When I saw the big Drudge headline this morning about Nancy Pelosi defending money included in the stimulus package for birth control on the grounds it will reduce government costs for children’s health care and education, I figured it was an embarrassing mistake that would soon be corrected. But then Bob Wexler went on Hardball and said very much the same thing. Looks like the Dems have made it official policy to promote a reduction in the number of births as a cost-cutting measure .
The concept clearly gave Chris Matthews the creeps. And to his credit, he called Wexler on it.
ROBERT WEXLER: Let’s talk about that family planning. Family planning saves, if done correctly, an enormous sum of money down the road in the health care system.
CHRIS MATTHEWS: I don’t know. It sounds a little like China. Congressman Gingrey [the Georgia Republican was also a guest], I think everybody should have family planning, I think everybody is for birth control as a right. I’m for abortion as a right, and all that. It’s all a right. But why should the federal government have a policy of reducing the number of births? I don’t know why the federal government has an interest in that. They have an interest in freedom and people making choices. But I just heard a case made by Congressman Wexler that it was in the national interest that we have fewer kids!
The moral imperative aside, someone should send Pelosi and Wexler copies of Mark Steyn’s America Alone.
2 Comments
It appears the left might be looking ahead to socialized medicine being implemented. One of the things going on with the “stimulus” bill that is getting no attention in the MSM is that all of our medical information (see link below) is going to be collected in a government database. It doesn’t take a genius to understand what that information will eventually be used for, particularly when dealing with an aging population and the increasingly limited health care resources inherent with government-run health care.
However, lower birthrates mean a lower number of taxpayers down the road. Given the fact that the Baby Boomers are beginning to start retiring in earnest, is it a wise move for this nation to encourage far lower birth rates, particularly given the entitlement train wreck we are headed for as a nation?
Lower birthrates haven’t worked out all that well for the Europeans, who have allowed a great deal of immigration in order to bolster their shrinking native workforce. We all know what they are now dealing with because of it.
About the only benefit I can see is that it will make room for a mass influx of people who aren’t from here. Surely that isn’t what is behind this, is it?
Whatever their motivation, it seems they will only accomplish placing a much higher tax burden on future generations, who are going to be overloaded even if things remain as they are.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=87322
-Dave
I think you make a great point about declining birth rates. That’s why I suggested Pelosi & Co. should read Mark Steyn’s “America Alone,” which describes how declining birth rates in the West and Japan, and high birth rates in the Muslim world, threaten our civilization.
3 Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] Finkelblog: ROBERT WEXLER: Let’s talk about that family planning. Family planning saves, if done correctly, an enormous sum of money down the road in the health care system. [...]
[...] that bad case of restless leg? The last couple Hardball episodes give reason to hope so. As I noted here, on yesterday’s show, Matthews took Dem congressman Bob Wexler to task for his defense [...]
[...] But I just heard a case made by Congressman Wexler that it was in the national interest that we have fewer kids! The moral imperative aside, someone should send Pelosi and Wexler copies of Mark Steyn ’s America Alone. …[Continue Reading] [...]