I’ve been pondering an idea that, as a conservative, goes against every fiber of my political philosophy: a tax increase.
I know, I know… but give me a minute.
First a bit of background as to what to tax, and why.
If elected president, John Edwards will lobby for full funding for abortions, or “universal death care” as I call it — this according to Edwards’ wife who now seems to be speaking more than her husband. Until media is allowed into Pink Sapphire, this is bound to be the case.
At any rate, Edwards, and many Democrat candidates, including Hillary Clinton, who wears her “If abortions are outlawed only outlaws will be able to screw around with my husband” t-shirt to every Planned Parenthood speech, would further fund and encourage abortion:
Speaking on behalf of Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards before the family planning and abortion-rights group Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Edwards lauded her husband’s health-care proposal as “a true universal health-care plan” that would cover “all reproductive health services, including pregnancy termination,” referring to abortion.
Edwards and the rest make it clear they care about money, since much of the discussion concerning abortion funding revolves around how to “keep your laws off our bodies” while still, oddly enough, managing to find a way to keep their laws in your back pocket.
As somebody who is what is described as “pro life,” which is to say against abortion, I find this a bit disturbing to say the least. After all, there an old adage that goes “tax it if you want less of it, fund it if you want more of it.”
Which brings me to this. A couple of days ago, I wrote a short piece on government double-speak as it concerns cigarette taxes. Cigarettes smokers, and the participants in many other behaviors that are “bad” for us, are often called upon to pay extra taxes. It is claimed that by making the use of these products wildly expensive, the participation in said behavior will decrease, and the money collected, it is often said, will go toward “health care” or “for the children” or some other such open trough with plenty of room for political snouts.
Forget for a moment how stupid it is when governments, both federal, state and local, admit that raising taxes decreases the use of a product but then somehow expect that raising taxes on areas they wish to see increased participation (tourism, business, luxury products, etc.) will rake in more revenue and then act shocked when their grand revenue plan goes down in flames.
So, since taxes tend to lessen participation in whatever behavior that is being taxed, what could we do about abortions?
I know what you’re thinking. “Well, if you want something in decrease, you tax it. So how about an abortion tax?”
Nope, that’s not what I’m talking about. An abortion tax wouldn’t sell. Too many pro-abortion groups have a big say over the voting habits of too many liberal politicians. Sure, there’s a potential revenue stream for said politician, but come on, how would a liberal explain to feminists that they’re charging women a fee to exercise their Constitutional “right”? That only works with gun laws.
We need to think bigger if we want to drastically lower the abortion rate, and all without having to worry about things like Roe v. Wade being overturned. We need a plan that will make the eyes of pro-abortion politicians, even the steely orbs of Hillary — whose glare warms your soul like a handful of refrigerated ball-bearings down your shorts — light up, while leaving their feminist constituents standing helpless on the sidelines.
We need a plan that makes Edwards, Obama, Kennedy and Clinton want more babies to be born. What makes Democrat eyes light up the brightest? Taxes, and plenty of ’em!
So, for anybody who’s interested in seeing the number of abortions decline, here’s my proposal: A live birth tax, and a big one. And just to ensure every Democrat is on board, we’ll throw in a large tax deduction for abortions. Sounds crazy, I know, but consider who we’re dealing with.
It’s no wonder tax n spend Democrats support abortion to such a degree — Americans get huge tax breaks for having children. This is probably just one reason tax-loving Senators like Barbara Boxer have cars sporting “they can have my coat hanger when they pry it from my cold dead hands” bumper stickers.
And if we need to sweeten the deal a bit, let’s say that half the money the “live birth tax” raises will go toward providing health care to every American, and the other half will go into the re-election coffers of the members of Congress in whatever district the live birth occurred.
So, tax live births, and big time. If we do that, you’ll soon see every Democrat candidate in front of abortion clinics across the land offering to council women out of a tragedy, and into giving them money — er, I mean, doing the right thing.
There were about 4.1 million babies born in the United States in 2006. Charge 10-grand a kid and you’re talkin’ about $40 billion into the coffers. What if the person giving birth can’t afford it? Not a problem, because they’ll be covered by a new cigarette and liquor tax.
Has anybody’s head exploded yet? Mine’s about to, but this plan is something to ponder and makes at least as much sense as everything else that comes out of Washington, DC these days.