The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill

Securing the Future, Not Aborting It

Snow fell on the nation’s capital this week, but it wasn’t the cold that sent a chill down the backs of pro-family Americans — it was the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) as she defended the money in the economic stimulus bill that was earmarked for programs like family planning.

Why was a massive expansion of family planning (which inevitably includes abortion promotion) contained in a bill that is supposed to jump start the economy?

ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked Speaker Pelosi that question.

Her reply:

“Family planning services reduce costs…” Pelosi said. Continuing, she explained to Mr. Stephanopoulos that America is in an economic crisis and family planning services would help cities and states save money.

Even George Stephanopoulos appeared to be taken back by her matter of fact defense of hundreds of millions of dollars potentially being given to organizations like Planned Parenthood to prevent the non-wealthy from having babies.

This was a rare, but candid glimpse into the mind of a liberal. Children are viewed as things to be avoided or aborted, so they don’t consume our limited resources, rather than blessings to conceive and care for as the bridge to the future.

After an unusual display of opposition from conservatives and Republicans, President Obama yielded and asked Speaker Pelosi to drop the family planning portion of the unprecedented spending bill, which it is now estimated will cost taxpayers $1.1 trillion.

While some would be tempted to see this as an olive branch from the President to conservatives, it is nothing more than a fig leaf. The Democratic platform backed “a woman’s right to choose a safe and legal abortion, regardless of ability to pay” –meaning that the American taxpayer should pay. Obama’s own White House website expresses his commitment to taxpayer-funded family planning programs like the “Prevention First Act” that was recently re-introduced by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

These policies are birthed out of a desire for short-term political gain, rather than the long-term health and stability of the nation. A nation with a dwindling population of workers has a bleak future.

Consider that according to the Social Security Administration, in 1950 there were 16.5 workers for every retiree, while today it is 3.3 workers to 1 retiree. Within 40 years it will be 2 to 1. There will not be enough workers to pay the tab for all the government programs and benefits that the Speaker and others want to give away in return for political support.

In reality the Stimulus bill is more about pork and political payoffs than economic recovery. Billions are earmarked for groups like ACORN, that have recently been the subject of criminal investigations, and the politically connected like labor unions that supported the new administration in the recent election.

If Congress truly desires to advance a stimulus plan that aids the economy, the plan should include at least four major objectives that address tax policy:

(1) Stabilize tax policies for families. Greater tax parity was gained for working families between 1994-2004, through increasing the personal exemption, the child tax credit, elimination of the marriage penalty, savings accounts for education and relief on the death tax. This tax relief for families has been maintained for the past five years, but these measures will expire in 2010, giving most working families with children a sizeable tax increase. The vast majority of families will benefit more from making these tax relief measures permanent than from increasing the size of government programs.

(2) Structure corporate taxes to promote job growth. As important as tax credits for children and marriage penalty relief are, they are irrelevant for bread-winners without jobs. A major contributor to U.S. job loss is the corporate tax rate (combined federal and state figures) which forces corporations to hand over nearly 40 percent to the taxman – 39.3 percent. Compared to the U.S. figure, even the Socialists in Britain (28 percent) and Germany (under 30 percent) seem moderate. Ireland’s inviting 12.5 percent corporate tax rate has been a powerful jobs magnet. The United States should make sharp reductions in the corporate tax rate that are permanent to retain current domestic businesses and to attract overseas companies to relocate here and create new jobs.

(3) Shape the tax code to promote personal savings. Savings leads to greater investment and at present, the tax code and our public policy does very little to promote individual and family savings. In fact, the message and example from Washington is often the opposite. The low interest rates available on most conventional savings instruments at present also do little to encourage habits of savings for small savers. To encourage saving the federal tax code should exempt interest on personal savings up to a fixed amount per person.

(4) Stimulate charitable giving. Charities and other non-profits have a direct and positive impact upon the economy as well as the well-being of communities across the nation. Congress should encourage charitable contributions by allowing non-itemizers to benefit from some form of deductibility or credit for a portion of their contributions. Additionally, to help stimulate the economy individuals of any age should be able, without penalty, to contribute to charitable organizations from Individual Retirement Accounts, 401(k)’s, and similar retirement funds.

What America’s families need is not reform that will require their first born (or from Ms. Pelosi’s perspective, prevent their first born), but real economic reform that will secure not only their own future, but their children’s.

For a complete listing of the 13 specific recommendations by the Family Research Council click here.

Tags American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Business Estate tax in the United States Government Marriage penalty Nancy Pelosi Nancy Pelosi Person Career Person Location Person Party Political debates about the United States federal budget Politics Public economics Quotation Social Issues Social Security Tax Taxation in the United States United States House of Representatives Value added tax

Copyright 2023 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.