Tag Archives: Work

Commentary

British tax and benefit system favors single parents over married couples

1 Comment

ECM found this article by Carolyn Moynihan on MercatorNet.

Excerpt:

An analysis of 98 couples with different earnings and numbers of children carried out by the charity Care showed that 76 of the couples would be better off if they split up and claimed welfare benefits that average £8007. Increasingly it is middle-income families where both parents work that suffer this “couple penalty”.

[…]Many do stay single — but they have children anyway, which entitles them to tax credits that take account of only one working adult per household.

Last year Labour MP Frank Field calculated that a single mother on the minimum wage with two children under eleven would get a weekly income of £487 if she worked 16 hours a week. A two-parent family with one earner would have to put in 116 hours of work on the same pay to get the same money.

It would be a poor sort of marriage that could break under the “pressure” of the partners receiving less in the way of tax breaks than the solo mum down the road (who has other disadvantages, to be sure) — as the Daily Mail suggests — but the messages being sent out are certainly not supportive of marriage as the best environment for children growing up.

The Conservative Party has promised to give back tax breaks to married couples.

This is how big government discourages marriage. The left-wing parties get elected by promising to help the poor. They help the poor by confiscating the wealth from married couples and giving it to single mothers. People see this wealth redistribution, and they stop marrying in order to get more money for doing less work. The children suffer from being raised without a father. This is called “compassion”.

Christians! Stop being ignorant! If you want to do some good in the world, do it with your own money. Don’t give it to a secular government who will try to solve the problem without any awareness of the moral law or human nature. Secular-left elites can’t solve social problems because they have no wisdom. Solve the problem yourself!

News

Democrats say they rescued the economy, Republicans ask where are the jobs?

Leave a comment

Barack Obama will announce today “We rescued the economy”. (H/T ECM, Breitbart TV, Hot Air, Gateway Pundit)

Gateway Pundit adds:

President Disaster will quadruple the US budget deficit his first year in office. He will reportedly spend $23.7 trillion to “fix” the economy… or bankrupt it by next year.

…Government Motors sales drop 22%. (H/T ECM, Gateway Pundit,

Meanwhile, 134 House Rebublicans ask “Where are the Jobs?”.

Gateway Pundit adds:

President Obama and democrats in Congress, of course, promised that their stimulus would prevent unemployment from rising about 8%. Today it is at 9.7% and House Republicans who unanimously opposed the Stimulus Bill want to know where are the jobs?

The unemployment rate during the Bush years was 5.27%.
President Disaster’s unemployment rate is averaging above 8.6%.

Jim Demint contends with the leftist media trying to get the word out.

Pundit and Pundette give him a gold star!

They’ve got the transcript, too!

Excerpt:

LAUER: . . . But over the past couple of days, I don’t have to tell you, you’ve ignited a firestorm, and people are saying that you are playing pure politics with this issue. How do you respond?

DEMINT: Well, it has nothing to do with politics or it’s certainly not personal. But, but the President’s policies have not matched up to his promises so far. We saw that in this giant stimulus, his trillion dollar stimulus that has stimulated the government, but really cost American jobs and, and, and loaded lots of debt on top of future generations.
LAUER: But, but sticking to health care reform, let, let me, you know, give you your own words here. You, you were addressing the group Conservatives for Patients Rights about the health care debate and you said quote, “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” Now are you rallying conservatives to the cause of health care reform? Or are you rallying conservatives to the cause of breaking a president?

DEMINT: Oh, we need to put the brakes on this President. He’s been on a spending spree since he took office. And we need health care reform. Unfortunately, when the President was in the Senate, I’ve probably offered more health care reform proposals than anyone in the Senate. And the President voted against every proposal that would have made health insurance more available and more affordable to people. His goal seems to be a government takeover, not making insurance more available. So I do think we need to stop the President on this. We need to stop his policy, because if we allow him to continue to ram things through Congress before we even get a chance to read them.

LAUER: But-

DEMINT: Matt, I just brought one of the bills this morning. I mean, if you look at this bill, it’s one of the three bills that we’re gonna have to look at.

LAUER: It’s a complicated issue. There are a lot of details in that bill.

DEMINT: Well why do we need to pass it in two weeks before we go home in August?

LAUER: Well that’s, that’s a good question. And I’m gonna get to that in a second. But, but the words you chose were very specific. “It could be his Waterloo, it could break this President.” I, I guess the obvious question is, it wouldn’t break your heart if you break this President, would it?

DEMINT: Well, again, it’s not personal, but we’ve got to stop his policies, Matt. The policies are not matching up to the promises. They’re loading trillions of dollars of debt onto the American people. And the thing is we need real health care reform. I’ve introduced proposals that would help individuals own their own health insurance policies if they don’t get it at work.

LAUER: Right.

DEMINT: There are a lot of ways to do this without a government takeover and a government plan.

LAUER: And I read, I read some of your plan. You wrote it in an op-ed, and I, and I did read that, and would encourage people to go see that. Is the deadline dead, Senator?

DEMINT: It appears to be, and I hope it is. And that’s what I mean, the Senate is supposed to be the body that deliberates and debates and actually reads bill, bills. You know, I hear that more than anything else, as I go around the country. Why don’t you guys read the bills before you pass them? There are a lot of things in these bills that are gonna alarm the American people. I’m afraid the President knows that. He wants to push it through before we’re able to take a look at what’s really in it. And that shouldn’t happen in Congress. This doesn’t take effect for four years, Matt. We don’t need to pass it in two weeks. It’s 20 percent of the American economy.

LAUER: Right.

DEMINT: It’s one of the most personal issues that we deal with as Americans. The government shouldn’t take it over and we shouldn’t pass a bill in two weeks.

LAUER: Senator Jim DeMint. Senator thanks for joining us this morning. We appreciate your time.

DEMINT: Thank you Matt.

Worst. President. Ever.

Commentary

Paul Ryan explains the vision of conservativism

2 Comments
Rep. Paul Ryan
Rep. Paul Ryan

This article is long! You will have to print it out and read it in little bits. It took me 15 minutes to read!

The title is “How Will Conservatism Become Credible Again?”. Paul Ryan is one of the “ideas” conservatives in the Congress. His job is to think up new bills and initiatives that reflect conservative ideals.

Let’s learn about America

Here, he talks about how the conservative vision of government values liberty and personal responsibility over equality of outcomes and “social justice”:

Nowhere was the Western tradition epitomized more memorably than in the Declaration of Independence. By “the laws of nature and of nature’s God,” all human beings are created equal…not in height, or skills, or knowledge, or color, or other nonessentials…but equal in certain inalienable rights – to live, to be free, and to fulfill their best individual potential, including the right to the “material” such as property needed to do this. Each individual is unique and possesses rights and dignity. There are no group or collective rights in the Declaration. Nor does basic human equality imply “equal result.” It means “equal opportunity”: every person has a right not to be prevented from pursuing happiness, from developing his or her potential. The results should differ from one to another because “justice” or “fairness” gives each individual what each has earned or merited.

The great conservative purpose of government is to secure these natural rights under popular consent. Protecting every person’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness should be the great and only mission of legitimate government.

He talks about how the Constitution’s purpose is to enable prosperity through free market capitalism:

The authors of the Constitution surrounded economic freedom with a multitude of guarantees: freedom of contract against government interference… private property rights… patents and copyrights…standard weights, measures, and monetary values…punishment of counterfeits…freedom under law for interstate and foreign commerce…enforcement of agreements in law courts… uniform bankruptcy laws, and other protections.

They promoted Smithian free markets to produce resources for strong military defenses and to keep America free of economic dependency on other nations. But they also expected commercial life to encourage certain moral qualities: personal responsibility to work, save, create businesses, hire employees, pay off their debts, earn the rewards of merited effort, moderate appetites, practice honesty and justice in business dealings, self-discipline, industriousness, timeliness, plus trust and confidence in other persons.

And he talks about how America is a country where social conservatives and fiscal conservatives should be united:

A “libertarian” who wants limited government should embrace the means to his freedom: thriving mediating institutions that create the moral preconditions for economic markets and choice. A “social issues” conservative with a zeal for righteousness should insist on a free market economy to supply the material needs for families, schools, and churches that inspire moral and spiritual life. In a nutshell, the notion of separating the social from the economic issues is a false choice. They stem from the same root.

Did you know that Republicans believe in the right to life, the sanctity of marriage and the public expression of faith? These values were present at our founding, and Republicans hold to them because they are American values.

Since America’s first political principles establish a high but limited mission of securing the natural rights of all, conservatives should expect government to fulfill that entire mission…by enforcing every human being’s natural right to life, which is the first clause of the social compact that formed America, the Declaration of Independence.

A credible conservatism will also seek to secure the privileged legal status of marriage. The traditional family must be protected as the indispensable mediating institution for developing the moral qualities of a free people.

A credible conservatism will resist the purging of faith from the public square. It will make public space for the practice of faith because belief is a central pillar of a free and prosperous society. Nor can government welfare programs substitute for the faith-based love that unites citizens in free bonds of charity and compassion.

Recommended for my readers from at home, or abroad, who need a refresher on the vision of conservatism… or a breath of fresh air from the fetid leftist gasses emanating from the White House.

More articles on conservatism from the New Ledger are here.

We haven’t forgotten our principles.