Friday, March 2, 2012

Sebelius: Why Have More Taxpayers When We Can Have More Abortions?

Kathleen Sebelius actually said it:
The reduction in the number of pregnancies compensates for the cost of contraception.
That statement prompted Pundette to cite Steve Ertelt, who argued "that they're just getting started." As indeed they are:
Certainly abortion coverage is the next logical step. Even in its initial passage in 2010, Obamacare contained new streams of federal funding for abortion.
Dan Collins, also asserting the obvious, pointed out that fewer babies means fewer future taxpayers to pay off that mountain range of debt that Obama has run up . . .
I’m sorry, but we’re $15 trillion in debt, largely thanks to Obama, and we are expecting future generations to pick up the slack. . . .
What is the matter with you? How do you think you can fund your agenda on the shoulders of dead babies?
Obviously that is not considered a problem by Sebelius and her masters. Don't expect them to spend much time attempting to fulfill empty (and impossible) promises.

Americans used to expect (and educate) our young ones to become productive contributors to society. 

That quaint notion usefully served the human race for at least the last 50,000 generations, which is even longer than it took for the American Left to determine that "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" are antique goals best buried under the high-tech dust of lithium batteries.

Sebelius, planting her feet carefully within the boundaries mandated by her masters, could not make it more clear that she views our little ones as unnecessary drags on society, a pain-in-the-neck population of gaping mouths ready to devour the (surprise! surprise!) not-quite-bottomless pit of entitlements to food, clothing, housing, fuel, healthcare, education, cell phones, and broadband access that Obama and his Obamatons are going to such great lengths to teach them to expect.

You'd think that Sebelius might be afraid that there won't be enough left for her (and her progeny).

There is method in this madness. And motive.

When progressive push comes to defunct economy shove, you can bet that the Leftist Ruling Class will be looking out for themselves.

Starting yesterday.


  1. Something just clicked in my mind. What was Mao's cultural revolution about? Destroying Chinese culture to make room for a new culture. What does the reduction in birth rates do to our cultural? It destroys in multiple ways. Making room for a new kind of culture.

  2. A photo of the snake and the dragon. Both with the desire to slither into our lives.

  3. @Trestin -- Indeed. A culture in which the Elites and their pets and pet projects are served by pretty Eloi decorating a visually appealing landscape. Medical futurists are looking into the near future at lifespans of 150 to 200 years, for those that can afford the advanced technologies. That's a lot of time to play golf and tropical-island hop--as long as a horde of stringy-haired proletariat don't exist to get in the way of those lovely views.

    I've been watching scenarios like this--on a smaller scale--run by prog elites and their hanger-ons for years.

    @Odie--You bet. In the Middle Ages, they called them wurms.