Apparently, if you are today's Republicans, a hell of a lot. Lets look at a few things that most (though certainly not all) Republicans in the national congress and state legislatures have voted for or stand for:
1. Most would deny marriage protections to gay families.
2. Most would deny gay and lesbian couples the ability to adopt or foster children.
3. Most are pro-life and wish to restrict or eliminate legal abortion.
4. Most claim they are "pro-family"
5. Most, at least the old-style, non-Bushite Republicans, claim to be fiscally responsible and would rather spend a little money now to prevent spending a lot later.
6. Most, again at least the old-style, claim to want small and non-intrusive government.
But throw those all out the window (if you haven't already), because _every_ single Republican in congress just voted to cut foster-care funding that would KEEP kids from having to enter foster care.
There is a provision, Title IV-E of the Social Security Act, that funds about half of the federal funding for foster-care. Or as the article states:
Title IV-E of the Social Security Act is the largest source of federal funding for child-welfare services, accounting for 53 percent -- $4.8 billion -- of total federal spending on child welfare in the nation in 2004. This funding is an unlimited entitlement, meaning the more foster children a state has, the more money it gets. But the funds only cover board, care and administrative costs once a child is in the system.
But as the article states, in a fit of wisdom and foresight, the congress passed a waiver that allowed states to use the money top help families before the child was in the system.. again from the article:
For 10 years, the federal government has had the ability to grant states flexibility in the use of federal child-welfare funds, thanks to a rare move by Congress in 1994 to improve the foster-care system.The Title IV-E waiver program was intended to promote innovative programs, and has led to practices that support alternatives to foster-care placements.
In San Francisco, for example, the county works with nonprofit agencies on "differential programs," helping at-risk families through domestic-abuse programs, substance-abuse programs and employment services. The goal is to help stabilize the family rather than remove the child from the home.
By all indications, the waiver program is working and helping families remain intact and creating innovative programs. And, in the not-so-long-run, saving the government a lot of money (fewer kids in the system, less money they have to pay out). So wow, good all around you'd think. Helps families remain intact and helps children, thus pro-family. Helps the government save money thus fiscally responsible. Helps families keep control of their families and not put children into 'state' systems, so pro-small, non-intrusive government. Helps families get to a point where they can emotionally, financially and otherwise support their children, those pro-life (a woman in a stable, improving family might be more likely to want to keep a child).
Wow, good all around.
But no, apparently not. The Republicans in Congress (something like 95% of them) voted to kill this waiver (at least something like 95% of Democrats voted in oppositiion).
So, they have basically voted to increase the number of children in foster care (or abortions for that matter or both) instead of helping families and to increase the amount of money that is spent in the long run.
But even though they voted to increase the number of children in foster care...
All the while, Republicans in 16 states are trying to vote to make it illegal for good LGBT families take those extra children into loving homes.
How much hypocrisy can you fit into a vote? Apparently a lot.
I used to respect the Republican party, fiscal responsibility, realistic foreign and security policies, limited and unintrusive government seemed to be their mainstays. I might have disagreed with them on some things, but I respected them and did tend to agree with them on those above to an extent. But those seem to have gone out the window in today's Republican party run, as it is, by imperial neo-cons and moralizing Fundamentalists.
Comments (2)
Your last paragraph really sums it up.
Now if only people like my mother and other family members would realize that they aren't voting for the Republican party of say, Eisenhower, we might get somewhere.
Comment #337 on February 27, 2006 5:27 PM |
I used to be a Republican, but I'm all better now.
Yeesh. There's not end to their hypocrisy. Basically, once The Children are out of the womb, their on their own.
Of course, given the state of prenatal care, especially for the uninsured and those in the public health system, the Repugs aren't all that concerned about 'em then, either. Just as long as no one is aborting them.
--------
Comment #338 on March 1, 2006 10:05 AM |