The following is an editorial I have submitted to our local newspaper. The catalyst for this editorial is a situation where our County Commissioners passed a child adoption perk for full-time County employees without public awareness of it. This perk was passed in 2013, evidently, but didn't come to public light until our County Commissioner Chairman decided to apply for the perk for his own family. He and his family are desiring to adopt three children from the Ukraine. He was on the board when this perk was passed and voted for it. Our Commissioners are considered part-time County employees, but for some unknown reason, even that didn't stop the County Chairman from applying for this perk. So, now the newspaper and the public are aware of what has happened. So much wrong here, my little editorial just barely scratches the surface. Here you are:
ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA
ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA
Lifting up the down-trodden is a noble gesture, but is it
the role of the taxpayers? All of
us who have children, have raised children and who have worked hard to support
our families, have a soft spot in our hearts for orphans. There is no doubt. But there is a difference between
charity and confiscating taxes to make some people feel good or assuage some
societal guilt. Doing good for
others through charity is supposed to be a personal choice, not paid for
through force. And there lies the
conundrum of this County proposed adoption subsidy.
Those who pay taxes are already subsidizing fatherless
families through welfare, food stamps, housing credits, healthcare, and
more. The decision to do this was
forced upon the taxpayers through Lyndon Baines Johnson’s Great Society
programs, sold as the way to wipe out poverty in the entire nation. Well, now we can see how successful
that has been. The national poverty
rate has not decreased one iota, so taking from the haves to give to the
have-nots has not produced the promised outcome of reducing poverty rates at
all. As Thomas Sowell has pointed
out countless times, the ‘Welfare State’ has exacerbated the irresponsible
behavior of many men who donate sperm and walk away, leaving the taxpayers to
foot the bill. The Great Society,
to a great degree, has turned responsible parenting into a non-sequitur.
So now we have elected County Commissioners, portraying themselves as compassionate Christian men, proposing to confiscate, through force of government, tax money to subsidize adoptions of orphaned children, taking money from some to offset the cost of ‘doing good.’ There are principles of personal responsibility here that are turned upside down. Not to mention that this policy is far from the Christian tenets of charity.
I read that one justification of getting government to do this is that some private corporations offer an adoption subsidy to their employees. In case no one catches the fine point of that, the private corporations who do this are getting tax deductions for this action, remaining taxpayers are already compensating for the deductions. I guess our County Commissioners don’t think that’s enough and they want more from the taxpayers. Another fine point is that there is already a substantial federal tax credit program through the IRS for individuals who adopt children.
Next thing you know, the taxpayers will be paying people to not have children. Oh, wait, we are already in the heat of that battle thanks to Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood.
Once upon a time in America, taking tax money from others for your own personal use was generally considered a shameful thing. It meant you were dependent on others and either could not or would not make your own way. It also meant socialism, a tyrannical government system that America fought a war with great sacrifice to defeat in Europe. Americans, for the most part, understood the implications of socialist tyranny. The backbone of America was forged with independence and individual liberties. The heart of the American public was charitable without government intervention.
So now we have elected County Commissioners, portraying themselves as compassionate Christian men, proposing to confiscate, through force of government, tax money to subsidize adoptions of orphaned children, taking money from some to offset the cost of ‘doing good.’ There are principles of personal responsibility here that are turned upside down. Not to mention that this policy is far from the Christian tenets of charity.
I read that one justification of getting government to do this is that some private corporations offer an adoption subsidy to their employees. In case no one catches the fine point of that, the private corporations who do this are getting tax deductions for this action, remaining taxpayers are already compensating for the deductions. I guess our County Commissioners don’t think that’s enough and they want more from the taxpayers. Another fine point is that there is already a substantial federal tax credit program through the IRS for individuals who adopt children.
Next thing you know, the taxpayers will be paying people to not have children. Oh, wait, we are already in the heat of that battle thanks to Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood.
Once upon a time in America, taking tax money from others for your own personal use was generally considered a shameful thing. It meant you were dependent on others and either could not or would not make your own way. It also meant socialism, a tyrannical government system that America fought a war with great sacrifice to defeat in Europe. Americans, for the most part, understood the implications of socialist tyranny. The backbone of America was forged with independence and individual liberties. The heart of the American public was charitable without government intervention.
By the way, I know some parents who have adopted children who didn’t have subsidies, using their own hard earned labor and resources to do so. These people are taxpayers, too. What are you saying to them if you now decide to use their taxes to subsidize someone else’s decision to adopt?
Now we have a committee to study the idea of taxpayer
subsidies to county employees for adoption? Why? The
principle is flawed from the start.
If you oppose this, are you designated as a cold-hearted bastard who
doesn’t care for orphaned children?
There should be no committee.
There should be no further discussion. It’s a bad idea. It’s a socialist idea. It is using
government force, no matter how you try to sugar coat it and paint yourselves
as compassionate Christians. This
is not the role of government in America.
Or, should I say, it is not supposed
to be the role of government in America.
Yes, I know. That ship has
sailed and I am whistling in the wind.
I miss the America where no one in their right mind would suggest such
things as this. Charity comes from
individual choice. Not from government force. Once upon a time……
Sources:
The Federal Adoption Tax Credit
Some adoption costs can be offset by utilizing the Federal
Adoption Tax Credit, which is non-refundable, for all qualifying adoption
expenses.
Adoptive parents who work for companies with an adoption
assistance program also receive a tax break. Parents can receive up to $12,970
in reimbursement from their employer for adoption expenses without paying taxes
on that benefit.
Jesus Christ teaches His followers to give to the poor. But liberals see in this a call for
forced redistribution of wealth -- by government. Christians must support a socialist government, which takes
money from Person A by force and gives that money to Person B. Every mention of the poor they portray
as demanding government control of a nation's economy.
And let us be clear: we're talking violence. We're talking SWAT teams from time to
time storm tax protestors barricaded in their homes. Violence, even death by police, backs up tax collection for
the welfare state. So does Jesus
Christ endorse violence so that the government can take from Person A to give
to Person B?
Conservatives notice what liberals somehow cannot see: that
Jesus is addressing the voluntary choices of individuals. Christianity rests upon free will. Capitalism rests upon free will. God Himself does not force anyone to
obey Him, follow Him, love Him, or serve Him. When one town rejected Jesus in Luke 9, His followers wanted
to punish the disobedient people by "calling down fire" -- that is,
praying for a repeat of Elijah's spectacular miracle. Jesus sharply rebuked them.
