Spending Money Where It Is Needed–Not For Political Purposes

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about ending the federal funding for abortion.

The article reports:

President Trump’s action last week, barring Title X family planning funds from programs and facilities that perform abortions, is thus entirely right and reasonable. For all Planned Parenthood’s gnashing of teeth, the only thing to suffer will be its own profits and the rewards of its senior executives. The public good and women’s health will, at a minimum, remain completely unaffected and, depending on your perspective, will be improved.

Trump’s decision will not reduce Title X funding at all. Rather, his policy guarantees that the limited funds available from that source will go to comprehensive community health centers all over America that provide health services Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer. There are 20 such community health centers for every Planned Parenthood affiliate. Most provide services such as mammograms that Planned Parenthood doesn’t offer. Most are also not so heavily involved and invested in partisan politics.

According to opensecrets.org, in the 2016 election cycle, Planned Parenthood (through its PAC) donated $671,048 to federal candidates (98% to Democrats, 1% to Republicans).

According to the ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice):

Planned Parenthood just released their 2016–2017 annual report. The findings are clear: over 320,000 abortions committed in the last year; over half a billion in government funding; nearly $100 million in profit (a staggering 27% increase over the prior year). Big Abortion is big business.

Regardless of where you stand on protecting the unborn, abortion should not be a million dollar business.

It is obvious from the above numbers that Planned Parenthood does not actually need federal money–they are making a substantial profit on their own and they are supporting political candidates.

It has been my belief for a long time that entities that make political contributions should not be eligible for federal funds. This should include any political action committees (PACS) set up by those entities. This seems rather obvious to me, but evidently Congress has not yet figured it out (I guess Congress likes its donations from these entities). The idea of taking federal money and making political donations seems like money laundering to me.

 

Massachusetts 4th Congressional District

I just listened to the Talk1200 debate between Elizabeth Childs, Sean Bielat, and David Steinhof, the Republican primary candidates for the Massachusetts 4th District Congressional seat. My overall impression of the debate was that David Steinhof was the diplomat of the three and Elizabeth Childs was a bit snippy with Sean Bielat.

The thrust of Ms. Child’s answers was that she is a fiscal conservative and social liberal. She sees her ability to work across the aisle as the reason she should be elected. During the course of the debate, it was mentioned that her approval of federal funding for abortion does not really support her claim of being a fiscal conservative.

Sean Bielat cited his resume of military and business experience as the reason he should be elected. He supports basic Tea Party values–lower taxes and smaller government, and pointed out that government subsidies kill the free market dynamic and cost both consumers and producers money. He also pointed out that he supports the idea of a flat tax, but realizes that changing our tax program to a flat tax will not be instant, but needs to be done over a period of time.

David Steinhof is a Fall River dentist who is new to the political scene. He is a conservative who supports Tea Party values and is experienced in running a small business and dealing with government regulations. He was very diplomatic in the way he handled the back and forth between the other two candidates, and I actually think he would be able to reach across the aisle without compromising his principles.

Dr. Steinhof is the only candidate who has lived in the district his entire life and been a Republican all his life. He is also the least experienced of the candidates. That being said, he is a good candidate.

Any one of these candidates would wage a good campaign against Joe Kennedy, and any one of these candidates would be a good Congressman.