People like to separate fiscal conservatives from social conservatives. It’s impossible to do.
The nut of Sandra Fluke’s argument is this: pay for my contraception. If it doesn’t work, pay for my abortion. If I decide to have the kid, but not work and do something like “community organizing” or “reproductive rights activism”, pay for my lifestyle choice. [More on Sandra Fluke here.]
And herein lies the problem with a purely libertine argument: Someone has to pay for all this freedom.
True personal liberty comes with a lot of personal responsibility.
The way it stands now, though, feminists are pushing for the state to take care of everything.
At the least, a man should pony up a condom to have sex, but no. A woman is too afraid to have this discussion, evidently, and refuses to force the man to buy and wear a condom. Were she mature enough to have this conversation, her sex life would be “free” so long as the condom wasn’t defective or broke.
Then, of course, whether the woman is on the pill or using condoms, there’s always contraception failure. The woman will have to live with the STD or baby consequences. And again, she’ll want the taxpayer to pay for that, too. Antibiotics and prenatal care aren’t free, after all. Worst, she wants people of conscience to pay for her abortion. They, in turn, feel forced to pay a hitman to kill an innocent person.
A truly “free” woman would pay for her choices, but the fact is, that these choices can all be very expensive.
In the past, when sex was more the provenance of two monogamous and committed people, the man and woman would negotiate these things. And if a “mistake” did happen, the man would “do the right thing” and marry the woman.
Old fashioned? Maybe. Cost effective for the taxpayer? Absolutely. Good for the fabric of society and for that child? No question.
Barack Obama and his merry band of slutty misfits want to have all the fun and none of the responsibility of the consequences should things not go just the way they’re supposed to in the sexual arena (and when do they ever?).
So, in the last year of a horribly failed presidency, President Obama wants the focus to be on “contraceptive rights” when there are no such thing. It’s a great way to distract from the statist policies he’s employing: He wants to diminish the role of faith in the public space, and in the place of men/husbands/fathers, he wants an all-powerful state to pay for, mold, and control the next generation. Or kill them.
If this fight feels primal and visceral, it is because it is. The cultural war that the left has started has had dire public policy consequences. The welfare state has failed.
We have a nation of fatherless children living in poverty because their mothers bought the feminist lie that having sex like a hound-dog man, outside of marriage is “empowering”.
Single mothers are faced with the bitterness of powerlessness.
Defend that, liberals. Explain how living in poverty, alone, with multiple children, no education, an STD and no father is better than a two-parent family, feminists.
Answer: It isn’t.
There will be no apologizing from me. The feminist movement as symbolized by the useful idiot Sandra Fluke has lied to and cursed a generation of women. Meanwhile, putting future generations of responsible tax paying men and women on the hook. [Update: Dana Loesch on faux rage.]
The culture war is a fiscal war. And America’s children are the losers both ways.
Teri Cristoph of Smart Girl Politics to Women: You’re Being Used. Teri says:
Knowing that women voters are leaving Obama, the left has deliberately waged a war designed to scare them into thinking their birth control will be taken from them. EMILY’s List calls these disenchanted women voters “defectors” and they’ll stop at nothing to get them back.
The use of the word “defector” by the left is supremely insulting. A defector is someone who switches allegiances, usually in a manner deemed to be traitorous. Got that? If you are a woman who voted for Obama in ’08 but don’t like what he’s done as president and don’t plan to vote for him again, you are considered a traitor by the left. Newsflash: Women are not born with a genetic allegiance to the Democrat party and its liberal causes. Plenty of us prefer to think for ourselves.
Democrats are running scared knowing that a significant number of women are wise to the fact that the economy has tanked, true unemployment is around 25 percent, and our president is wholly unequipped to deal with any of it. They also know that women voice their discontent at the ballot box. So they are waging this war against women. They use people like Sandra Fluke to distract from the real issues at stake this election season. They use women as pawns in their political game.
Yes, there is a war against women in 2012 and it’s certainly no fluke.
UPDATE & ASIDE:
What Rush Limbaugh should have done in the face of the attack by Mean Girls (emphasis on girls–women don’t act irresponsibly and then want to be personally bailed out):
There are many conservatives who unfortunately allow the left to take their morality and use it to stifle their dissent. Limbaugh should have gone on the attack. He should have said “no apology” and exposed her for the partisan hack that she is. Do I care if Fluke fucks 50 guys? No, but I do care if she uses her position to gang up with other mean girls (and guys) to ram a political mandate down the throats of companies who do not believe in what she is peddling.
Standing up to mean girls is hard. I am in the process of writing a book on men’s attitudes towards marriage and society and it is damn hard to get individual men to be interviewed. If I ask questions on the internet or in an anonymous setting, I am flooded with comments from men. I recently had over 3200 men answer a poll about paternity fraud, but try to get just a few men to talk in person? That’s tough. And most are very concerned that their name will not be published. I don’t blame them. The mean girls are out in society in full force.
If Rush Limbaugh can’t stand up to the mean girls, who can?
More on Fatherhood from LaShawn Barber.
America’s Next Impact, a Texas youth advocacy group entreats the Texas Congress to do the right thing with the current budget:
The eyes of Texas are on the legislature, but the eyes of the nation are on Texas.
Specifically, young Americans look to this Texas legislature to make decisions that will restore jobs and the opportunity to participate in the American Dream. If it can’t be done in Texas, can it be done anywhere?
At the end of this semester, I will graduate from college. Millions just like me worked hard to be able to secure good jobs and enjoy a standard of living similar to our parents and grandparents. Nevertheless, the current level of government spending undercuts the possibility of good jobs or prosperous futures.
In fact, Texans of all ages are fed up with the status quo.
Hardworking taxpayers and small businesses already feel the burden in this struggling economy right along with recent college graduates who are facing increasingly tight job markets and diminishing prospects. The simple fact is that our legislature cannot continue to kick the can down the road and count on someone else to fix it.
Elected leaders at all levels of government need to act quickly to reduce the debt and control spending. Local governments in Texas are more than $175 billion in debt, including school districts, cities and counties.
And even though Texas is better off than most states, our lawmakers must bridge a revenue shortfall estimated to be more than $15 billion. A state known for fiscal responsibility is in a fiscally tight spot.
Texas lawmakers must make tough decisions about where to cut government spending. Many understand the Lone Star State cannot continue to prosper unless we cut the size and scope of government.
Right now, Texas is at the forefront, shaping the nation’s recovery. Decisions made in this legislative session will affect the state’s economic stability and prosperity for years to come.
How can our legislators keep the economy going without raising taxes or raiding the rainy day fund? How can we remain a beacon for job creation and business relocation without sound fiscal policies passed by our lawmakers?
It comes down to one thing: Spending must be reduced.
FIRST, TRIM THE FAT
The Texas public education system, which constitutes more than 40 percent of the state budget, is ripe for cuts. Texans value education, and education funding is rarely subject to scrutiny – but this budget cycle, we must make cuts that include education.
For the last few years, state spending per student has increased dramatically, yet academic results don’t reflect that investment. More dollars are being spent on administrative pay, hiring non-teaching staff and building Taj Mahal-style facilities. Available education dollars should be spent on priorities, which are teachers and instruction.
Average salaries for professional support staff and administrators in Texas are typically $9,000-$38,000 more than teachers earn, with as many non-teachers as teachers on payrolls at school districts across the state. Sen. Florence Shapiro suggests just cutting administrator salaries by 10 percent would save $2 billion over the next biennium.
That would be a promising start.
Another possibility would be to limit school district superintendents’ salaries to the governor’s pay, which is $150,000 a year. That would save Texas schools $20 million a biennium. Currently, 214 district superintendents earn more than the governor, not including their perks and benefits that range into the tens of thousands of dollars.
Many members of my generation do not want higher taxes and bigger government. We support trimming bureaucracy and saving taxpayers’ money – both in the short and long term – to keep Texas back on track.
History underscores the fact that we cannot tax or spend our way into prosperity.
Elected state leaders’ commitment to the principles of low taxes and limited government is critical to all Texans today, and essential to young Texans like me eager to start a career.
My generation’s message to elected officials is simple: This is no time to waver – now is the time to reduce government spending and debt to protect this great state’s economy for current and future generations. We ask our elected representatives to meet the challenges ahead and stay committed to the difficult choices they need to make today to ensure an economically viable and prosperous tomorrow
Keeping the American dream alive for this and future generations rests squarely on the shoulders of the men and women of the 82nd Texas Legislature.
Christopher Covo is a political science senior at Texas State University and director of America’s Next Impact, a new youth outreach project of Americans for Prosperity.
Do I feel like I’m beating a dead horse? Yes. The problem? It ain’t dead. The health care bill is very much alive and it’s almost unthinkable that it’s even being considered for the following reasons:
The Cost Is Enormous: More importantly, America is already staggering under loads of debt. Why are we talking about a vast new entitlement? We are talking about this because the Democrats believe the state is the answer to all problems. Taking care of all your problems costs money. How much? According to this from Americans for Tax Reform, alot:
Official scores of H.R. 3962 (the House Dem health bill) are out from the Congressional Budget Office (spending) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (revenues). A few highlights:
When the bill is fully phased-in, it will increase spending by approximately $150-$200 billion annually. Put another way, it will add about a percentage point to federal spending as a portion of the economy. Put yet another way, it will increase the historical size of the federal government by about 5 percent.
For a comprehensive list of new taxes, read this.
The Health Care Bill is Government-Run Health Care aka Socialized Medicine: There is just no way around it. As John Hinderacker says over at Powerline:
Under the House bill, it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that health insurance companies are no longer in the insurance business. They can’t rate and underwrite risks, which is the essence of insurance. That’s illegal. They can’t decide to whom they will issue policies; that’s illegal, too. They can’t offer novel or innovative coverages; their coverages are dictated by law. To a limited extent they can make decisions on paying claims, but under the watchful eye of government regulators. Meaningful competition among insurance companies will be, in effect, illegal. (In that context, it is a sick joke that the Pelosi bill also subjects health insurance companies to the antitrust laws, from which they had been exempted in consideration of their regulation by state, not federal, authorities.)
In the world that the House bill would create, the money we will pay to insurance companies won’t really be insurance premiums. Insurance premiums are contractual payments which the parties voluntarily agree upon and which are based on a mutual assessment of risk. Rather, the checks we write to insurance companies will be taxes–legally compelled, at rates set by the federal government that are designed to punish some and subsidize others.
Your Life Will Be Regulated By The Government: Good grief, I want to swear right here. Like fire off a string of expletives. Do you buy food from a candy machine? Regulated. Own a hospital and you’re a doctor? Regulated. Parenting like a moron according to your nurse, she’ll come into your home and tell you how to parent. Regulated. Illegal immigrant sucking off the system and paying nothing in? Not regulated.
Why oh why would anyone want this bill? It is an atrocity. It will be expensive, limit choice, be centrally run, and citizens will be hectored to death by an invasive, oppressive government. Gah!
Forget Halloween, the health care bill is terrifying.
This dropped yesterday:
The Obama administration has released new deficit numbers, and they are not pretty.
The deficit for Fiscal Year 2009, which ended Sept. 30, came in at a record $1.42 trillion, more than triple the record set just last year.
In addition, future deficits are currently projected to total $9.1 trillion in the coming decade.
Will the reality of massive debt stop Democrats? No. Their answer to debt is to push reality down the road. They have too many big plans they want to pass right now. They know they’ll lose the coming elections, but they hope to get the big programs passed while they can. Let the grown-ups deal with deficit details.
Matt Lewis writes a must-read piece about a conservative view on public transportation. I’m not going to get into the details of it, but I urge you to read it.
Here is where conservatives and Republicans need to get with the program: the government does have a role in public life. Infrastructure and defense are the two obvious roles. The problem for conservatives, is that they haven’t given enough thought to the implementation of tax dollars for infrastructure. This void has been filled with leftist fantasies. The results haven’t been effective or pretty. That is, both form and function have stunk.
I believe that it is a thoroughly conservative notion to use public monies for public purposes in positive ways. Conservatives need to give more thought to how. When conservatives get involved, their philosophy drives beauty. Since they triumph the achievements of the individual, they are more likely to prize a unique, local, and beautiful representation rather than a bland statist ideal.
Sid Burgess wrote to me on this subject. He said:
The start is making our communities communities again. Then those INDEPENDENT and strong places will create change in the government that are needed. Our founding father got it, we just forgot the purpose of local governments.
Sid also said of public transit:
As a conservative myself, I have often lamented at the wasteful and ultimately bankrupt ideas of moving hundreds of millions of people via car and highway. Until we build roads that have lifespans much longer than a decade, we must be willing to consider most financially sustainable methods.
Conservatives need to stop ceding this ground to liberals. Conservation, integrity, efficiency, and longevity are thoroughly conservative notions. It’s time to embrace them again.
Here is the explosive tape from the NEA at Brietbart as well as a transcript in full. I’m listening now.
As Patrick Courrelieche, an L.A.-based arts organizer who participated in the call, reported at Big Hollywood, the people running the call, including the NEA’s director of communications Yosi Sergant and members of the White House Office of Public Engagement and United We Serve, told the assembled crew of “thought leaders” that “we’re going to come at you with some specific asks here” (that’s a direct quote from Buffy Wicks of the Office of Public Engagement).
Chief among the requests from Sergant (who was either “reassigned” from the agency or “reportedly resigned” after denying the full extent of his role in organizing the call) was “to pick something whether it’s health care, education, the environment, you know… [and] apply artistic, you know, your artistic creative communities’ utilities and bring them to the table.” Beyond the specific policy issues above, the call organizers stressed the ideologically loaded concept of “service” as the animating principle of the Obama administration and wanted the artists to do whatever they could to promote that. As Wicks put it, “We really view [our efforts] as an onramp to a lifetime of service. We really want service to be incorporated into people’s daily lives.”
Given that the NEA prides itself on being the single largest funding source for the arts in the country, such arm-twisting by agency officials, however masked in fulsome compliments to creators’ genius, is disturbing on its face. It clearly sets a political agenda for the very people who are likely to be applying for, well, NEA and other government grants. Does anyone think that the organizers were fishing around for projects that might complicate the public option for health care?
The National Endowment for the Arts has always been looked upon with skepticism by many a taxpayer. Taxpayer money has been used to fund such notable pieces of artwork such as the cross in urine jar, etc.
But this affront goes one further. Artists are asked directly to create to support the Obama administration’s agenda ends. By definition, artists should be “independent”, right? But the government is asking artists to play along with a certain perspective.
There are problems for both the taxpayer and the artist. What would happen, for example, if an artist didn’t support the president? What if an artist created art that harmed the President’s objectives? Would funding be pulled? Consider some of the things said in the preamble to the call:
“the role that we played in the campaign”
“the president has a clear ‘arts agenda'”
“all on this phone call were selected for a reason”
So artists might feel honored because they like this president, but when or if their opinion changed, this call could be construed as coercion. It IS coercion.
Now, the American taxpayer has an entirely different concern: The Obama administration is using an arm of the government to pay artists with taxpayer money to create, essentially propaganda. Art will be used to promote the taxpayer’s dime to promote a specific Obama policy.
“Valerie Jarrett is one of our fantastic leaders”
“Bolster civic engagement with this effort”
“We want to connect with labor unions, womens groups”
“It’s going to take all of us working together–progressive groups”–this is the United We Serve, a government program director talking–the Corporation for National Service.
This, obviously, is a problem all the way around.
The government is asking artists to focus on these policies: health care, energy and environment (parks), education (Department of Education), and community renewal.
Listen to the whole thing. It’s an abomination. And listen with this thought in mind: Imagine if President Bush’s surrogates engineered a similar phone call. Yeah. There’d be outrage.
Perhaps Andrew Breitbart and friends shouldn’t be surprised when they find the White House staffers making “specific asks” of allegedly independent artists on a conference call organized by the allegedly nonpartisan National Endowment of the Arts. Obama’s appointee to head the endowment, Rocco Landesman, said about 20 days after that conference call, “If the president had wanted a timid NEA, he would have made a different choice.”
No timid NEA. Oh no. The NEA is the new Obama propaganda funder. Thank you, American taxpayer.
Dan Riehl and the connection between ACORN, NEA, faith based initiatives and Obama.
When you add it up, the Obama Administration is sticking it to the poor and and middle class in a huge way. Consider:
Cigarette taxes are overwhelmingly against the poor and middle class as they’re the ones who smoke.
Now, the government is considering taxing Soda pop. Guess who will be harmed by that tax? There is also this point: Since when is it the government’s blankety-blank business to decide what is and is not good for people? But Democrats love coercion and forcing behavior:
The group’s review of research on the topic, appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine, was released on Wednesday, the same day that Senator Max Baucus, the Montana Democrat, made public his health care reform plan, with an estimated cost of $774 billion over 10 years. The Baucus plan would be paid for by an array of taxes and fees on high-end group insurance plans, drug and medical device makers, and other sources, with no mention of any tax on sugary beverages.
The scientific paper found that a beverage tax might not only raise revenue but have significant health effects, lowering consumption of soda and other sweet drinks enough to lead to a small weight loss and reduced health risks among many Americans.
The study cited research on price elasticity for soft drinks that has shown that for every 10 percent rise in price, consumption declines 8 to 10 percent.
The real goal? Tax revenue. Democrats don’t give a rats ass if people die from obesity but they know a fat hog when they see one and they want a piece of that money.
Cap-n-Tax will cost the average American family $1700/year.
Health care under the Baucus plan would cost a family of four $700/month minimum. That’s much more than some pay right now and nearly $9,000 in new taxes. In addition, the Baucus plan has perverse incentives to hurt single people and single parents with children.
Add this all up and the American family could be paying $15,000 more/year than they are now. Remember, the Bush tax cuts are about to be repealed. All in all, average Americans will be burdened.
More than that, this is all during a recession. So that means that less money will be circulated into the economy. The government will control American purse strings. With less money, job creation will come to a halt. Temporary jobs and lower income jobs will be eliminated. Again, the poor, working class and middle class will be affected most. These plans will create more wards of the state.
But of course, this is all common sense. The population is aging, there are fewer workers and more obligations. The only choice is to reduce obligations or increase taxation on producers. The solution, Democrat-style is to always increase taxation.
And the poor and middle class always get screwed first. Always.
Federal government employees make nearly 100% more, on average, per year, than the average American worker. With the deficit soaring, Nancy Pelosi suggested a 19% pay increase. President Obama is getting props for saying it should be 2%.
Pardon me, but what the hell?
Private sector employees are either taking a cut in hours, are laid off or have pay freezes–because that’s what people do to stay competitive in a down economy.
But with the American taxpayer ponying up for Federal employees wages, the sky is the limit. What a disgusting system.
So, Barack Obama has gotten religion. How convenient. And he’s gotten religion just in time to beat the bitter Bible-thumping, gun-clingers with it. Even better.
Bearing false witness? Breaking the 9th Commandment? So his opponents are sinners. I’m trying to imagine the separation-of-church-and-state freakout if George Bush had taken this approach to arguing for one of his policies.
According to the lede paragraph in the linked NYT article:
President Obama sought Wednesday to reframe the health care debate as “a core ethical and moral obligation,” imploring a coalition of religious leaders to help promote the plan to lower costs and expand insurance coverage for all Americans.
Strangely, the context of that quote — “a core ethical and moral obligation” — is missing from the body of the article. Was something cut? Was it too embarrassing? Too Bush-y? I have to go elsewhere:
First, bearing false witness is not the same as lying. Bearing false witness means witnessing against someone, knowing he is innocent, in order to harm him. In the Old Testament days, a false witness could get a person stoned. Is President Obama actually implying that those who disagree with his ideas are against him personally? Of course he is. Because to disagree ideologically is to besmirch his very existence.
Second, health care is a core moral obligation? Of the government? Now there’s the crux of the matter. See, a Christian has a duty to care for the weak, oppressed, widowed, orphaned, imprisoned, etc. But what President Obama is talking about is NOT Christian charity, he’s talking about forced taxation to redistribute to all who don’t have health care. That might mean the able-bodied and lazy, those who don’t care for their health, etc.
President Obama should steer clear of his religious talk. First, he doesn’t walk the talk as Ann points out. Second, he is talking about the state taking on the obligation of an individual’s religion which is a personal choice–whereas taxation is most definitely NOT a choice. Well, not much of one.
Silly, silly, voters. Taxes are for everybody–kids, too!
Tim Geithner was on with George Stephenopoulis and said that “we have to bring down the deficits very dramatically and that will require tough choices.” [By the way, ABC, the fact that I can’t pull a quote from your stupid site makes me not want to link your stupid site. It’s bad online etiquette to have relationships go one way.] Anyway, a couple notes:
1. The deficits were created by you with all the bailouts.
2. Now, you want the American people to pay for regulatory mistakes the government made that killed industries twice over.
See, people who invested in banks or real estate or car companies or companies that served car companies, lost all their money. Then, their tax dollars were used to bail these idiotic industries out. Now, the American people are being asked to accept higher taxes to pay off deficits created by the above.
Adding insult to injury, the American people will be asked to do this AFTER they had been promised that there would be no taxation for 95% of the American people. Yeah, right.
Basically, if you produce anything, make anything, contribute anything to the American economy, You Will Be Taxed. Doug Mataconis says, “I’s pretty clear that Obama’s agenda precludes the possibility of significant, meaningful, budget cuts that will actually do something about the size of the budget deficit.”
That was pretty clear during the campaign.