Monday, October 31, 2011

Paging Elizabeth Warren

So is this part of the social contract that justifies spending whatever the left says we need and taxing at whatever level the left says we need to support that spending? Mark Steyn writes:

Stanley Thornton Jr. of California receives Supplementary Security Income disability checks from the Social Security Administration in order to sit around the house all day wearing a giant diaper and a giant onesie, sucking on a giant pacifier and playing with a giant baby rattle. Stanley Jr. runs a website for fellow “adult babies” called BedWettingABDL.com. I believe I first heard of the “adult baby” phenomenon some years ago in London. If memory serves, there was a club, and the members lay around in giant cribs being read bedtime stories by a bosomy nanny. Minor celebrities and possibly backbench Tory members of Parliament may have been involved. In those days, it was what we called a “fetish” and you had to do it on your own dime. Now it’s a “disability” and the United States government picks up the tab. And, if that’s not progress, what is?

When defending government spending and the taxes that are needed to support them, Ms. Warren brings up police and fire protection (but not national defense), roads, and schools. I think we can all agree that those are fine things to spend money on. I'd hope that supporting adult babies isn't something Ms. Warren would insist is part of the social contract.

And in between? Well, that's what our democracy is about. Or it should be. Rather than accusing opponents who want to debate how much to spend in between fire protection and adult baby support (and the taxes we should endure) as wanting to kill people or let them die, shouldn't we be allowed to debate spending questions without acting as if that spending is beyond touching? Or even questioning?

UPDATE: Thanks to Stones Cry Out for the link.