Recidivist Liberal 

Dear Editor,

NPRI is certainly an aggressive organization with a penchant for publishing. Methinks though that your marketing skills are less than superb. What with being a long-term, card-carrying member of the ACLU, the Sierra Club and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (not to mention being a practicing civil rights attorney who specialized in representing sexual harassment victims and a vegetarian to boot), I am not exactly a good prospect for membership in (dare I say?) a reactionary blackhearted organization such as yours. I recently sent the Democratic National Committee a contribution of $450 and as soon as I can trounce another corporation for allowing its young (Democratic leftist type) women to be sexually harassed by lecherous overweight Republican types, I’m going to dig deep and make another contribution. Bill’s friends need the money if they’re going to take back the Congress from the rednecks.

Well, I think you get my drift. You might consider taking my name off your prospective membership list and transferring it to the recidivist liberal category. I won’t waste any more of your organization’s time with banter. I’m sure somewhere in NPRI’s office there are flies, waiting to have their wings pulled off.

Mark Mausert
Reno, Nevada

Kudos, of a sort, to Mr. Mausert for espousing and financially supporting virtually anything and everything that sounds even remotely politically correct. It seems that such uncritical, unreflective support for political correctness is everywhere, especially in the media.

But it’s sad when someone—especially an attorney—can find no more constructive way to spend his time than needling. Interesting, though, that civil rights attorney Mausert enjoys labeling folks based on nothing more than stereotypes —Ed.

Federal child-care threatens families

Dear Editor,

Human beings are creatures of incentive, which is another way of saying that you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax. Because of Bill Clinton’s new policy on child care, we’re going to get more parents spending more time outside the home, and more children raised or looked after by persons not their parents—the Democratic Party’s version of family values.

Clinton’s new child care proposal makes it easier for parents to go to work outside the home, makes it easier for them to leave the sometimes difficult and frustrating job of raising their children to people whose own children need looking after. Under Clinton’s plan, the tremendous and often frustrating challenge of child rearing, a challenge that requires the simultaneously intensifying and softening influence of parental love, is left precisely to those who lack it, persons for whom the children themselves feel no binding ties of kinship or nature, people from whom the children in question will learn to aim the proverbial taunt of dislocated youth: "You can’t tell me what to do; you’re not my mother!"

Even though Bill Clinton cannot distinguish between nurturing and paid oversight, between parents and hirelings, the children can.

What Clinton ought to propose, but what no Democrat can bring himself to advocate, is a compelling financial incentive in the opposite direction. Rather than imposing a tax burden on working Americans so crushing that it cannot be borne by one parent, rather than paying parents to leave their offspring in someone else’s care and rewarding those parents for doing so, and rather than driving a government sponsored financial wedge between children and their parents, Clinton ought to radically reduce the claim Uncle Sam makes on Mom and Dad by rolling back the tidal wave of taxes that threatens to overwhelm them.

If you make it easier for families to spend more time together and less time apart, if you refuse to expropriate greater and greater portions of a family’s financial wherewithal so that they do not have to divide themselves up in order to offset your governmental acquisitiveness, you do them and the nation a tremendous favor, the breadth and depth of which are not easily measured.

No inconsiderable legacy, that.

But fewer taxes means smaller and cheaper government. Smaller and cheaper government means greater freedom, less bureaucracy, reduced waste, and principled expenditure—with better and happier families to boot.

It’s a prospect I welcome. It’s a chance I’m willing to take.

But then I’m no Democrat.

Michael Bauman Ph.D.
Hillsdale, Michigan

   With national, state and local taxes now consuming around 40 percent of the U.S. Gross National Product, Dr. Bauman’s insight with regard to what lower taxes and less government might mean for families is very timely.
    Unfortunately, those in Washington these days believe that it takes not only a village to raise a child, but also an army of regulators and bureaucrats to run a government.
   Dr. Bauman is also correct in placing on government’s doorstep a large part of the responsibility for today’s family pressures. As he notes, reduced tax burdens and less government would well serve all of us. —Ed.


Journal front | Search | Comment | Sponsors