theheritagefoundation:
Heritage’s Version of #Julia: A Better Life For Julia. Click here to see how Julia’s life story can be about empowering her — not shackling her with government interference.
let’s pick this apart from the beginning, shall we? (side note: this is an unusually long post from me, so savour the moment b/c I don’t do this often, haha)
introduction slide:
Conservatives believe people should be in charge of their own lives, not government.
this sounds good, right? of course it does. no gov’t flunky in DC or even in your state capital, your county seat, or your city hall knows what’s best for you and your family.
Age 3 - so far so good. it seems to me that most preschool providers are private anyway, unless you “qualify” for Head Start.
Age 17 - so how does Heritage propose this “robust school choice and online learning options” actually happen? in this presentation, at least, they don’t. but would they actually support abolishing the federal Dept of Education, or better yet, doing away with public education altogether (along w/the property taxes that “support” it) and REALLY allowing parents to choose their children’s education?
Age 18 - again, not clear here how Heritage sees how “reforms” around college education will come into existence, but to my way of thinking, they have to be market-driven, and that means no more gov’t subsidies for universities/colleges or for students attending them. NONE.
Age 22 - so many things wrong here. 1) the reference to “tax credits” for medical expenses indicates to me that Heritage hasn’t considered just scrapping our horrific tax code and abolishing the IRS, which is what really needs to happen. 2) a “new Medicaid safety net” is nothing more than a continuation of “magical” statist thinking that just assumes gov’t “has to” provide something for its “constituents.” obviously Heritage hasn’t quite caught onto the simple, unavoidable fact that gov’t can’t give anyone anything that it doesn’t first take from someone else. 3) “allows states to pursue high-quality, innovative care” — so it’s not at the federal level; it’s at the state level. so what? how exactly is state pursuit of anything consistent w/their lofty “Conservatives believe people should be in charge of their own lives, not government.” opening statement? short answer: it’s not.
Age 23 - no major issues here. in fact, IMO breaking the stranglehold unions have on labour markets would be a good thing.
Age 25 - again, the whole “higher education tax deduction” bit reinforces my impression that Heritage is happy w/the statist quo re: taxation and the IRS.
Age 27 - no problem here, either. the State has NO business telling Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Protestants, pagans, or anyone else what they “must” purchase for themselves or provide for others. can you imagine the State forcing Jewish business owners to buy and give ham to their employees, or forcing Muslim or Mormon business owners to buy and provide beer and cigarettes to their employees? Heritage gets this one right, too.
Age 31 - no issues w/this one.
Age 37 - same questions as when Julia herself was 17: how exactly will this “freedom to choose her son’s school” come into existence? not enough data points on Heritage’s thinking here since they offer no answer in this presentation.
Age 42 - “a flatter tax system” confirms that Heritage thinks in terms of “fixing” a tax system that’s totally borked and needs to just be scrapped entirely. let’s abolish the IRS and the income tax altogether, Heritage, not make it slightly less painful for people to be plundered by the State. geez.
Age 65 - there aren’t enough reforms in the world to save Medicare. it’s beyond broken, so it won’t even be around by the time Julia turns 65, let alone work better than it does now. and what are these “new protections [that] ensure that she cannot be bankrupted by medicals bills”? oh, that’s right: more gov’t interference in the health care market. wrong answer, Heritage.
Age 67 - we’re back to the statist quo w/”reformed tax code.” Heritage, WAKE UP — we don’t need to fix it; we need to get rid of it. period.
summary/conclusion slide: “This better life is possible.” sure it is — w/continued gov’t interference sprinkled throughout. ”Conservatives believe people should be in charge of their own lives, not government.” — I call BS. Heritage, at least, seems to believe that you still need gov’t to interfere in part of your life and steal part of your money to make your life “better.”
sorry, Heritage, try again. you get a few things right, but close only counts in horse shoes.
(via nomosshere)
![theheritagefoundation:
Heritage’s Version of #Julia: A Better Life For Julia. Click here to see how Julia’s life story can be about empowering her — not shackling her with government interference.
let’s pick this apart from the beginning, shall we? (side note: this is an unusually long post from me, so savour the moment b/c I don’t do this often, haha)
introduction slide:
Conservatives believe people should be in charge of their own lives, not government.
this sounds good, right? of course it does. no gov’t flunky in DC or even in your state capital, your county seat, or your city hall knows what’s best for you and your family.
Age 3 - so far so good. it seems to me that most preschool providers are private anyway, unless you “qualify” for Head Start.
Age 17 - so how does Heritage propose this “robust school choice and online learning options” actually happen? in this presentation, at least, they don’t. but would they actually support abolishing the federal Dept of Education, or better yet, doing away with public education altogether (along w/the property taxes that “support” it) and REALLY allowing parents to choose their children’s education?
Age 18 - again, not clear here how Heritage sees how “reforms” around college education will come into existence, but to my way of thinking, they have to be market-driven, and that means no more gov’t subsidies for universities/colleges or for students attending them. NONE.
Age 22 - so many things wrong here. 1) the reference to “tax credits” for medical expenses indicates to me that Heritage hasn’t considered just scrapping our horrific tax code and abolishing the IRS, which is what really needs to happen. 2) a “new Medicaid safety net” is nothing more than a continuation of “magical” statist thinking that just assumes gov’t “has to” provide something for its “constituents.” obviously Heritage hasn’t quite caught onto the simple, unavoidable fact that gov’t can’t give anyone anything that it doesn’t first take from someone else. 3) “allows states to pursue high-quality, innovative care” — so it’s not at the federal level; it’s at the state level. so what? how exactly is state pursuit of anything consistent w/their lofty “Conservatives believe people should be in charge of their own lives, not government.” opening statement? short answer: it’s not.
Age 23 - no major issues here. in fact, IMO breaking the stranglehold unions have on labour markets would be a good thing.
Age 25 - again, the whole “higher education tax deduction” bit reinforces my impression that Heritage is happy w/the statist quo re: taxation and the IRS.
Age 27 - no problem here, either. the State has NO business telling Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Protestants, pagans, or anyone else what they “must” purchase for themselves or provide for others. can you imagine the State forcing Jewish business owners to buy and give ham to their employees, or forcing Muslim or Mormon business owners to buy and provide beer and cigarettes to their employees? Heritage gets this one right, too.
Age 31 - no issues w/this one.
Age 37 - same questions as when Julia herself was 17: how exactly will this “freedom to choose her son’s school” come into existence? not enough data points on Heritage’s thinking here since they offer no answer in this presentation.
Age 42 - “a flatter tax system” confirms that Heritage thinks in terms of “fixing” a tax system that’s totally borked and needs to just be scrapped entirely. let’s abolish the IRS and the income tax altogether, Heritage, not make it slightly less painful for people to be plundered by the State. geez.
Age 65 - there aren’t enough reforms in the world to save Medicare. it’s beyond broken, so it won’t even be around by the time Julia turns 65, let alone work better than it does now. and what are these “new protections [that] ensure that she cannot be bankrupted by medicals bills”? oh, that’s right: more gov’t interference in the health care market. wrong answer, Heritage.
Age 67 - we’re back to the statist quo w/”reformed tax code.” Heritage, WAKE UP — we don’t need to fix it; we need to get rid of it. period.
summary/conclusion slide: “This better life is possible.” sure it is — w/continued gov’t interference sprinkled throughout. ”Conservatives believe people should be in charge of their own lives, not government.” — I call BS. Heritage, at least, seems to believe that you still need gov’t to interfere in part of your life and steal part of your money to make your life “better.”
sorry, Heritage, try again. you get a few things right, but close only counts in horse shoes.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3i2kbEhCV1r5wy5wo1_500.jpg)
