The following is an editorial I have submitted to our local newspaper.  The catalyst for this editorial is a situation where our County Commissioners passed a child adoption perk for full-time County employees without public awareness of it.  This perk was passed in 2013, evidently, but didn't come to public light until our County Commissioner Chairman decided to apply for the perk for his own family.  He and his family are desiring to adopt three children from the Ukraine.  He was on the board when this perk was passed and voted for it.  Our Commissioners are considered part-time County employees, but for some unknown reason, even that didn't stop the County Chairman from applying for this perk.  So, now the newspaper and the public are aware of what has happened.  So much wrong here, my little editorial just barely scratches the surface.  Here you are:

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA

Lifting up the down-trodden is a noble gesture, but is it the role of the taxpayers?  All of us who have children, have raised children and who have worked hard to support our families have a soft spot in our hearts for orphans.  There is no doubt.  But there is a difference between charity and confiscating taxes to make some people feel good or assuage some societal guilt.  Doing good for others through charity is supposed to be a personal choice, not paid for through force.  And there lies the conundrum of this County proposed adoption subsidy.

Those who pay taxes are already subsidizing fatherless families through welfare, food stamps, housing credits, healthcare, and more.  The decision to do this was forced upon the taxpayers through Lyndon Baines Johnson's Great Society programs, sold as the way to wipe out poverty in the entire nation.  Well, now we can see how successful that has been.  The national poverty rate has not decreased one iota, so taking from the haves to give to the have-nots has not produced the promised outcome of reducing poverty rates at all.  As Thomas Sowell has pointed out countless times, the 'Welfare State' has exacerbated the irresponsible behavior of many men who donate sperm and walk away, leaving the taxpayers to foot the bill.  The Great Society, to a great degree, has turned responsible parenting into a non-sequitur.

So now we have elected County Commissioners, portraying themselves as compassionate Christian men, proposing to confiscate, through force of government, tax money to subsidize adoptions of orphaned children, taking money from some to offset the cost of 'doing good.'   There are principles of personal responsibility here that are turned upside down.  Not to mention that this policy is far from the Christian tenets of charity.

I read that one justification of getting government to do this is that some private corporations offer an adoption subsidy to their employees.   In case no one catches the fine point of that, the private corporations who do this are getting tax deductions for this action, remaining taxpayers are already compensating for the deductions.  I guess our County Commissioners don't think that's enough and they want more from the taxpayers.  Another fine point is that there is already a substantial federal tax credit program through the IRS for individuals who adopt children.

Next thing you know, the taxpayers will be paying people to not have children.  Oh, wait, we are already in the heat of that battle thanks to Roe vs. Wade and Planned Parenthood.

Once upon a time in America, taking tax money from others for your own personal use was generally considered a shameful thing. It meant you were dependent on others and either could not or would not make your own way.   It also meant socialism, a tyrannical government system that America fought a war with great sacrifice to defeat in Europe. Americans, for the most part, understood the implications of socialist tyranny. The backbone of America was forged with independence and individual liberties.  The heart of the American public was charitable without government intervention.

By the way, I know some parents who have adopted children who didn't have subsidies, using their own hard earned labor and resources to do so. These people are taxpayers, too.  What are you saying to them if you now decide to use their taxes to subsidize someone else's decision to adopt?

Now we have a committee to study the idea of taxpayer subsidies to county employees for adoption?  Why?  The principle is flawed from the start.  If you oppose this, are you designated as a cold-hearted bastard who doesn't care for orphaned children?   There should be no committee.  There should be no further discussion.  It's a bad idea. It's a socialist idea. It is using government force, no matter how you try to sugar coat it and paint yourselves as compassionate Christians.  This is not the role of government in America.  Or, should I say, it is not supposed to be the role of government in America.  Yes, I know.  That ship has sailed and I am whistling in the wind.  I miss the America where no one in their right mind would suggest such things as this.  Charity comes from individual choice. Not from government force.  Once upon a time……

Sources: here and here.

The Federal Adoption Tax Credit

Some adoption costs can be offset by utilizing the Federal Adoption Tax Credit, which is non-refundable, for all qualifying adoption expenses.

Adoptive parents who work for companies with an adoption assistance program also receive a tax break. Parents can receive up to $12,970 in reimbursement from their employer for adoption expenses without paying taxes on that benefit.

Gaston Gazette Article

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/12/charity_by_force_jesus_vs_marx.html

Jesus Christ teaches His followers to give to the poor.  But liberals see in this a call for forced redistribution of wealth -- by government.  Christians must support a socialist government, which takes money from Person A by force and gives that money to Person B.  Every mention of the poor they portray as demanding government control of a nation's economy.

And let us be clear: we're talking violence.  We're talking SWAT teams from time to time storm tax protestors barricaded in their homes.  Violence, even death by police, backs up tax collection for the welfare state.  So does Jesus Christ endorse violence so that the government can take from Person A to give to Person B?

Conservatives notice what liberals somehow cannot see: that Jesus is addressing the voluntary choices of individuals.  Christianity rests upon free will.  Capitalism rests upon free will.  God Himself does not force anyone to obey Him, follow Him, love Him, or serve Him.  When one town rejected Jesus in Luke 9, His followers wanted to punish the disobedient people by "calling down fire" -- that is, praying for a repeat of Elijah's spectacular miracle.  Jesus sharply rebuked them.

Source

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.