Social versus Fiscal Issues


The one thing that divides conservatives time and time again is social versus fiscal issues. We never seem to be able to see the entire picture and then decide collectively what steps to take to tackle those issues one at time. Earlier this year, I had four board members leave my tea party group because of this. If you talk to two of those four, they will tell you that I was a dictating Christmas Catholic who would not listen to anyone and did things my own way no matter what anyone else thought. I was also completely without morals because I refuse to discriminate against a gay group (GoProud) and instead co-signed a letter with not only that gay group but many other tea party groups across the country asking the new Congress to please focus on the fiscal issues facing this country rather than get caught up in the Democrats game of continuing to divide our country over social issues.

Now I could get into all the particulars about the split in the group like egos, lack of work on the part of one person who lead the coup or the hypocritical statements from another with regards to my religious beliefs and church attendance – of which she really knew neither just made false assumptions. Although, I appreciated her work beyond belief and learned more from her than she realized, her viciousness was shocking. The other 2 ladies were fabulous – our graphic artist, I miss because of her no nonsense approach and ability to get things done while working a full time job and the other who helped put together our events because again she was very no nonsense and got stuff done. But it is really not worth it because what truly split our group was social versus fiscal issues.

While I appreciated their enthusiasm with regards to social and religious issues, it was never meant to be the focus of our group. That was made very clear at the beginning; we would cover Constitutional issues, limited government, and fiscal responsibility. Later on we joined up with Tea Party Patriots and took on free markets as well.
Here is the biggest reason why, we do not take on social issues – we are a small group and part of a new movement that is focused on our out of control government. This includes taxes, spending and returning our country to Constitutional principles. Social issues as important as they are do not put food on someone’s table nor a roof over their head. Neither will they prevent an economic collapse. In order for us to effectively take on social issues, we need to get government under control. Because it is the current belief system of both parties that encourages government expansion into our private lives both in a fiscal and social manner.

If you want to tackle social issues effectively, take out the emotion. I know that it is hard not to get emotional especially when it comes to abortion. The first thing conservatives need to do is acknowledge yes our religious and/or beliefs do play a part in our thinking but it’s more than. First and foremost we cannot afford at the federal to continue to fund elective procedures nor can we afford to fund elective procedures at the state or local level. The liberals are going to come back with the emotion argument which is what about the poor woman who cannot afford a child or the rape victim or the child who was molested and got pregnant or the woman who may die because of the pregnancy. Don’t argue back with morality or religion. Instead, argue back with facts. For example, if your poor use protection – condoms do not cost that much to buy and are the first line of defense. When used correctly, condoms can be 98% effective in preventing pregnancy and are widely available. It is up to you to be responsible enough to buy and use them. The rape victims are harder because of course it is not their fault they are pregnant but neither is it the fault of the child. According to several websites, pregnancy by rape accounts for just 5% of rapes that occur which is just over 3K pregnancies . So the argument here is that if it is no more the fault of the woman than it is the child shouldn’t other alternatives be looked at and if one chooses abortion then they need to pay for it. It is not the state’s responsibility to pay for a procedure that is chosen. “Studies conducted by Planned Parenthood’s Guttmacher Institute indicate that two consenting and fertile adults have only a 3 percent chance of pregnancy from an act of intercourse. They also indicate that there are factors involved in a rape that further reduce the chance that rape victims will become pregnant. The Guttmacher Institute says that fourteen thousand abortions per year are due to rape or incest, which amounts to just over 1 percent of all abortions.” Medical issues that cause a pregnancy to be aborted amount to 3% of all abortions performed and as such are an elective procedure regardless of medical necessity because a woman still has to choose that procedure and in the case of medical necessity would more than likely be covered by an insurance company. However, that would also depend on the insurance company and one needs to check with their insurance company.

If you are against abortion – use facts and not emotion to cut the budget to organizations like Planned Parenthood. The procedure is elective and we cannot afford it as we are on an unsustainable trajectory with our federal budget. Further facts to use are the Constitution. Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal government needs to pay for abortion or any other contraceptive options? Don’t get sucked into the emotion liberals will put out. Hit them hard with facts. Because the facts are 95% of all abortions occur outside of the realm of rape, incest and medical necessity. Therefore they are elective procedures that need to be paid for by the person who is electing to receive them not borne by the taxpayer.

The homosexual issue is an interesting issue and no matter what homosexual say, it is based on money and money alone. When someone talks about love and partnership and such, use science against them – again let someone know that you beliefs are or are not affected by your religion but note science and tradition in your argument. The facts are that approximately 3% of the population is gay – some studies suggest 10% and polls conducted suggest people believe the percentage is higher. As well violence is more likely to occur in a gay household than in a heterosexual household as well as incidents involving STDS and other health related problems.

But even further evidence suggests that homosexuality is not efficient for a population or a culture. That evidence is simple common sense with regards to procreation. Two men cohabiting together cannot have a child neither can two women. It takes one man and one woman to create a child to sustain population in a society. So the biggest evidence that homosexuality is not based on nature is that homosexuals cannot have children unless they procreate with a member of the opposite sex.

So then the question is; “What rights are they seeking which are being denied to homosexuals?” Those rights per the homosexual movement include health insurance for partners, ability for partners to receive their Social Security benefits, make decisions in times of health crisis’s and other financial matters which include but are not limited to the ability to file taxes together and use a partner as a dependent. (This is a false argument because other than Social Security and private health insurance, most other financial matters and health decisions can be handled through a living will.)

So in reality the homosexual agenda is based not on love or procreation but on money. Again, we cannot afford to fund everyone’s pet projects or benefits or whatever entitlement they think they are due. It is up to an individual to make their own way in the world as well since homosexuality is not natural based on science nor is it a traditional method of partnership regardless of religious beliefs, then why does anywhere from 90-97% of the population have to pay have to pay for an estimate 3-10% of the population.

These two topics are just one of many social issues that can be tackled in a non emotional fiscal manner. Folks the first step in attacking social issues is through fiscal and non emotional means. Once we tackle the fiscal issues, we can effectively change the social issues but we have to smart about it and take it one step at a time. We need to steal that part of the Progressives playbook which is change happens slowly over time. We as tea partiers are on the right track. First we brought back the Constitution through meetings, seminars, educational events, handing out pocket constitutions to schools and during parades etc. We have also affected legislation by getting the word out about fiscal costs and liberal misinformation. We as tea partiers need to keep the focus on the Constitution and its restraining effect on government. It doesn’t mean we ignore social issues because those issues can cost our country hundreds of millions of dollars at all levels, we just need to work on it fiscally and let those groups who are already entrenched in the social issues benefit from our work and make their work easier.

Tea parties cannot cover every issue but we can impact every issue but looking at its cost and benefits to society as a whole rather than get emotional and falling into the Democrats trap of emotional game playing.

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/condoms.htm

http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/sexual-assault-victims

http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Feb/20/what-about-woman-who-pregnant-due-rape-or-incest/

http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/13-culture/282-spiritual-profile-of-homosexual-adults-provides-surprising-insights

http://www.gallup.com/poll/6961/what-percentage-population-gay.aspx

http://conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_Statistics

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Social versus Fiscal Issues

  1. Tod, Those are other great social issue points that you have raised. Which comes back to the basis of my argument in that tea partiers cannot cover every issue but if we focus on fiscal issue specifically we can limit the size and scope of government which would in turn address some of those social issue that are best left to the states, local governments and the people. When national government is limited, and the onus is put back on the states and local government entities, then social issues can be addressed by the people who can tailor those issue to best match what is or is not acceptable in their areas. A one size fits all mentality from either side of the political spectrum does not work.

    I agree with your assessment of some conservatives who believe that more legislation will take care of a social problem and yet those same conservatives will scream for less government. Once cannot have it both ways. Also I just used those two examples because they are the biggest ones out there currently but there are many other social issue examples that could have been used in their place or for that matter educational issues that could have been raised as well.

  2. This doesn’t directly respond to the issues you have raised, but expands upon some other related issues:

    Many conservatives believe that the answer to social ills is legislation from the federal government. Unfortunately, this approach always backfires. Morality cannot be legislated and when attempted, what always happens is that everyone, including strong conservative Christians, gets their liberty taken away. For example, what happened when the federal government got involved in abortion? The government took away the rights of the unborn. Another example: the right to pray in a public school was taken away by the federal government.

    Some would argue that the only problems with those examples is that the federal government didn’t rule the way they should have. But I argue that a federal government who has that power at all – to decide these issues – then has the power to decide against you. Take away that power to infringe on your liberty and that problem is solved.

    Others point to issues such as the drug war and prostitution. “Surely we can’t allow drugs and prostitution! After all, the Bible admonishes us to avoid the appearance of evil, and if we allow them then it looks like we are condoning them and THAT is evil!”. But what has outlawing them done? It has created a huge market because it has introduced the ability of certain parties to profit. So by outlawing them, we have actually done the OPPOSITE of what we intended. Who is profiting? Obviously the drug dealers are. Obviously the pimps/madams & hookers are. But there is another, less obvious profiteer in the Drug War: Bureaucracy. Government has siphoned money out of our pockets to the tune of over a TRILLION dollars so far. That is a LOT of government. Do you think they really have an interest in stopping drugs? If they did, that money would dry up. Drugs are much more of a problem now than they have ever been. The only success has been to increase power over honest citizens and drain their pocketbooks.

    The federal government needs to stay out of the issue.

Comments are closed.