In Colorado (where else?), the Democrats are expressing outrage over comments made by a conservative Republican on the floor of the state house on Monday.
State Representative Spencer Swalm stated the plain truth that people who don’t want to live in poverty, should stop having children out of wedlock. Common sense, right? Well maybe to you and to me, but the state's Democratic party went ape over the mere suggestion that single moms having kids that they cannot afford is a bad thing and leads to a life of poverty. It doesn't matter that the statistics on that issue are clear and uncontestable--Even the US Census Bureau reports that 43 percent of Colorado families living below the poverty level were headed by a married couple vs. Fifty-seven percent of families below that line that were single-parent families. And of all children living in single-parent homes, nearly a third lived in poverty. Only 8.6 percent of children in married couple families lived in poverty.
I mean, come on--it's not even something you can argue. Single-parent families may do quite well, but more of them do poorly than do families with two parents. That's just a fact.
“Don’t have kids out of wedlock,” said Swalm, R-Centennial from the House floor. “If you’re married, if at all possible, try to stay married. Those are ways to lift families out of poverty.”
In an interview afterward, Swalm pointed out that “intact families do better than dysfunctional or broken families”, but said he was not advocating that women stay in abusive marriages.
“Those children are almost guaranteed to be in poverty. You don’t want kids in poverty? Don’t have kids out of wedlock,” Swalm said. “Better yet, get a high school degree. That doesn’t cost a dime.”
Wow. Get and stay married, get a basic diploma, work. Such oppressive concepts. No wonder the Dems are outraged. It goes without saying that messages like this rock their party because impoverished people are a major bloc of their constituency. People who do well and earn money or own property naturally want to keep it so they tend to vote for the Republicans, who at least give lip-service to conservative principles like self-reliance and small government. Conversely, poor people, including people who don't work and who have lots of kids that they cannot afford, expect the government to take care of them, usually by taking the money and/or property from those who have it--typically the ones who stayed in school and worked hard and who didn't start popping out kids in their teen years.
This is why I think that people on welfare should not be allowed to vote. They have elected to become children of the state and children aren't supposed to have a say in how a household is run. If welfare recipients could not vote, many legislators who owe their seats to large numbers of non-working child-breeders in their districts might not be in office today and perhaps the government would more accurately reflect and work on behalf of the average American--the man or woman who gets up every day and puts in 40 hours or more each week to earn their own way.
Mind you, it's not cut-and-dried between the parties. There are a few conservative Democrats out there, and there are some scum-sucking liberal Republicans who like to ride on the Conservative Values float come election time but who still vote to give the store away to people who aren't putting anything in. I really don't care which party takes the lead so long as it's the most conservative one. And that's why come November, I'll be voting for and donating money to candidates who pledge or have demonstrated support for small government, pro-citizen-empowerment conservatism, regardless of their political affiliation. And if the GOP thinks that I'll support another John McCain, they're in for a rude awakening. I want a government that governs me the least and lets me keep what I earn. And I want more people like Spencer Swalm in office, because he seems to get that.
Go, Spencer, go!