“Family” vs. “Village”

Rick Santorum’s (R-PA) book, “It Takes a Family,” came out this month . . . much to the delight of the Dems. Santorum’s book counters Senator Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) book, “It Takes a Village,” by promoting the traditional family values over the “big government” mindset of Clinton’s book. He encourages families with children to have a stay-at-home parent. His book provides budgetary guidance on how this might be accomplished without severe impact to the family’s finances.

Both Clinton and Santorum are preparing for their re-election bids in 2006. Santorum’s race has been targeted by the Dems for special attention. They believe they can oust Santorum and replace him with one of their own, Bob Casey. Truth be told, the race for his seat hangs in the balance and wasn’t helped by a recent misguided and unintelligible remark comparing the Democrats attempts to keep the filibuster to Hitler invading France. He made a mistake then . . . and, he’s made a mistake now — one that could cost him his seat.

What is Santorum’s mistake? He should never have published this book prior to the election. Dems have the MSM on their side. We have seen it time and time again. They will distort Santorum’s words, as well as his intent, in an unrelenting smear campaign. Already they have begun to harp on the crazy idea that Santorum is insulting working mothers. (It’s interesting that the Dems insist Santorum’s book disrespects working mothers, but take umbrage when someone suggests that Clinton is dismissing stay-at-home parents with hers.) Initially, the Democratic uproar over the book was muted with more “important” issues: Karl Rove’s involvement in the Plume outing, the resignation of Sandra Day O’Connor, and Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to replace her. Now, it seems the Dems are fanning the flames in hopes of a Santorum roasting.

The truth is Santorum believes children should have a parent, Mom or Dad, at home to help keep them secure and aid in their development. To reinforce his contention, he uses the fact that the most dangerous time for children is between 3 p.m. and 6p.m. — the time between school and when parents return home from their jobs.

“For many Pennsylvania families, having a stay-at-home mother is simply not an option if they want to make ends meet. Mr. Santorum is clearly out of touch with the economic realities many families are facing. Accusing these working mothers of being selfish or bad budgeters is simply wrong and sadly ironic given the lack of fiscal discipline Mr. Santorum has shown with our federal budget.” — Bob Casey

How Casey/Dems derive this conclusion from what Santorum has written is a mystery. Certainly, there exist exceptions to any rule. However, there are quite a few families in our great country (and I know some of these personally) that sell the safety and development of their children for two BMWs in the garage, a library of the latest DVDs and CDs, plasma TVs and a wide assortment of prices electronic gadgets. But, Santorum isn’t even saying this. He just want to shrink Federal government vis-a-vis taxes, get a parent back into the home, and have a potentially brighter and safer future for the children. Yes, his proposal is essentially the opposite of Clinton’s “Village” proposal. In an age where are children have increasingly become prey to pedophiles and the violence in the schools has reached epic proportion, one would think the public would be open to Santorum’s ideas.

Additional facts that bolster Santorum’s view include an increase of Federal taxes that have risen from 2% to 25% (on average) of the household income since the 1950’s. He cites data which indicates that, of the majority of two-income families, the “second” income averages 25% that of the highest earner. Of course, fact matter little to the MSM or many on the Left. They have already gone on the attack against Santorum by misleading the public and contending Santorum, and conservatives in general, oppose working mothers.

Once you factor in additional taxes, commuting expenses, after school care, summer care and take out meals, is it really worth the cost? Anyone that has studied economics can tell you that the only reason real estate costs are so high is because the public can pay the prices. Housing, therefore, is not an appropriate argument. The real estate market began exploding in the 1970s, shortly after woman started swarming into the job market. Simple supply and demand — a two-income family can afford the mortgages which these higher prices demand.

When did the stay-at-home Mom (or Dad) become undesirable? When did money, the biggest possible house, an active social life and possessions begin to take precedence over the welfare of our children? When did vilifying a man trying to help our children (whether or not you agree with his ideas) become acceptable? Raising a healthy, happy, well-adjusted child can be a most difficult and rewarding job. Accomplishing this goal can only improve the future of the child and our country as a whole. If you don’t want to raise your children correctly and selflessly, don’t have them. Our children are our future; and, quite possibly, the hope of the world rides on their shoulders. Should we so blithely cast their fate and development to the winds of chance?

“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children’s children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.” — President Ronald Reagan

Let us strive to do “‘all that could be done” in both the global and familial arenas. After all, what good is winning the future if we fail our children?

Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

Comments are closed.