would totally support state assistance for pregnancy prevention. Especially in a time of economic crisis.
My point -- I wish that some BC provisions had remained.
However, cutting taxes is the best plan :)
I'm not anti-birth control, but I am anti-government messing with the family unit. It upsets me that life has been reduced to dollars here. And a BC measure essentially puts government in a position to determine who can or can't have children. That shouldn't be their decision. Are we turning into China? I think it also goes into the issue of personal responsibility, but that's a whole other conversation!
But yeah, cutting taxes would be the best plan. Maybe then I could afford a $4000 wedding dress! :)
Post a Comment