Where’s your big gub’mint now, teabaggers?
The rate at which bastard children were born in 1963, when Lyndon Johnson launched the war on poverty, was seven percent. Meanwhile, we continue to maintain actual marriage penalties in our tax code, including the newly hatched monstrosity of health care reform. So we subsidize illegitimacy and penalize marriage, and we wonder why things get worse rather than better.
And President Obama intends to zero out the one budget item devoted to strengthening marriage in low-income communities.
The place to begin? By reforming state and federal budgets so that we no longer subsidize immorality.
It’s time to communicate in policy and not just in words that in America, we expect you to save sex for marriage, to have children only within the marriage relationship, and that we will no longer force American taxpayers to fund the expenses of children they did not conceive and with whom they have no relationship and for whom they have no responsibility.
If you conceive children out of wedlock, we will expect you and your families to find a way to take care of the expenses involved in raising that child. In America, that child is your responsibility and no one else’s. You may look for help to charities funded by private, voluntary, compassion-driven donations, but you may not look to government to force other Americans at gunpoint to take money out of their wallets and fork it over to you. We are no longer going to treat you as helpless little children; we are going to treat you as the responsible adults you can become. It’s time to grow up.
“We expect you to save sex for marriage”? And he wants the government to enforce this?! That’s just darling. If you ever needed any proof that when conservatives talk about “small government” (or most anything else, really), that they’re not talking about any deeply held beliefs, but rather just farting out buzzwords they heard on teevee, this is a textbook example. The Religious Right doesn’t want “small government.” They simply want to be the government. “For the white fundamentalist Christians, by the white fundamentalist Christians.” Note, of course, that the actual victims of the policies Fischer is imagining would be the children.
“Pro-family?”
My ass.
Fischer and the American Family Association, of course, don’t care about those children or their families. There’s more than a little bit of racist subtext in his piece. It’s heavily coded, of course, because it’s in wingnut Newspeak. And of course, if any of these people actually did care about the people they wish to victimize, they’d support universal healthcare, reproductive health services, contraceptive education and availability, and Planned Parenthood, since that organization is the primary healthcare provider for many poor single mothers. It’s useful to remember, also, that Fischer is a member in good standing of the Religious Right, many of whose leaders have signed on to the idea that abortion rights and Planned Parenthood are perpetrators of “black genocide.” So, which is it? Is Fischer’s heart just bleeding for the unborn black babies, supposedly the victims of a giant superpower machine that’s conspiring to eliminate them? Because he certainly doesn’t seem to give a damn what happens to actual children born into poverty, black or white, entertaining as he is a fantasy to punish those children’s parents for daring to have sex without his permission, and to punish the children for the “sins” of their parents. Or is Fischer simply a wingnut opportunist who’s unable to distinguish between his various bigotries long enough to see when they’re slamming up against each other like two freight trains in his wee little brain?
(h/t Kyle)
