The truth is that it’s not about a “balanced budget.” The Republican vote to raise the debt ceiling will be contingent on whether they can tack on their far right social engineering schemes — killing Planned Parenthood, eliminating reproductive rights, and oppressing gays. These are the truly important issues in today’s Republican Party, and it’s proven by the simple fact that they’ve larded down every budget amendment with these religious right agenda items.
Kooky to required our congress to do their jobs and balance the budget while returning more money to the private sector? Yeah, that's a real goofy idea, genius. Far-right social engineering schemes? What a laugh!! Let's delve into each assertion separately. (And if you're interested, you can read a von Mises case against raising it here.)
First of all, social engineering is a scheme and powerful tool used by government in total. Both government and private groups try to implement social engineering (i.e., influencing the behaviors of others), buy only an entity with a monopoly on force and currency would I consider this immoral. I would further argue that social engineering has been dominated by the left over the past century, though often supported by the right in exchange for their own agendas.
Citing the Pledge of AllegiancePublic school prayerPublic school abstinence-only sex education vs. giving out condomsThe entire public schools and university system (3/4 are democrat in universities)"Without question, one of the greatest tools for social engineering is in the realm of public education."
(Carl Teichrib, www.forcingchange.org).The government-advocated/supported/endorsed/enforced environmental movementThe White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood PartnershipsTaxation
- Sin taxes
- Cap and Trade
- The entire IRS tax code
- Urban Planning and Development
Affirmative actionThe ADAJim Crowe LawsBreaches of the 1st AmendmentThe "War" on DrugsThe "War" on PovertyAbortion LawsMarriage lawsDoublespeak laws such as the Patriot Act
I'm sure I'm missing a ton more, but you get the point. See if you can guess which categories belong to which party. I think you'll find the answer is both, to some extent, depending on the category. Many of these are inextricably linked together; for example the misguided environmental movement, the EPA, and public schools.
Second, regardless of your position on abortion, any reasonable minded person should conclude that federal funding must not be part of the picture, in the same way it should not be part of any religious endeavor. What's more, since PP only gets about 30 percent of it's funding from federal dollars it would not likely go out of business. If they suffer a shortfall that's their problem. I'm sure there are enough wealthy philanthropists to rescue them if they think PP is of value to them; otherwise they will simply have to scale back and streamline. Would anyone actually agree to fund something called "The Massachusetts State Abortion Clinic." I don't think so. It would be political suicide. So lawmakers subtly pass funds to private non-profits like PP, but the principle is identical in both cases.
The question of reproductive rights versus the right of the unborn child is not likely to be solved anytime soon. Better to get the feds out of the way and let states decide among their citizenry. At any rate this is quite irrelevant as eliminating federal funding for PP has nothing to do with the legality of the issue! Removing federal funds does not remove "reproductive rights." Absurd.
Lastly, while I understand that marriage laws (and licensing) is not and should not be a legitimate function of the government, since I think all human beings have the right to freely associate and contract with each other, the assertion that balancing the budget somehow oppresses gays is akin to saying that if we don't pass Cap and Trade the moon will fall into the ocean. It's simply abject nonsense. With the exception of marriage, the gay community enjoys the same rights and privileged as any other citizen of this country. In some ways, they have more rights, since some states have laws banning private companies from firing employees because they're gay. While this is ill-advised, it should be the employers right (free association, remember?). So in some states gay people are protected under the law from being fired from a private company, but what if you're a smoker and work for a public employer? Did you know that Sarasota County, Florida discriminates against smokers? This could be a full blog in itself.
In May, 2008, tobacco-free hiring guidelines were implemented which require all applicants to acknowledge, during the application process, that they have not used tobacco products for the preceding 12 months. In addition, applicants will be screened for tobacco use during the new-hire physical process. If the screening indicates the presence of nicotine, the applicant will be considered ineligible for hire.
Gay smokers are really oppressed then!
All ranting aside, the government through both parties has engaged in social engineering for well over 100 years through social programs, taxes, and legislation. And we, as citizens, carry a great deal of blame for this by ignoring fundamental principles and sanctioning the use of government force to propel our own desires. We, in many ways, are our own oppressors.