Midst a column defending Romney's proposal to send money to families with children--which actually is a good idea despite the source--we find Marco Rubio demonstrating that "Conservative" is NOT "Marco."
“Being pro-family means being pro-[women in the workforce]" Rubio wrote
Clearly Little Marco has never raised children.
Back to Romney...
Under Romney’s “Family Security Act,” families would receive a monthly check for $350 for preschool-age children and $250 for those of school-age, with a maximum monthly payment of $1,250 per household, administered through the Social Security Administration. Funding for the bill would come from consolidating outmoded and redundant federal policies into direct support for families.
“In order to remain deficit-neutral and provide certainty for families, it also eliminates the State and Local Tax Deduction (SALT), which is an inefficient tax break to upper-income taxpayers,” according to the proposal. “However, most families that previously claimed the SALT deduction will still be net beneficiaries through their larger monthly child benefits.”
Joni "Pigsticker" Ernst also thinks that workplace is THE place for mothers. She's a real Material Girl, eh? Marx would love her.
There are women who want to work and enjoy it. But there ALSO are women who really prefer to stay home and raise their children--and some who would love to home-school them, too.
Rubio's and Ernst's remarks are just plain stupid--but not only because of the unvarnished materialism they display. Romney's idea is a not-too-subtle hint that Social Security/Medicare will be BK in 30 years or so, largely because the USA ain't having children. We import them instead.
Is that wise?
We could play with the amounts Romney proposes. But we cannot play with the nature of mankind NOR the actuarial tables.
Maybe Little Marco and Pigsticker should get around to reading up on "Conservativism" some day.
No comments:
Post a Comment