"The problem is that I WOULD have no problem (and many other people thank goodness) to give my taxes for healthcare, education, protection of natural resources, sustainable agriculture, protection of species and this planet BUT I have huge problem with giving my taxes for terrible subsidies (off shore drilling and GMO included among many others), and meaningless wars!!!"
Lets dig into this a bit shall we?
The author of this post thinks that taxes should go for:
- Healthcare for all
- Education for all
- Protecting "natural resources"
- Sustainable agriculture
- Protection of animals
- Protecting the Earth
I am all for everyone getting the healthcare that they need and in a pinch you already can, at an emergency room. As a matter of fact, this is required by law. You can also find discount health plans. If health care is really that important to you I am pretty sure you can cut out things like TV, the newest cell phone and perhaps even soda, chips and cookies from your diet. If you can do all those things and still can not afford health insurance or health care, there are charities that will be happy to help you out. There is also a growing contingent of doctors that will treat you for what you can afford. If you say you have no insurance, and want to work out a cash payment, you can. I know from personal experience that if you can not afford the bill from a hospital stay, you can work out an interest free payment plan with the hospital. They will take anything from $25 up until your bill is paid off... Unless of course you go to a state run hospital.
Furthermore, please show me in the United States Constitution where it states a person's well being is something the state must provide for. I guess what I am saying is that private business and charities are better suited to handle this than the government. If you don't believe me, try the healthcare system in Canada, England or Cuba.
Education for all is already provided for in about 48 state constitutions. This is a legitimate interest of the state and a public education should be provided for. I guess the question is, to what level? Since this is not a power given directly to the Federal Government it would seem that by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution this would be something the states could rightfully claim for themselves. This would make sense from an educational standpoint as then the people closest to the students could make decisions regarding what should be taught. Each state is its own little laboratory. As it stands due to a centralization of the educational system Colorado, Wyoming, Rhode Island and Florida are all beholden to Texas for curriculum and textbook standards. Texas is a huge market compared to say Colorado. Is it safe to assume that students in Texas are the same as students in Colorado and should be taught from the same textbooks? The Catholic Church tried this centralization of curriculum. By mandating that only books on the conformity list be taught for certain grade levels, Catholics actually came away knowing less about their Faith than had Catechists at the local level been able to pick and choose the books that best suited their students. I guess, again, what I am arguing is that something that could be done at the local level better and more efficiently should be left at that local level.
I will continue this analysis tomorrow since this post is getting long. I guess though what is most disturbing is the contempt the author shows for a legitimate expenditure for the Federal Government. UNLESS she would want that to be done by corporations and private citizens of course.
Prayers,
Pisio
No comments:
Post a Comment