Everyone has probably heard of Nadya Suleman, the Los Angeles woman who recently gave birth to octuplets. The addition of the newest eight now makes Suleman a mother of 14 children and the object of much media interest. Initially all the attention resulted naturally due to the size of the birth. But a firestorm came about when it was reported Suleman partially funded her in-vitro fertilization procedure with her worker’s disability compensation. She also has verified that she receives food stamps and Social Security disability checks for three of her children.
There has been a large amount of criticism thrown her way in the media and on blogs across the country. Many have called for forced foster care of Suleman’s children and some have even gone so far as to demand she be sterilized.
“It’s my opinion that a woman’s right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for,” Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. “Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?”
That folks, is the crux of everything I have been writing about since I started this column in October. Although it may come as a surprise that I’m free of animosity and resentment towards Ms. Suleman. In fact, I find it ironical that she has been the target of so much scorn.
Rather, I look at her as a success and an incredibly clever woman. Why? Because she’s a winner. She assessed her situation and the resources that were available to her. She came up with a plan, figured out the way to make it a reality, and stuck to it in order to achieve her goal.
In reality, Suleman most likely only receives between $2,300 – 2,500 a month in government “assistance.” That number will most likely increase in the near future due to the added children. But let’s face it; Ms. Suleman cannot be blamed for taking taxpayer money. Not especially in the Bush/Obama era where Bernanke and Geithner are dropping freshly printed hundreds out of helicopters.
Everybody likes free money, even when it’s worth nothing.
Like it or not, food stamps, Social Security disability payments, and Medicaid are entitlement programs. As long as Suleman meets the eligibility requirements, she’s legally entitled to her benefits no matter how much she’s playing the system.
If somebody is abusing generosity, the appropriate response is not to take away their rights but to take away the generosity. Nadya Suleman is living evidence of the old adage “if you want more of something, subsidize it.” General Motors and Chrysler recently proved it again with their second trip to Washington to kiss the rings.
As I mentioned earlier, what I find ironic (or enraging on my better days) is the misplaced nastiness. I’ve yet to read or hear anyone not condemn this woman. She just might be more reviled than Bernie Madoff at the moment.
But only a couple months ago the Treasury became our new monarchy and Congress and Obama just threw tantrums and passed an $800 billion spending bill. Where’s the outrage?
In the grand scheme of mine and your lives, Nadya Suleman has no affect. Despite what TMZ might have you believe, she’s not important. Admit it; she’s just an easy target.
However, a tyrannical government is important. An aristocracy that subjects its people to ruinous power grabs all in the name of “crisis” is important. Wake up people, we’re being buried alive.