Virginia Libertarian

Wow, Neal goes on a great big rant today about people who should not be allowed to vote.  For the most part I agree with him.  I am of the opinion that there needs to be some criteria you need to pass (other than having survivied to be 18) in order to be allowed to vote.  My dad came up with one, that you get one vote for every $10,000 you pay in taxes per year.  Not sure I completely agree with that one, but it couldn’t be worse than what we have now.  Maybe have that be a cutoff, you don’t get to vote unless you pay $10,000 in taxes per year, but you only get one vote.  We have to have some way of keeping people from voting themselves the ability to steal other peoples stuff.

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze Today’s Nuze

If you squandered every opportunity for an education to end up an unemployable semi-literate loser, that’s your problem, not mine. If you’ve destroyed your health with cigarettes and fast food … then by what right do you demand that people who lived their lives more responsibly than you cover the cost of your medical care. You cry about your “right” to health care. You dare to claim a right to the services of another human being to correct problems you created for yourself? Further, if it is more important for you to spend your money on a cell phone, flat-screen televisions, the best new car, meals at expensive restaurants and fancy vacations than it is to spend your money on a health insurance policy .. then you should be on your own. Don’t beg the government to steal from someone else so that you don’t have to change your lifestyle.

And a word for you welfare brood mares out there. That’s right .. welfare brood mares .. it’s time for someone to call you out for what you are. Perhaps one of the greatest social wrongs a person can commit in this country is to have a child that you cannot afford to care for. Do you really think that it’s perfectly OK for you to get yourself knocked up, download your baby, and then tell the taxpayers “Hey, look what I did! Now you folks cough up the money I need to take care of this child.” Yeah .. that’s what America is all about .. and you’re going to be right there in November to vote for Hillary, aren’t you. In fact all of you are: the uneducated and unmotivated, the “I’m not responsible for my own health care” crowd, and the single moms. All of you want someone else to step in and take care of you after you’ve screwed up your own lives, and who better than Hillary, a woman more than ready to use the police power of government to reward you for your votes.

You do know, don’t you, that you have absolutely no constitutional right to cast a vote in this presidential election. No .. you probably don’t know that. That would mean you are educated, but you’re not. You were educated by the government … and the government sure isn’t going to disclose that inconvenient little fact to you. Somehow the media in this country has bought the politician’s about this “right to vote.” It’s not there. Doesn’t exist. And to save this country we need to figure out a way to get tens of millions the parasite class off the voter roles. Welfare? No vote. Illiterate? Stay home on election day. Begging for the government to be your lifetime nanny? Let the doers, the achievers cast the votes. Just stay away.

Historians have said that this country will start to slide when the people learn that they can vote largess for themselves out of the public treasury. Well, you’ve learned, and now you’re heading to the polls later this year to vote for government as an instrument of plunder .. plunder for you .. plunder to pay you for your votes. It’s all about you, your wants and needs. Look for the politician who promises to transfer the most wealth from the achievers to you … and that’s the politician who gets your vote. You don’t care even a little bit about the type of America you’ll leave generations to come … it’s all about you, right now, right here.

Don’t you have some soap operas you need to catch up to on election day?

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze Today’s Nuze

Yesterday in the Senate, an amendment failed that would have cut government funds (your tax dollars) to provide healthcare for middle-income children and adults without children under the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. The program was originally supposed to cover poor children, not middle income children. Now the Democrats want to expand this coverage, and Republicans have failed to block it.

Meanwhile, in the House, the Democrats are trying to expand the SCHIP program to middle income families.. including parents. The effect of this expansion would be twofold: First, many middle income families who already carry health insurance would drop that insurance like a radioactive roach and sign on the toe SCHIP welfare version. Second, costs would soar .. into the hundreds of billions of dollars in no time flat.

In the House the Democrats have been trying to ram through these changes without allowing the Republicans to offer any amendments to the bill, and without affording the opposition any meaningful time to argue against the bill on the floor.

What we’re seeing here is simply an attempt to bring Hillarycare – socialized medicine – quietly through the back door. The couldn’t do it in one swell foop under Hillary, now they’ll just try to do it incrementally.

Remember the prime motivation here. It is NOT to provide health care to children. No children are denied healthcare under our present system. The motivation is to make more and more people dependent on government for their health care. That is exactly what happens when millions of Americans drop their privately held health insurance plans and opt to go into a government welfare health care plan like SCHIP. Once these people are dependent on government, instead of themselves, for their healthcare, politicians have them by the short hairs.

Something that Neal forgot to mention, just remember that it’s not only those that opt into plans like these that have put themselves on the short leash, but they are also putting you on the leash as well.  How, you ask?  Well, you do pay your taxes like a good little citizen don’t you (how can you not, they have the guns)?  Where do you think the money to pay for these people who have opted into these programs comes from, a money tree out back of the white house?

By Phyllis Schlafly
Mar 27, 2006
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, known as Welfare Reform, has been cheered as a stunning achievement of the Republican Congress and its Contract With America. The law helped to move millions of welfare recipients out of dependency and into productive jobs, but its unintended consequences brought many thousands of “never welfare” families into the welfare bureaucracy.
Financial incentives are often built into tax credits, reductions or bonuses to influence human behavior in home ownership, energy, water, transportation, and waste management. But sometimes the law contains incentives that were not planned, expected or desirable.
The Great Society welfare system was recognized by the 1990s as a social disaster that created fatherless children, illegitimacy and women’s dependency on government. Channeling taxpayer handouts to mothers provided a powerful financial incentive for fathers to depart; they were not needed anymore.
Unfortunately, policy changes in the 1988 and 1996 welfare laws created similar financial incentives for state governments to exclude middle-class fathers from the home. The law incentivized the states to manufacture “noncustodial” (i.e., absent) fathers and to order money transfers (usually through wage garnishment) to mothers, thereby putting a large segment of the middle class under the welfare bureaucrats.
The major goal of the 1996 Welfare Reform was to reduce the budget deficit by, among other things, recovering welfare costs from absentee fathers. Without justification or public debate, the rules to accomplish this were then applied to middle-class “never welfare” families.
Formerly, to receive welfare benefits, recipients had to demonstrate eligibility by “need” (i.e., a test measured by income level), but the new policy omitted income eligibility requirements. Without a means test, a high-income mother with custody can use the power of the state to collect from a low-income father.
The federal government annually provides $4.2 billion in block grants to states to serve as collection agencies. States are reimbursed for 66 percent of their costs of child support enforcement activities, 80 percent of their costs for technology, and 66 percent of their costs of DNA testing for paternity.
The more cases the states can create and the more operational expenses they incur, the more federal funding states receive to expand their welfare bureaucracy. No performance standards are required to get this money and, in addition, the feds provide a bonus fund ($458 million in Fiscal 2006) for which the states compete.
In the welfare class, most absentee fathers are unemployed or working for wages so low that little or no money can be squeezed out of them. State bureaucrats discovered they could cash in on the pot of federal money by exploiting middle-class divorce and creating a whole new class of absent fathers who have good jobs and are willingly making payments to their ex-wives.
When a married couple with children is divorced, the family court typically renames the husband and wife as noncustodial and custodial parents. The more time with the children that is awarded to the custodial parent, the more money the noncustodial parent is ordered to pay and then can be reported by the state as collections that merit federal bonuses.
Federal funding thus provides powerful monetary incentives for states to maximize the number of single-parent households with high transfer payments, and to minimize equal child custody which would lessen transfer payments. Depriving or reducing children’s access to one parent is thus a source of revenue for states.
These incentives drive family court discretion and skew the opinions of the vast army of lawyers, psychologists, custody evaluators, and parenting counselors who are used to rationalize the process. They hide their predetermined custody rulings under the subjective slogan “the best interest of the child.”
Put another way, forcibly depriving children of access to one parent, usually the father because he usually has a higher income than the mother, is a big source of revenue to states. The more support orders that are issued, the higher they are, and the more fathers who are threatened with jail and suspension of their driver’s and professional licenses for challenging the system, the better chance a state will receive more money from the federal government.
This result was accurately predicted by Leslie L. Frye, chief of Child Support for the California Department of Social Services. In testifying to the Human Resources Subcommittee of the House Ways and Means Committee on March 20, 1997, Frye said the new regulations “encouraged states to recruit middle-class families, never dependent on public assistance and never likely to be so, into their programs in order to maximize federal child support incentives.”
Of the 40 percent of U.S. children now growing up in homes without their own father, some are victims of the stereotypical “deadbeat dad.” But most are victims of disastrous federal policies that provided incentives to create female-headed households, first by the Democrats’ welfare system and then by the Republicans’ so-called welfare reform.
Many consciences should be burdened with the realization that taxpayer money provides financial incentives to deprive millions of children of their own fathers.
Phyllis Schlafly is the President and Founder of the Eagle Forum.

Copyright © 2006 Copley News Service