Before getting into the quick discussion of NH HB1658 (“limiting financial assistance for mothers who have additional children while receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).”) that some Conservative has introduced, how ’bout this for a table setting? This went viral back in December and while it was shocking to see a single women with 15 kids by 3 “baby daddies”, what was worse was the attitude display by her:
“Somebody Needs to Pay For All My Children“
“Somebody needs to be held accountable, and they need to pay.”
(H/T: Weasel Zippers) The Welfare State gone crazy? No, it hasn’t. What is shown here is the actual logical endgame of the Liberal philosophy that allows bad behavior to continue under the guise of “she needs help”. Yes, indeed she does – but not the type I think she requires (think: a humungous dose of traditional morality). Yes, those children are in a bad situation – no doubt about that. However in this case, the Liberal philosophy that places personal sexual / libertine behavior off limits for discussion is shown for the fraud it really is – and the result is now clear that it places lots of children at risk. Tell me, Libs – how is this result showing “we care more than Conservatives”? There are Progressives that hold the State should not become involved in the intimate life of that woman (except when it is a minor female child – then they have no problem involving Govt in abortions without Parental Notification), but here’s the rub – they have no problem in having the State pay for the consequences of that philosophy.
Except they also expect us all to just pay for the cost of their failed policy. And that is where NH HB1658 comes in.
Liberals have no answer at all even as the woman screams out the Progressive “it’s for the my children!” It is their selfishness for which they have no answer – they bitterly cling to a secular philosophy that requires no personal responsibility – and this is what happens. While this case may be an outlier for number of kids, but in running my daycare, I often heard those single moms on NH state support programs announce to their friends that they were pregnant – and soon they will have bigger “Baby check” as well. Rewarding bad behavior, immoral behavior with respect to traditional morality, is what has been made the expectation. Why SHOULD working people pay for more and more welfare babies – where is the fairness in that?
Progressives enact policies showing that the traditional role of family is of no consequence – which was, in part, to uphold that traditional morality. Remember “shotgun weddings”? Simply an out-of-date notion but it used to be that the cost of bad behavior by a family youngster, be they male or female, was borne by the families involved and not by the taxpayer. The shotgun? The metaphorical enforcer of the warning: be bad, own up. The guy was made to accept the responsibility of his actions – the girl too. But the Libs have had Govt step in between that traditional morality and replaced “mess around, mess up – marry up) with the message of “mess around, mess up, and we’ll set the single mom up in her own apartment, free food, free medical, free transportation…” and the like. What’s the downside for her – instead of Dad (either her’s or the baby’s) having to bear the cost, other-than-family has to . So, what’s the downside for either her or his families? Nada. Shame? Not even a factor anymore – hey, just go on welfare. So, what takes the actual hit? Parents? Nope, our values – the new norm is now Government being the virtual breadwinner and family protector.
Not government – it just adds more and more workers to watch over more and more wards of the state “clients”. And now, with Obama having reset the 1996 welfare reforms (that made States bear heightened costs with fixed amount block grants – now the Feds will just ship them more if the caseloads go up. There’s a real (sneer) incentive fer ya!), what is the outlook for States to keep costs in check?
Except the grownups that were put into place by voters back in November 2010 are trying to short circuit this mentality of automatic entitlement and ever increasing cost to taxpayers because others can’t control themselves, act grown up, and be responsible for their own decisions. Enter, stage Right, HB1658 with a simple message – we will not pay for new babies – you, the mother and father, will be responsible for them. The cost will not be borne by the taxpayer but by the rightful set of folks: you who engage in the act that can result in a baby. Here is the important part of the bill:
I. The level of financial assistance benefits payable to an assistance group with dependent children shall not increase as a result of the birth of a child during the period in which the assistance group is eligible for benefits, or during a temporary period in which the assistance group is ineligible for benefits pursuant to a penalty imposed by the commissioner for failure to comply with benefit eligibility requirements, subsequent to which the assistance group is again eligible for benefits.
Why should the taxpayer pay? Shouldn’t the parents be responsible? Shouldn’t they be looking around and saying “er, we really can’t afford another child – let’s just say no”? After all, why shouldn’t we be operating on the premise of self-control instead of “I can’t help myself”? Where is the fairness to taxpayers who have to make that decision all the time of “we can’t afford another child right now” – why should those living on the dole be given a pass (and yes, we should start calling it “the dole” again as well)?
Of course, there are already those condemning this reasonable line of thinking. In the UL comes these:
MaryLou Beaver, the chair of the Family Assistance Advisory Council, told the committee, “This bill punishes children for the choices their parents make.”
Oh My God – what other reason is there for parents BUT to be responsible for their children. So, this means that we are to just ignore what choices parents make? That is absolute lunacy (and morphs into the DREAM Act craziness as well)? It is this very idea that is part of the rot infesting society – this quote basically enforces what I said above – Progressives completely deny the role of personal responsibility and bearing the cost (financial and otherwise) of those decisions. Sorry, I don’t believe that the wrong headed Hillaryism of “it takes a village” means that Government automatically takes over the responsibility of all children of stupid parents. No, it doesn’t punish children – it holds the parents accountable. And it sends the message that the needle is being moved back from government responsibility and returning (however slightly) it back toward parental responsibility. Add this:
Beaver told the committee family caps are ineffective at best and misguided at their worst. She and others said reducing the grant for additional children will make it more difficult for the family to survive, and for the children to escape physical, emotional and behavioral problems.
OK, show me where the personal responsibility is here? It is infuriating that it is always the hack phrase “it for the children” rolled out as if that was the trump to every argument when trying to ratchet government size down and put the responsibility back where it belongs – families. I hate to to clue in MaryLou, but she just proved every Conservatives angry visage – Progressives just have a single answer to every problem, and that is to spend more money.
I did get a kick out of this in the story:
Kurk denied his bill was an attempt to promote abortions or social engineering.
No, it would NOT be social engineering in the least. In fact, all it does is a “reset”; it pulls Government partially out of a situation in which Progressives did do social engineering. They did the social engineering into place by inserting government into the aspect of pro-creation; this merely has government taking a step backwards out of it and turning that back to where it really belongs – private individuals and private families.
