The speech covered many topics and contained the buzz-word of "fair" countless times. "Fair" to statist, Marxist socialists is a, to quote US Rep. Jackson Lee, a "codeword". It means an equality of outcome regardless of effort rather than an equality of opportunity. It translates into an increase of government intervention into how you live your life. It is about stripping Americans of the inalienable rights of Life, Liberty, and the PURSUIT of Happiness.
The executive branch has been largely stymied by the US House of Representatives since January 2011. By and large, bills introduced in the House that would limit government intervention or scale it back towards the intentions of our founders do not get much further. They fall to any of several ends. They don't get passed by the Senate Democrats (who have the majority). Sen. Harry Reid or VP Biden suppress the bills even having discussion or vote. If they do get their day in the Senate, they get amended to include things such as the amendments to the NDAA so many people dislike. If it passes the Senate and still restricts intervention, our current president vetoes the bill, such as the case of the Keystone XL Pipeline.
Since the House of Representatives usually won't pass items on the president's socialist agenda, our executive branch, under the president's direction, initiates executive orders, policies, and regulations that will fulfill that agenda. That agenda is to take away public choice, public prosperity, and private property rights.
I wrote this blog discussing some of the ways these agencies are doing so.
Then I wrote this blog identifying the way the government buys votes and attempts to own your life and property through government subsidies. I followed that up discussing how Marxist based unions led to the second bankruptcy filing by Hostess. In that blog, I postured that the best thing for the capitalist basis of our economy is to let Hostess fall without a government subsidy.
Now I bring you further intrusions the anti-liberty, anti-freedom, anti-prosperity leftist, statist executive branch is proposing to further intrude upon your individual rights.
One aspect is the preposterous proposal that pregnancy should now be labeled as a "disability". The Wall Street Journal has this article on the subject. On the surface, it appears like a good idea. Pregnant women should get some level of protection in the workplace. That, however, is up to the workplace. Already they can be held liable for any negligent actions that cause injury to mother or child. No further laws or regulations are necessary. However, a few states have already included pregnancy under local disabilities acts.
The proposal is to add pregnancy to the American Disabilities Act. If included, that means that not only do pregnant women get certain protections, under law, in the workplace or while attending other private businesses; but will now be "entitled" to disability stipends/subsidies. That opens up a whole new can of worms.
I debated this from the stance of an entitlement junkie with a couple of people. Here was the exchange:
No, you can't get pregnant!!
Me: Exactly. I'm disabled. I am deprived of that ability.
Another guy: It's sexist discrimination.It's not my fault I have a penis.
Me: If you can get it for being pregnant, you should get it if you don't have option to get pregnant, also. It's only FAIR!!!
Woman: Oh, so your bitching because you can not get the disability for being pregnant...?
Me: Exactly. I don't have the option. It's not fair. I want my "fair share". I don't have an equality of outcome here. So, I need to be paid for my disability. Either that, or you need to tax parents 30% of each child over 2 per family, 1 per parent, and give every guy who is not a parent a kid.
Woman (and yes, she is a conservative who finds the whole "pregnancy is a disability" thing idiotic): That's stupid.
If you trace my argument, I demonstrate how invasive that policy really is. If you grant disability based upon fertility, pregnancy, and the like, it places most people on some level of disability. You will be seen as "disabled" if you are pregnant. Out of "fairness", next people incapable of having a child due to being male, infertile, etc. would also have to be a disability. Here come the government subsidies based upon your fertility and childbearing status. That lady in the exchange had it 100% correct: "That's Stupid!".
So what's next? How about more executive orders and executive branch regulatory policies telling you how to raise your children? Well they're coming.
In the State of the Union, the POTUS talked about more government intervention into schooling. He talks about changing national standards to make them more equal across the board. He talks about national standards for educators. What that translates to is, "if you are an educator at ANY level, K-Grad school, you will have to teach what we tell you to. You have no choice but to be one of our comprachicos."
The term "Comprachico" refers to carnival families that would raise kids with appliances placed on their bodies in order to form them into freaks as they grew, disproportionately, into the molds the carnivals and circuses needed. The modern term applies to an essay by Voltaire regarding the suppression of free thinking in children to make them willfully enslaved to the establishment. Ayn Rand used this same concept to describe socialist indoctrinators invading our educational institutions and poisoning kids ideas, making them grow up leaning left. Rand suggested it was starting to happen in the 60s and had grown in the 70s. Today, there are more comprachicos in public schools than there are real educators. The comprachicos have already taken over the administration branches of education.
Now the USDA is getting involved in how you raise your kids. The USDA now can regulate your kids' caloric intake. They have regulated what and how much your children are allowed to eat in school. It may seem like a good thing that school cafeterias will dish out more healthy meals. That's nice. The reality is that they are telling you what they will let your kid eat.
Your child's individual health concerns don't matter. If you child needs whole milk due to some medical condition (like a broken bone), he can't have it anymore. Johnny is on antibiotics for that ear infection? Sorry, no extra yogurt. If your child is diabetic, you're screwed. If your child is hypoglycemic and needs more calories, tough. If your child is an athlete, has a higher metabolism, and needs that extra nutrition, the USDA says "No". What if your child is lactose intolerant and cannot consume dairy products? Or has an egg allergy?
And just think, if you have a job and make over $20k a year, you have to pay the school to give your child that USDA regulated and mandated diet. Wow.
I understand that child obesity is a concern. maybe if they brought back recess it wouldn't be as much of an issue? Maybe if parents took more interest in their kids' nutrition and activity ("Shut Off That Damned X-Box and Get Your But Outside!") it wouldn't be an issue. When I was a kid, the Atari wasn't even an interest unless it was night time or it was raining (and we were told to get inside).
So, now the USDA and your local school are going to tell you what is best for your child and FORCE you to comply.
My response to this is that you should have your kids start bringing a lunch and snack from home. It is cheaper than the school lunch program. If you do it right, it is still healthier. One step further, you can meet YOUR child's individual needs and tell the government to take a hike. This is an area they should NOT control: your kids.
However, this USDA mandate has now spread to many state regulations. Now, in some states, school officials can (and do) inspect your children's lunches brought from home. If the SCHOOL decides the lunch does not comply, they give the child what THEY think is healthy for them, regardless of your child's individual eating habits, food allergies, and health concerns. The School officials then send the parents a bill for that mandated replacement lunch. Below is a quote from this article in the Carolina Journal dated February 14, 2012.
The Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs — including in-home day care centers — to meet USDA guidelines. That means lunches must consist of one serving of meat, one serving of milk, one serving of grain, and two servings of fruit or vegetables, even if the lunches are brought from home.
When home-packed lunches do not include all of the required items, child care providers must supplement them with the missing ones.
The girl’s mother — who said she wishes to remain anonymous to protect her daughter from retaliation — said she received a note from the school stating that students who did not bring a “healthy lunch” would be offered the missing portions, which could result in a fee from the cafeteria, in her case $1.25.
Keep your eyes open. Next they will mandate you walk a certain distance every day, and will ration gasoline to enforce it. (Gasoline is already taxed ridiculously in order to restrict how far you drive). Watch for it: food will soon be rationed to make sure you are eating the government approved diet.
Next they will tell me how often to tune my guitar and force me to keep an inspection record (or worse, force me to have it tuned by a government-licensed professional), and force me to register my guitars with some federal agency.
Then they will pass regulations on how big your house can be, and fine you for building that addition for an Four Seasons room (AKA Arizona Room, AKA Florida Room, etc.). They will regulate how many hats, ties, pairs of shoes you can own and of what type. If you are born with an IQ above 100, you'll be fined for being above average.
If you think I'm being outlandish, let me remind you that this is where is starts. This is what our founders feared. These executive orders and regulatory policies are steps towards the socialists vision of Utopia. Read Orwell's Animal Farm for another work of fiction that displays a closer version of how that turns out.