Compromising Good Policy

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

House Democrats are likely to jettison family planning funds for the low-income from an $825 billion economic stimulus bill, officials said late Monday, following a personal appeal from President Barack Obama at a time the administration is courting Republican critics of the legislation [source].

Now, now, Barack, as much as we like you reaching out across the aisle, we don’t expect you to compromise on good policy. Otherwise what good is the mandate that you have and the solid majority you enjoy in the Congress? No wonder Democrats are considered wussies; if you don’t stand up to your ideals and principles that define you, how different are you from the other side? Especially so when the rhetoric from the Republicans is not as dire as they make it out to be. Don’t fall for their scare tactics; the American voter didn’t, so why should you? Disappointing.

“Compromising Good Policy” [Short URL: http://www.ipatrix.com/?p=2838] was published Tuesday, January 27th, 2009 at 11:17 am by Patrix, filed under Governance, and tagged as Obama. Both comments and linkbacks are closed.

« Political Innuendos

Muffling a Blogger »

http://www.parablog.com/wp/ Parag
What does family planning have to do with economic stimulus and creating new jobs? Actually, not preventing pregnancies will help create new jobs. People will have more babies and they will need more nurses, doctors, teachers and daycare providers.
Also, why should the government provide for family planning? Isn’t it a personal issue and personal responsibility? Folks who can’t afford to have children or afford to buy their own condoms shouldn’t be doing “it”. I’d support a government program for neutering people who can’t take care of family planning on their own.

http://www.ipatrix.com Patrix
Parag, actually keeping in line with obfuscation, the rhetoric from the Republicans is misleading on this issue. If you check out the second link, it shows that the money is for a Nixon-era program and “what’s being proposed is an expansion in the number of states that can use Medicaid money, with a federal match, to help low-income women prevent unwanted pregnancies.” There are eight Republican-led states among the 26 that enjoy this waiver right now and there is no protest for these funds in those states. Not having a waiver in fact leads to bureaucratic inefficiencies.
Your argument that not preventing pregnancies will create new jobs is mistaken because the pregnancies that this program helps avoid are in the low-income bracket which do not avail of the nurses, doctors, teachers, or even daycare providers. Kids born thus would in fact consume more governmental resources in terms of welfare. The government can provide opportunities for family planning and not impose it China-style or as you propose in your last sentence. You cannot ask people to not “do it” in a free society but in fact give them tools and opportunities to do it safer and to prevent unwanted (from the perspective of parents) pregnancies. Social research in fact shows that such programs are in fact better for the societal good and reduce governmental spending in the long run.

Nerve Endings Firing Away

Compromising Good Policy

Related Posts

Subscribe