OK, ONE POST
James Lileks notes how those opposed to Social Security reform are drawing a moral equivalency between taking care of one's children and supporting everyone's retirement.
And this is why I'm not a liberal.
Because the people making this argument are the same folks who would say that any restriction on abortion are terrible because people have the right to determine for themselves wheter or not to make the commitment neccesary to raise a child.
Now they're saying that nobody can opt out of this welfare responsibility. In fact, the decline in the number of children justifies this.
Am I wrong that there's something a bit anti-family here?