Conservatives take better care of poor children
“We are going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”
—Sen. Hillary Clinton
Your Host has always had a love-hate relationship with the First Amendment insofar as it applies to freedom of the press. Point of fact, I have always been a fan of the media and of those who take it as their chosen profession. But, how shall I put it? “The media” has a well-earned reputation that ranks with contingency-fee lawyers, used car salesmen and politicians.
As a recovered lawyer (with innate powers of observation) I’ve learned that if you listen (or read) long enough, people, generally, and journalists, specifically, will reveal their biases.
It’s not that I have a problem with bias; I just have a problem with hypocrites who claim to have none—or worse—refuse to disclose it, even when it’s discovered. (Think Dan Rather here.)
So we’re clear here, your Host tries to be open and honest on that point: I have about as much in common with a liberal as I do with a doorknob. I do not seek “common ground” because there is none. Don’t get me wrong, I see liberals as basically nice people who have about as much understanding of the U.S. Constitution and its underlying principles as Karl Marx.
There’s a reason conservative talk radio continues to flourish, and Air (head) America radio has filed for bankruptcy—twice. As someone once said, the former has a ready-made audience, namely people going to and from a job.
Along that same reasoning, your Host has, at times, been accused of being overly antagonistic. I don’t necessarily agree with that assessment, although considering the scandalous assertions that conservatives hate children and prefer polluted air and water over clean air and water, I submit I have reason to be. (At least until the Democratic Party is defeated or outlawed as a subversive organization.)
I will suggest that if you are overly sensitive or easily offended then your time might be better spent getting counseling. (But enough about Dennis Kucinich.)
That brings me to a recent study conducted by The Annie E. Casey Foundation. It looked at data covering low-income kids (based on U. S. Census Bureau records) and compared states based on kids’ health, social and emotional well-being, cognitive development and educational attainment, family activities, family and neighborhood context, and social/economic characteristics.
The study found that the states performing best “in terms of the condition of children in low-income families were 1) Utah, 2) North Dakota, 3) Idaho, 4) Wyoming, and 5) South Dakota.”
While I’m always skeptical about studies, the thing that jumped out at me was that these are low-tax, Western, “red” states. You know, the places we knuckle-dragging conservatives who hate children and prefer polluted air and water over clean air and water live.
And the bottom five states where low-income kids faired the worst? High-tax-and-spend liberal fiefdoms in the northeast, namely: 46) Maryland, 47) New Jersey, 48) New York, 49) Rhode Island, and 50) Massachusetts.
For comparison purposes, Nevada clocked in at 35 and California at 21.
“The study found that the federal government spent about $335 billion on children in 2005, primarily targeted on low-income children. States spent another $446 billion on children in 2003.”
At a minimum, may we consider that almost as important as what is spent is how it’s spent and, dare I say it, by whom?
And that perhaps brings us back to Sen. Clinton.