13 Dec NOW President urges women to become more dependent on government & supports forced confiscation of Americans private property
It is time for a new and honest national conversation in America about what spending policies actually help women.
Does increasing entitlement spending, and growing the size, power and control over society by the federal government make women more independent, successful and “liberated,” or does growing government negatively impact women and their opportunities to flourish and succeed?
My new book, Ladies, Can We Talk? America Needs Our Vote! invites women to take a fresh look at what kind of future our votes today will create. It urges women to consider the evidence that women thrive and achieve best under freedom, and that maximum non-government based economic opportunity offers American women the most reliable path to sustained stability and success. It’s packed with facts and figures, as well as real-life stories of women whose lives were and are enriched by the freedom and economic opportunity only available under America’s historic limited government approach.
In contrast, National Organization for Women (NOW) President Terry O’Neill, in her December 5th, 2012 interview with the Daily Caller, said that if “half of the cabinet were women and half of the Supreme Court and half of the Congress were women, we would see a lot more policies for expanding education and health care and social services…we’d see a lot less spending on military weapon systems, and we would also see a lot less of the most powerful, moneyed people not paying their fair share.”
NOW/O’Neill advocate, as the path to helping women succeed and achieve, bigger government “giving” women free or low cost healthcare not tied to actual costs (which are necessarily paid for by others), and ever-increasing social services. Social services includes everything from free birth control and feminine-related health care which insurers are forced to provide for free, as well as government assistance for many basic needs in life for an expanding group of citizens, (again paid for by others in society).
It is noteworthy that on a purely philosophical basis, NOW has utterly abandoned its roots. Liberal feminists used to fight for women’s independence and for equal legal stature and access to educational and employment opportunities, but now demand policies that make women dependent on government. Feminists fought for decades for women to be free of dependence on anyone, especially their fathers or husbands. Today NOW fights to make women dependent on government and its taxpayer-funded provision of basic needs. They have forgotten or abandoned the spirit of suffragette Susan B. Anthony who said:
“There is not the woman born who desires to eat the bread of dependence, no matter whether it be from the hand of father, husband, or brother; for any one who does so eat her bread places herself in the power of the person from whom she takes it.”
O’Neill also apparently assumes that all women think alike, so that by the pure virtue of their gender women would all vote for more social spending and less defense spending. This is an inaccurate and insulting generalization about women, many of whom are economically conservative and responsible, and who therefore would not vote in the way O’Neill advocates.
Not only are O’Neill, NOW and liberals generally demanding spending programs that make women dependent on government, they are demanding that government become far more coercive and confiscatory than Americans have historically desired or tolerated.
When people on the political left use the term ”people not paying their fair share,” they are advocating for socialism. It is the agreed-upon modern buzzslogan, or buzzphrase, the other prominent one being “social justice,” which refer to the demand that Congress redistribute wealth through the power of the tax code — take money away from some American citizens, in taxes, and use it to buy stuff for other citizens.
The terms “socialism” and “redistribution” are too friendly sounding to accurately depict what NOW and other liberals want the government to do. They want the government to use the taxing power to forcefully confiscate property (money and property earned through hard work) from private citizens, so that the government can give that money to the Americans they (the Democrats) choose.
Kind of like when Socialist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez confiscated private homes in the Caribbean as well as hundreds of privately owned businesses in 2011 and 2012, and also seized privately owned farmland and turned it over to “peasants,” all to establish a socialist economic model in Venezuela. News of Chavez’s abusive seizures (theft) of private property still rattles most Americans, but when Democrat leaders in our current government speak of taxing to get the government’s “fair share” of the private wealth of American citizens, some folks do not yet connect the dots to recognize that the Democrats/liberals are proposing Chavez style seizures through the tax system, using warm and fuzzy terms like “social justice” to hide the genuine nature of their political aspirations.
This is very different from collecting taxes to pay for the common defense and other Constitutionally required tasks, about which no one squabbles, except NOW and other liberals who do apparently have a problem with Congress spending money on the most basic and vital task government has, national defense.
Fairly evaluating NOW’s stated goal of more social spending and less defense spending requires some familiarity with current spending patterns. You can go here to learn about how we spend our tax dollars. Even the liberal Center for Budget and Priorities acknowledges America spends only 20% of our expenditures on national defense and security, while a total of 54% is spent on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid/CHIP, and Government Assistance programs of many kinds.
It also matters that we understand that when Democrats here and the Socialists in Venezuela and other repressive countries take property away from some citizens to give it to others, those politicians are “buying” votes, orchestrating their own re-elections. The goal is not caring for people; it is cementing the politicians’ voting/power base.
NOW and other liberals who work to increase government social spending programs and the inevitable reliance by American women on those programs won the argument in the election of 2012. But the vital debate about whether women flourish better under an increasingly government funded and controlled economy and society, or under freedom, is the battle of the next four years and well beyond in America.
The “we’ll make them give you more free stuff” liberal arguments have superficial appeal. But the truth is that freedom brings more prosperity, stability and economic abundance that best serve all Americans, including women.