Friday, November 9, 2007

Soak the Rich but let's not worry about the MoCo Transgender Bill

The Catholic Standard (Nov. 8, 2007 Page 31) ran an article entitled: Taxes, health care and slots top MCC's concerns to state lawmakers. According to the article, Richard Dowling (MCC Exec. Director) said that the tax system should be guided by three principles: raising "adequate revenues to pay for the public needs of society, especially the basic needs of the poor, structured according to the principle of progressivity, so that those with relatively greater financial resources pay a higher rate of taxation," and families below the poverty line should not have to pay income taxes."

What is the "public needs of society?" Is it public safety? Is it a free elementary education? Is it a chicken in every pot? The problem with Mr. Dowling and the MCC is that they offer no definition of "basic needs." Is it is one of those open ended statements that can mean almost anything to anyone. To some it means an apartment with hot/cold running water, a fridge and a stove. To others, it means a one family house on an tract of land with two cars. Still to others, a vacation to Disney at least once in every child's lifetime.

There is also this "soak the rich" and the "government knows what to do best with your money" Marxist mentality at the MCC. As I said in my last posting, the more you hit people up with higher taxes, the less they are going to give to charity. When you reduce taxes, you actually increase revenue and when people keep more of their money, they usually donate more of it.

Now, while the MCC was looking to "soak the rich" they seemed to miss the entire effort by the Montgomery County Council to pass Bill 23-07 which was sponsored by Councilmembers Tractenbery, Ervin and Elrich. This bill would allow "Any place of public accommodation...must not...make any distinction based on gender identity." Gender identity is defined as "an individual's actual or perceived gender..." To quote a council member when asked by the mother of a 10 year old girl about this, the reply was: "I cannot absolutely put to rest your concern that girls might find themselves in a locker room or dressing room in the presence of a person who expresses or asserts herself as a woman but who still has male genitals..."

Where the heck was the MCC on this? Nowhere to be found.

I think that Archbishop Wuerl needs to hand out a couple of pink slips at the MCC starting with Mr. Dowling.

No comments: