One Argument For Marriage...

Here's an interesting note.

Being in a family where your parents are married to each other is good for children under 5 years of age in at least one way: they are less likely to live in poverty.

Just over 8.5% of children whose parents are married live in poverty, while more than 43% of children in single parent homes live in poverty in the US. 

Single-parent families are 5 times more likely to raise their small children in poverty.  And the figures are similar for children ages 5 to 17. 

Sad....


http://www.naccrra.org/randd/docs/Children_under_5_in_poverty.pdf

National Head Start Spending

In 2009, the Department of Health and Human Services (federal welfare) spent $9,213,000,000 on the National Head Start program.  This spending was independent from state-funded programs and full-day kindergarten programs. 

In 2008 there were 796,740 children enrolled in nationally funded head start programs in America. 

That works out to $11,563 per child per year. 

If Head Start runs 180 days per year, like public school, then we are spending $64 per child per day.  If a family has 2 children in the program, that is $128 per day, or $540 per week, or $23,127 per year. 

Why not just send the family a check that would cover the rent on a very nice 3 bedroom apartment in the amount of $1,927 per month? 

Heck, if the family moved into a more modest home that amount would cover rent and groceries!  A single parent would be able to work a part time job and provide plenty for their family.  A two-parent household could easily afford to have Mom home and Dad could work a job that allowed him to be home more hours, too.  Or the parent(s) could devote some time and energy to education or vocational training that would allow them to become more independent and to enjoy the sense of self-worth and well-being that comes with providing for a family.

Let's dismantle the Head Start program and send each child currently enrolled in the program a check for $11,563 per year for the next 4 years.  Make it a one-time grant to the child in the interest of getting their parents trained, educated and productive. 

Ah, but then the State would not have so much access to young minds and so much control over families as it now has.  The the State would lose its hold on the future of its citizens.  Then the State would see its power slip from its hands, back into the hands of those who rightfully hold it:  The People.

And I see the flaw in my premise.  My premise assumes that government can legitimately take money from those who have and redistribute it to those who have less.  That right does not exist in Nature.  Government can only do that which the people delegate to it.  And the people can delegate to government only rights which they hold.  No person has the right to take from one the fruits of his labor and give those fruits to another simply on the basis that the latter has less than the former.  Therefore it is not in the legitimate scope of government to do the same. 

Nevertheless, it is interesting to imagine all of the government spending in "our interest" really being spent in our interest, isn't it?

http://www.hhs.gov/asrt/ob/docbudget/2011budgetinbrief.pdf
http://www.naccrra.org/randd/head-start/participation

Fatherhood...(dot gov???)

Yesterday I was driving and I heard a public service announcement on the radio.  I can't remember what it was saying, but the tone was sappy, sentimental and sincere. 

At the end of the spot, a voice said  I should visit http://www.fatherhood.gov/ for more information. 

That almost made my head spin around. 

I'm not opposed to learning truth from all sources, but it seems that intimate family relationships and anything ending in ".gov" are incompatible; and in today's reality they are diametrically opposed.

The proper function of government is to protect the individual liberties of citizens.

Some say that the Tea Party movement in America is misguided or misinformed.  They assert that the original Boston Tea Party was a protest against taxes.  They are the ones who misunderstand history and who seek to perpetuate misinformation.

The original movement toward American independence from British rule was inspired by the natural desire of mankind to be free from tyranny of any kind.  Britain had steadily ratcheted up its influence in North America and its control over its subjects living in the New World for more than 100 years.  The Crown had imposed laws and ignored them when it was in the Crown's interest to do so.  The influence of government (distinct from "law") could be seen and felt in virtually every aspect of American life.  Consider the Bill of Rights.  Why would the founders have written the clause about housing soldiers in private homes without compensation or cause if there hadn't been some kind of problem with that?

Government's place is to uphold the Law of the land, not to seek to influence or control the citizenry.  The Law, civil society, religion, and individual morality will control the citizenry.

Gadsden's flag bore the imgage of a coiled rattlesnake and the words, "Don't Tread On Me!"  The implied message was that if would-be tyrants stepped on the American people they would receive a wound that could be fatal. 

So, back to Boston.  The original tea party was simply a venting of frustration with the overreaching and oppressive hand of the British government.  Taxes were at best a secondary issue. 

So it is today.  The modern Tea Party movement is an expression of frustration with the US government.  So-called "Tea Partiers" do not want a revolution.  Rather they seek a reformation of the country.  A return to the limited government that allowed Americans to exercise their natural rights to life, liberty and property. 

Some, like Bill Maher, would twist this desire for true freedom and accuse "Tea Partiers" of longing for a time in American history when racism was institutionalized.  They would have others believe that the movement for restored freedom is simply a frustrated and angry white person's reaction to a black president.  This thought is simplistic at best and malicious at worst. 

This simply is not true.

The Tea Party movement began before President Obama was elected.  It began before any of the participants were even born.  It began before 1776 and before 1621.  It began before Jesus was born.  It began before cavemen and dinosaurs. 

This is a truth that those who would oppress their fellow man seek deep to hide from the world. 

Nature and Nature's God designed and destined man to be free to enjoy life, liberty and the fruits of his labor.  It is a violation of Natural Law to oppress man or to take the fruits of his labor without his consent and without just compensation. 

Whether a man is hanged with a silken rope or one of coarse hemp, the end is the same.  Whether government interference in the life of man is well-intentioned or nefarious, the result is the same. 

Which brings me back to fatherhood.gov.  On its face it is preposterous.  And it disturbs me.

Is Health Care Reform Constitutional? It Doesn't Matter...!

In memoriam of the US Constitution I am linking to this interesting exchange between an Illinois representative to the US House of Representatives and some of his constituents.

http://qconline.com/archives/qco/display_mobile.php?id=486688

This is a perfect example of two things.  First, a liberal will always put feeling before reason.  And second, some members of Congress do not engage in independent thought, and when pressed they cannot speak intelligently or honestly.