FamilyFoundationBlog.com

A delightfully insightful and quick explanation of the wonders and efficiencies of what was once known as capitalism in this county by one of our favorites, Don Boudreaux, chairman of the Economics Department at
George Mason University, courtesy a heads up from the Tuesday Morning Group’s John Taylor:

Editor, Washington Post

Dear Editor:

Supporting Pres. Obama’s efforts to “redistribute” incomes, E.J. Dionne quotes an administration official: “‘Over the past two or three decades, the top 1 percent of Americans have experienced a dramatic increase from 10 percent to more than 20 percent in the share of national income that’s accruing to them,’ said Peter Orszag, Obama’s budget director. Now, he said, was their time ‘to pitch in a bit more’” (“The Re-Redistributor,” March 2).

This “Progressive” mindset poisons sound thinking.

First, in market economies incomes aren’t “distributed”; they’re produced and earned. Second, persons whose earnings rise disproportionately more than those of other persons generally achieve this outcome by increasing their production disproportionately more than other persons increase theirs; the fact that someone’s income rises means that he or she already is pitching in more. Third, the share of federal individual income-tax revenues paid by America’s top one-percent of income earners has recently been on the rise. In 2006 (the latest year for which data are available) this tiny group of Americans paid a whopping — and all-time high — 39.9 percent of such taxes.

Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman, Department of Economics
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030

As it turned out, veto session was somewhat eventful. Read all about it here, as that’s pretty much what dominates the News Stand today. There’s also a couple of pieces about T-Mac’s money bags, but is that really new?

News:

Kaine criticizes House GOP for spurning jobless benefits (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Virginia likely forfeits $125 million for unemployed (The Daily Press)

Va. lawmakers reject federal jobless help (Norfolk Virginian-Pilot)

Assembly Rejects $125 Million for Expanded Jobless Benefits (Washington Post)

Most of Kaine’s vetoes upheld (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Legislators being work on gaming (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Legislators back Kaine on quicker crackdown on payday lendors (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Fairfax delegate says he’s stepping down to run for A.G. (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

Carlos Brown running for 69th House of Delegates District seat (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

McAuliffe, Moran report first-quarter fundraising (Richmond Times-Dispatch)

McAuliffe Reports Sizable Money Lead Over Moran (Washington Post)

Are Va. Republicans Making a Primary Error? (Washington Post)

Below is The Family Foundation of Virginia’s official statement, released this week, to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding its consideration of ending regulations that protect the ethical standards and consciences of medical professionals. HHS is seeking public comments on the proposed rollback through today. For information on how to e-mail HHS, click here. 

Official Statement By The Family Foundation of Virginia to the Department of Health and Human Services Regarding Medical Professionals Conscience Protection Regulations

The Family Foundation of Virginia, the Commonwealth’s oldest and largest pro-family advocacy organization, urges the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to leave in place the current regulations protecting the conscience rights of health care workers. These regulations are needed due to protect the conscience rights of America’s health care workers from increased efforts to force these care givers to violate their personal ethics. The area of discrimination that has increased the most involves the issue of the sanctity of human life. 

Examples of this assault include national medical organizations that oppose conscience rights in the area of abortion. The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) issued certification requirements last year that could lead to discrimination against obstetricians or gynecologists because they tie their certification requirements to pro-abortion principles adapted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). If an obstetrician or gynecologist disagrees with ACOG’s ethical stance, he or she could face decertification by ABOG. In other words, a highly skilled health care worker could lose their ability to treat patients simply because of their ethical stance against abortion. Another example involves medical organizations that would force pharmacists to dispense drugs, such as emergency contraception, that they find unethical because the drug can lead to the destruction of a human embryo by preventing implantation. 

Otherwise qualified health care workers should not be treated as second-class citizens simply because of their personal ethics. Health care professionals should not be forced to violate their consciences simply to fulfill the politically motivated demands of others. Therefore, we urge you to keep these protections in place.