In Fundamentally Transforming the United States, Phyllis Schlafly explains how the Democrat party voter base is founded upon those who get (or hope to get) their livelihood from the federal government. It goes much further than Chicago-machine patronage politics writ large; the federal government is deliberately destroying the family structure so as to make people more dependent on the federal government and the Democrat party. Unmarried mothers are a key part of Obama’s voter base. Thus, it is in his interests to discourage men and women from getting and staying married.
How do the Democrats go about attacking the family structure? The attacks go much further than promoting gay marriage and abortion on demand, or free condoms and salacious “sex education” in the public schools. Detrimental as those things are, at least they are visible. It’s the progressives’ stealth jihad against the family that I’m talking about here.
Check out this hidden zinger in Obamacare:
Marriage Penalty in Health Care
A huge marriage penalty is hidden in Obama’s Health Control Law. This law is another federal program providing financial incentives to subsidize marriage avoidance and illegitimate offspring.
Even though all evidence shows that marriage is the best remedy for poverty, lack of health care, domestic violence, child abuse, and school dropouts, federal welfare programs continue to discriminate against marriage and instead give taxpayer handouts to those who reject marriage. This isn’t any accident; it is a central part of the Democrats’ political strategy that produced 70% of unmarried women voting for Obama for President in 2008.
Here is the approximate cost in the Health Control Law for an unmarried couple who each earn $25,000 a year (total: $50,000). When they both buy health insurance (which will be mandatory), the combined premiums they pay will be capped at $3,076 a year. But if the couple gets married and has the same combined income of $50,000, they will pay annual premiums up to a cap of $5,160 a year. That means they have to fork over a marriage penalty of $2,084.
The marriage penalty is the result of the fact that government subsidies for buying health insurance are pegged to the federal poverty guidelines. Couples that remain unmarried are rewarded with a separate health care subsidy for each income.
When the Wall Street Journal reporter quizzed the Democratic authors of the health care bill, they made it clear that this differential was deliberate. The staffer justified the discriminatory treatment because “you have to decide what your goals are.” Indeed, the Democrats have decided what their goals are. They know that 70% of unmarried women voted for Obama in 2008, and the Democrats plan to reward this group with health insurance subsidies.
The House staffer told the Wall Street Journal reporter that the Democrats can’t make the subsidies neutral towards marriage because that would give a traditional one-breadwinner married couple a more generous subsidy than a single parent at the same income level. Horrors! The Democrats certainly are not going to allow traditional marriage to be preferred over couples who just shack up!
Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously and accurately explained the disastrous results of welfare back in 1965. The welfare system created a matriarchy with millions of children lacking their father in the home. It’s no wonder illegitimate birthrates are soaring and unmarried mothers now give birth to 4 out of every 10 babies born in the United States.
Means-tested welfare programs already cost taxpayers close to $1 trillion a year (even more than national defense!), and Obamacare is projected to add another $2.5 trillion after all its provisions take effect. There’s no end in sight to the increasing costs of these entitlements. In one year, the Obama Administration will spend more taxpayers’ money on spreading the wealth to non-taxpayers than George W. Bush spent on the entire Iraq war.
Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a liberal firm that consults for clients such as Bill Clinton and John Kerry, admitted: “Unmarried women represent one of the most reliable Democratic cohorts in the electorate . . . leading the charge for fundamental change in health care.”
It used to be that a husband was responsible for the financial support of his wife and children, but the feminists’ agenda calls for replacing husbands with Big Brother Government. The feminists call their movement “women’s liberation,” and Obamacare is one more way to help them achieve their goal.
Feminists keep tightening their control over the social policies of the Democratic Party, and Obamacare will be his third payoff to the feminists. The first bill Obama signed as President, the Lilly Ledbetter Act, enables women to sue employers years many years after any alleged workplace discrimination (when no one is still alive to defend against allegations), and the second payoff was getting Obama to give the majority of taxpayer-paid Stimulus jobs to women even though men have suffered the big majority of job losses.
The scavenger hunt is on
I am neither a lawyer nor an accountant nor a “policy wonk” (whatever that is supposed to be). Sorting through the huge pile of paperwork that makes up the Obamacare bill, or for that matter, the recent financial regulatory bill, and piecing together the hidden “zingers” that are poised to harm each sector of our economy and society, is beyond my capabilities. This is not a one-person job. I would like to urge everyone who is able to do so, to help complete this task by researching how those bills will affect their community and their sector of the economy, and submit that information to 2.0: The Blogmocracy.
The scavenger hunt is on, and the only prize is preserving your freedom.
► Hot Links
Tags: Barack Obama, Democrats, Economy, Leftists, Obamacare, Progressives
Get the government out of the marriage business. Do it like Israel; marriage is a religious institution, and the government doesn’t grant marriages.
The Obamacare O-hole. Just leap right in. It’s a short flash video, so give it time to play.
@ huckfunn:
LOL!
Now here‘s a tasteful look at the Ground Zero Mosque.
zero is -20 today at rasmussen.
only 25% strongly approve
45% strongly DISAPPROVE.
@ Macker:
That’s a good one! I wake up every day trying to understand why we’re supposed to so tolerant of the muzscuz when they are the very definition of intolerance.
chickadee wrote:
He ought to be lower. But I guess that approval rate is from the brain deads who are going down with their ship. And the ones still hoping for their checks.
huckfunn wrote:
They get foot baths and the Foot washing Baptists have yet to get their buckets.
chickadee wrote:
Ya beat me to it! I can’t start the day without getting the update on the O-hole disapproval index. Wonder how long it will be before he breaks -25.
@ snork:
I’ve been saying that for a WHILE now, but don’t get much response. Presumably from married people.
The only sticky part would be family court and child custody.
Grimcargo wrote:
I, too, am baffled when I see his approval going up. Then I remember, there really are some people who like what he’s doing.
huckfunn wrote:
I check it regularly too.
It makes my day and gives me HOPE to see that he is fooling fewer and fewer people.
Bumr50 wrote:
Actually, no. That applies married or not.
chickadee wrote:
The ol’ reverse Hope-a-dope. Love it!
Well, me bloogs. My shed-yule is as follows:
)
Mow and weed-eat it while it’s still a nice cool 86*
Fall in the pool to cool off (saves me shower
Meet the brother at Red’s Indoor Range for some pistol play
An hour and a half at the sweat shop (24 hour Fitness)
Get back home and get caught up with the Blogmeister
Full day. I’d better get started.
Later.
Just one more thing. Of note for the thread gods. I saw this yesterday:
Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits
There has probably been some discussion of this but I missed it while on the road. Any comments?
Will gay marriages be exempt from the marriage penalty?
It’s probably in the bill
well ya know, we have to pass the bill in order to find out what,s in it.
/Nancy Pelousy
@ huckfunn:
Is that the Red’s of ATF harasment fame?
sunday funnies
Day by day
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/
more sunday funnies
http://www.floppingaces.net/2010/07/25/sunday-funnies-95/#more-41093
Heh™. The overnight comic book has 92 comments.
if the repubs are smart, and they arent, nor do they have the guts to do this, they should hit this hellcare stuff with commercials/speeches/relentless questions highlighting these problems.
tie this around obamas neck, make the left defend it over and over again. quit falling for the racial sideshow (ooohhhh loook! a shiny object!). be relentless, dictate the damned debate!
snork wrote:
wow! thats bad for the swamp
@ coldwarrior:
Despite that, there was copious low-hanging fruit. See DoD.
snork wrote:
its like watching a train wreck…sometimes i cant help it.
brb…
coldwarrior wrote:
It would be smarter not to focus on Obama before the ’10 election, and keep the focus on Pelosi and the congress. They’re the target now. We have another two years to slime this all over Obama.
snork wrote:
all of em, name names, get public about it.
@ snork:
amazing, the grand kleagle kilgore, the master race baiter, trout speaks on race.
ummm, did anyone call him out for his racist epithets he posted elsewhere?
Britain Plans to Decentralize Health Care
LONDON — Perhaps the only consistent thing about Britain’s socialized health care system is that it is in a perpetual state of flux, its structure constantly changing as governments search for the elusive formula that will deliver the best care for the cheapest price while costs and demand escalate.
Enlarge This Image
Andrew Testa for The New York Times
The new British government’s plan to drastically reshape the socialized health care system would put local physicians like Dr. Marita Koumettou in north London in control of much of the national health budget.
Even as the new coalition government said it would make enormous cuts in the public sector, it initially promised to leave health care alone. But in one of its most surprising moves so far, it has done the opposite, proposing what would be the most radical reorganization of the National Health Service, as the system is called, since its inception in 1948.
Obama is ineducable. If Democrats were educable they’d replace him at the next primary if not before.
@ coldwarrior:
mornin CW
in a related story
Axe falls on NHS services
NHS bosses have drawn up secret plans for sweeping cuts to services, with restrictions on the most basic treatments for the sick and injured
Some of the most common operations — including hip replacements and cataract surgery — will be rationed as part of attempts to save billions of pounds, despite government promises that front-line services would be protected.
Patients’ groups have described the measures as “astonishingly brutal”.
yep, Gov run health care sure is the way to go
@ rain of lead:
wheelchairs and morphine is a lot cheaper than a hip replacement.
@ coldwarrior:
“here, take this red pill.”
“no,no,no not that one, that one makes you small.”
take this one.”
huckfunn wrote:
Man huck, I still have a hard time believing that many people approve, strongly or otherwise, of what he’s doing.
There was also a gold tax hidden within the bowels of BarryCare.
Gold Coin Sellers Angered by New Tax Law
@ coldwarrior:
My post on DOD got eaten by the Dingos. Wah.
I hate abortion and Obamacare will make us pay for it. Abortion has nothing to do with healthcare as it is neither healthy nor caring. After all, it is the only surgery where death of another human being is the preferred outcome.
@ mtc:
And where children can be operated on without parental consent.
@ mtc:
In a strange way your post reminded me of another subject they love to promote. Hint: Its a ‘religion’ very popular in the ME – one they call ‘peaceful’, peace be upon you and all that.
@ mtc:
Again, somewhat like the ‘religion’ that has followers who promote children wearing suicide belts. Damn Baptists….
@ FurryOldGuyJeans:
Just wonderin’ how hard at work they are thinking of a way to successfully tax ‘ebayers’.They must loose sleep at night thinkin’ about Meg and her unfair success story.
Tell me this is another dead thread…
*Note to self: Refresh often !
LAST.
The entire thing should be simply launched into the sun. I started reading it, got to ~pg290, and thought that it was the most convoluted act I’d ever read. And we make some real zingers in Canada. So much backtracking + clause rejection lawyers would be employed forever just trying to figure it out.
[...] Originally published on 2.0: The Blogmocracy [...]