Both Steve and I had posts on HB1658, so when a local Democrat, Kate Miller (rather frustrated from having been tossed from the NH House in 2010 and has been writing very shrewish Letters to the Editor ever since) decided to decry even more “intrusion” into womens’ lives, I could not help myself:
“Laughter does the soul good”, or so the old adage goes. In that case, my soul is well indeed, especially after reading the latest dismalocumentary from Kate Miller (who seemingly is still smarting after being thrown out of the NH House for being a Democrat extremist by voters in 2010). Her personal jeremiad in attempting to paint the Republicans to where she’s already been cast borders on hysterical these last few months! One would think that she works in a plastics factory (the way she keeps grasping at straws)!
In her latest dismalogy, she vainly tries to ascribe to HB1658, where the State would no longer provide higher payments to a TANF (welfare) mother who has another baby, as an additional intrusion into the personal lives of women (“So this legislature wants to pry even further into women’s lives?”). Let’s see – if the State has to pay more now, it would have to be involved with a women’s life in order to see that she was pregnant, see that she gave birth, and see that the baby was delivered in order to pay the current extra stipend, right (“yup, new baby? Paperwork, please”). And if that woman had yet another baby, it would be “rinse, repeat”. After all, the State HAS to be involved!; How else would update the systems that spit out the checks as the babies arrive?
No, Ms. Miller, if HB1658 goes through, the State will not become more involved. In fact, it will do nothing more – exactly what you want (i.e., less intrusion!). No asking for “baby proof”, no interaction with paperwork, and nothing done in the computer system. Zippo, nada, nothing. Last time I looked into the dictionary, that would be the essence of “no intrusion”. Right?
So, let’s turn this around – how WOULD this be an intrusion, Ms. Miller – by doing nothing?
Right now, the only intrusion I see is the Democrat sanctioned reach into taxpayers wallets to force them to pay for the results of behavior in which they had no part – coerced charity. Isn’t it really is an intrusion by greedy Democrat that are all too willing to pluck the taxpayers over and over again for their own purposes (instead of using their own wallets?). Once again, we see a Democrat, Ms. Miller, all too willing to socialize a cost for someone else’s behavior.
Or are you simply trying the old Democrat / Liberal / Progressive (you know, I DO wish you folks would finally figure out what you want to be called – you have almost as many names as you do ways to fleece taxpayers wallets) of redefining our language to suit your purposes?
Here is Kate Miller’s Letter:
To the editor,
I have spent a couple of days this week attending hearings in the Legislative Office Building in Concord. As I moved from room to room, my shock continued to grow as I listened to discussions of various bills under consideration.
Take for example, the bill to establish a commission to study the effects of compulsory school attendance on children and families. Isn’t educating our youngsters a standard accepted in this state? And then there is the bill to create a commission to study the “frequency and financial consequences” of erroneous 911 calls. A commission? Seriously?
Things get even more ridiculous with yet another proposed commission which would identify issues related to “strengthening the role of fathers in families with divorced or unmarried parents.” I thought this legislature was all about keeping the government out of people’s lives!
Some bills being heard would have serious negative consequences for many of our state’s residents. One would limit financial assistance to “mothers who have additional children” while they are receiving funds under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families program. So this legislature wants to pry even further into women’s lives?
Another proposal would give immunity to school personnel for using “reasonable” force. No force is reasonable in a school setting. This is simply not within the legislature’s purview. But since there is another bill to completely abolish the Department of Education, maybe these legislators are seizing the opportunity to step in.
This Republican-controlled legislature is worse than an embarrassment: it is a danger to the people it was elected to serve. Paying mileage for these legislators to move this kind of agenda forward is worse than a waste of our state’s precious state funds: it is a repudiation of the concept of representative governing.
I urge all N.H. citizens to pay close attention to what is going on in our Legislature and bring this dangerous activity to an end at the next election.
Kate Miller
Meredith
