April 9, 2011
Much debate took place around government funding to Planned Parenthood leading up to the prevented government “shutdown.” Many pro-lifers argued funding was going directly to fund abortions. Pro-choicers argued the federal money was separated from the money going to abortions. And budget hawks and libertarians argued government shouldn’t be subsidizing any of their services, regardless of the abortion issue.
Here are a few facts on the issue straight from Planned Parenthood itself:
- Percent of Planned Parenthood revenue from government funding (FY 2008/2009) = 33% [source]
- Abortion as percentage of all Planned Parenthood services (FY 2008/2009) = 3% [source]
- Number of abortions performed by Planned Parenthood every hour (2009) = 38 [source]
In short, some of the figures thrown around have been exaggerated while others not raised should be a little disturbing. However, two points should be raised.
Read the rest of this entry »
November 11, 2010
More outcries from the ‘entitled’ in Europe:
This time it is students lamenting the fact that they may have to actually pay for more of their own college tuition instead of relying on the government for support. The horror!
September 26, 2010
You really can’t make this stuff up:
This almost sounds like something from a dubious chain e-mail, except that this is actually true. Go figure.
Here is a related report.
September 4, 2010
If the history of political meddling in the economy teaches us anything, it is that people seldom come to a realization of basic economic realities. That’s why President Obama can come up with yet another plan to ‘stimulate’ our economy like this:
That’s why we need to take further steps to create jobs and keep the economy growing, including extending tax cuts for the middle class and investing in the areas of our economy where the potential for job growth is greatest.
The simple fact lost on many is that all of this involves taking money we don’t have (which will mean increased debt and/or future devaluing of our currency) and spending it in ways that politicians deem appropriate. What it really, in effect, represents is government taking our money from us and deciding how to spend it for us.
[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=obama+economy&iid=9647673″ src=”http://view4.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/9647673/president-obama-speaks-the/president-obama-speaks-the.jpg?size=500&imageId=9647673″ width=”234″ height=”167″ /]”Extending tax cuts for the middle class” implies that only that segment of income earners defined as “middle class” by politicians and deemed worthy of tax breaks will benefit from such a measure. The “investing” (which is government code for “spending”) in areas of the economy “where the potential for job growth is greatest” means government deciding what industries and individuals should be subsidized.
Read the rest of this entry »
August 26, 2010
With the recent court order blocking certain expanded federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research (expanded last year by President Obama), comes inevitable criticism from those who warn of stifling ‘scientific progress.’ But such attempts typically rely on a rationale justifying the means by the ends.
Take for example a recent USA Today article noting how the head of the National Institutes of Health was “stunned” by the ruling:
“I was stunned, as was virtually everyone here at NIH,” agency director Francis Collins said. … “Stem cell research offers true potential for scientific discovery, and hope for families. This decision has just poured sand into that engine of discovery.”
Not mentioned in the article was the obvious fact that these scientists have a vested monetary and career interest in seeing federal funding continue. The report noted that the ruling would halt 143 grants worth $95 million and 22 grants totaling $54 million.
[picapp align=”left” wrap=”true” link=”term=stem+cell+research+funding&iid=4202180″ src=”http://view4.picapp.com/pictures.photo/image/4202180/obama-signs-order-for-full/obama-signs-order-for-full.jpg?size=500&imageId=4202180″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]What this order, in reality, does is stop an unethical and unconstitutional use of federal taxpayer money. The ruling was based on the fact that such extended funding necessarily goes against a ban on using taxpayer money to fund the destruction of embryos. And though the Constitution gives power to Congress to “promote the Progress of Science,” it limits this promotion to “securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” It doesn’t authorize the federal government to subsidize questionable research.
Even leaving aside the ethical and constitutional reasons for blocking this funding, a side benefit of this injunction is to freeze one area of federal spending. That alone is a desirable outcome given our mounting debt.
August 10, 2010
Are you from a state that just can’t seem to pay its bills? Never fear, President Obama and the U.S. Congress are coming to your rescue.
Congress recently passed, and Obama recently signed, a bill that will effectively bailout states with an additional $26 billion the federal government doesn’t actually have. Though it is argued that the bill would be paid for in the future with increased taxes, withdrawing funding from a loan program and suggested cuts in food stamps — not to take place until 2014 — some lawmakers, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have voiced opposition to such methods of payment. In addition, one provision in the bill reportedly mandates that one state, Texas, maintain its current levels of education spending through 2013.
Obama emotionally appealed to the moral sensibilities of Americans when he argued the following:
We can’t stand by and do nothing while pink slips are given to the men and women who educate our children or keep our communities safe.
Which children and communities is he referring to? What the bailout amounts to is taxpayers from one state paying to bailout another state. I believe the phrase is, “Robbing Peter to pay Paul.”
Read the rest of this entry »
July 16, 2010
Update on previous post: Since the news broke of federal-government funds going to pay for abortions in Pennsylvania, PolitiFact has tackled the issue. Here is their take claiming the funds will not go toward “elective” abortions.
In the end, we’ll see if the “forthcoming regulations” actually address this issue.