September 24, 2007
One Angry (at Hillary) Mother
My beloved dagny wrote this months ago and after viewing Hillary's historic appearance on Fox News Channel last Sunday was compelled to update it and demand placement in today's issue of Threesources.com (no, I did not give her the "standby rate.")
We watched Hillary on Fox News Sunday this morning and listened to her explain why “we” need to ensure that every American has health insurance. I found myself angry yet again that many Americans don’t seem to get the idea that if the government is providing something, ANYTHING, the taxpayers (like me) are footing the bill.My first child was born when I was 36. I made good decisions relating to child-bearing. I waited until I had a husband worthy of fathering my children. I waited until we could afford to care for our children without relying on others. I waited until I could provide appropriate medical insurance for myself and my children without relying on others. I dealt with the issues related to, “advanced maternal age,” because I waited for these things.
Now let’s consider someone who has made different decisions. If the unwed, poor, uninsured, teenage mother comes into my house and steals $100, or even $5, she will be arrested and put in jail. If however, the government takes my $100 and gives it to her this is a good thing?
The unwed mother is rewarded by the government for her bad decision making while I am punished for my good decision making. Is this the incentive system we wish to encourage in this country? These things became particularly clear to me and my feelings in the matter became much stronger when we started a family. Dammit, it’s my money and I earned it, and I wish to spend it on MY children.
Why isn’t every mother in the country angry?
I realize, I’m probably preaching to the choir at threesources – maybe I should send this to Hillary.
Thanks to the Democrats it is no longer true that "It is best to prepare for the days of necessity." Now it is best to go on strike for free, lifetime healthcare.
Health Care Posted by JohnGalt at September 24, 2007 3:15 PM
I hate picking fights with Dagny. It's unseemly and I always lose. I think the ThreeSources choir (rehearsal this Thursday, don't be late) will appreciate your positions. They should -- they're right.
However...
Pragmatist-in-chief has to point out that your argument is a political loser. Do you really object to paying for health care for poor kids? Like President Reagan, I'm cool with using the Federal largess to provide a safety net. We can argue about moral hazard (and we might) but that train left the station in FDR's administration and it is not scheduled to pass through here.
President Bush is making a courageous stand against withering demagoguery to veto the Schip bill, and I do not know how many less courageous GOP legislators will hold.
Governor Corzine likes to hand out free health care to those above the median income; Senator Clinton wants Medicare to be a choice for every American, irrespective of age or income.
Against this fight, I find your hard line position to be politically ineffective. There is a real fight at the margins and those who want to re-argue the New Deal are not going to be effective on the new front lines.
Posted by: jk at September 25, 2007 11:01 AMIn the war against America's slide from the USA to the 'USSA' we must have strategic and tactical elements. While JK is correct that daily combat is necessary to hold budget growth and program expansion to 3.5% per year instead of the 4.0% (or more) that Democrats would have if unopposed, such a strategy is never going to result in an actual REDUCTION of the welfare state - not to mention its demise.
The value of dagny's rant is in the question "Why?"
"Why isn't EVERY mother in the country angry?"
Why is railing against government theft from individuals on behalf of other individuals "a political loser?"
Dagny knows, she just chose not to say: Altruism. Robin Hood. Failure to understand (or to acknowledge) basic accounting. Unprecedented national wealth that makes penny pinching obsolete and leaves the door wide open for governor Corzine and Senator Clinton to leverage the teachings of Pope Benedict and every single one of his forebears and their minions to siphon off "just a little" and "just a little more" for a "safety net."
Personally I'd like to see the "safety net" dismantled because it became unpopular and not because it became so onerous that it destroyed the wealth that made it possible. That's where the strategic weapon is required.
TEACH people that they are not their brother's keeper.
ADVISE them to sacrifice themselves for no man, nor accept any man's sacrifice for himself.
EMPOWER everyone with the knowledge that every grain of produce that he creates is rightly and morally his own, to do with as HE chooses, without a shred of guilt.
DISAMBIGUATE the ideas of voluntary charity and coerced "aid for the disaffected."
Then, and only then, may we banish the second "S" the philosophy of Socialism, that now effectively exists in the name and the soul of this, the greatest nation in the history of human kind. Make no mistake - America is great despite socialism, not because of it.
Posted by: johngalt at September 25, 2007 3:19 PM | What do you think? [2]