Posted on 04/25/2012 4:11:13 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Government," says Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., "is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together." This, of course, is eminently untrue -- we do plenty of things together that don't involve the government, thank God. One can only imagine how dull and dreary our sex lives would be if they had to run through a DMV-style bureaucracy.
But this foolish liberal meme has value. It does carry a grain of truth: government represents us. Without us, there is no government. More to the point, without our money, there are no government programs.
That's why, this week, I decided to adopt Sandra Fluke.
Now, you may remember Fluke from her dismal performance before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee. Fluke, you'll recall, was a Georgetown law student who just happened to be a professional activist. And she stated that she wanted Georgetown, a Catholic school, to pay for her contraceptives, since "contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school." In the end, third parties would end up paying for part of Fluke's YAZ prescription, since Obamacare's strictures are subsidized by individual mandates.
Fluke was back this week. This time, she wanted taxpayers to cover more of her student loans. She tweeted, "#DontDoubleMyRate. Many students will see the interest rate on Fed #StudentLoans increase if Congress doesn't act by 7/1."
She not only wants me to pay for her pills, she wants me to pay for her student loans.
So here's my logic: If I'm going to pay for Sandra Fluke's birth control and student loans, I may as well adopt her for the tax write-off.
Now, if I do adopt Fluke -- and she'll presumably have a say in the matter -- there will be some strings attached. See, when you're asking for cash from the "government," there are no obligations connected with those benefits. But if you're asking me for an allowance, you will be asked to do chores. My wife is busy in medical school, and I'm working. So if Fluke wants an allowance for her birth control, she can start by doing the laundry. At least then, my wife and I will get something out of the deal.
This is not a sexist request -- believe it or not, plenty of men do the laundry. I'm one of them. But if Fluke feels it's too degrading to do our laundry in exchange for her pills and loan subsidies, she can pick another household chore she likes better; both men and women do household chores, at least where I come from. If government is just a name for the things we choose to do together, Sandra Fluke can choose whether to wash my dishes or balance my checkbook.
No doubt there are some who find this arrangement insulting. But it is significantly less insulting than an arrangement whereby Fluke gets something for nothing. She is not a member of my family; it is not my obligation to give her money out of some sort of kinship. She's not performing any services for me; it's not my obligation to give her money out of any sort of fairness consideration. If Fluke wants to be left to her own devices, she can damn well take her hand out of my wallet.
The truth is that capitalism, not government, is the name of the things we choose to do together. I choose to pay somebody to wash my car; that person chooses to wash my car in exchange for the cash. Government has become a name for the things we choose to leverage from one another without their consent.
So here's the deal, Sandra. I'll consent to paying for some of your expenses if I get to claim you as a dependent on my tax return. Until then, stay out of my life, and stop pretending that you have the moral authority to deplete my bank account.
What would he do with a ugly woman?
There are many good things about Sandra Fluck.
She’s, well she’s, she’s well nourished.
Why would he adopt a dummy who can figure less than a mile away where CVS had with no insurance the same conception for $ 9.00 a month.
He's overlooking her primary skill set.
Wasn't that really a Nancy Pelosi press conference dressed up to look like a committee meeting because the real committee declined to interview Fluck?
The only problem with adopting Sandra Fluke is when you have to answer the question,”Can anyone else claim this dependent on their tax return”, you’re going to have to say, “yes”.
How about another one: “Government is simply a semi-organized mob giving itself permission to steal my money at gunpoint and hand it out to the members of that very same mob.”
In that sense, it’s no different from a mafia “protection” racket - except that, unlike the government, the mafia actually does protect the sources of its income.
Remember that she was arguing for contraceptives for OTHER women, not herself. She did not evidence any interest in men, herself.
So since her own primary skills (such as they may be) are apparently applied to women, so actually he'd be setting up his wife, not himself.
Not sure that's a good plan, from any angle.
In the case of Fluck, the “higher learning centers” that educated her, can chuckle to themselves and proudly say, “lookie, we created another one!”
Paging Woody Allen, please pick up the house phone...
‘Cause she’s easy?
“High mileage, multi-owner...”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.