Clicking on banner ads keeps JWR alive
Jewish World Review Sept. 23, 1999 /13 Tishrei, 5760

Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Suzanne Fields
Arianna Huffington
Tony Snow
Michael Barone
Michael Medved
Lawrence Kudlow
Greg Crosby
Kathleen Parker
Dr. Laura
Debbie Schlussel
Michael Kelly
Bob Greene
Michelle Malkin
Paul Greenberg
David Limbaugh
David Corn
Marianne Jennings
Sam Schulman
Philip Weiss
Mort Zuckerman
Chris Matthews
Nat Hentoff
Larry Elder
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Don Feder
Linda Chavez
Mona Charen
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams
Ben Wattenberg
Bruce Williams
Dr. Peter Gott
Consumer Reports
Weekly Standard


The great blurring of need and want --
DO YOU NEED IT, or do you want it?

So my father always replied to my childish request for some material thing. Usually, I had to admit, I just wanted it. Sometimes he would buy whatever it was -- a reward for honesty, perhaps. Most times he would decline and let the lesson sink in.

I was reminded of the question recently as I read a letter to the editor of an Illinois newspaper from "Bill," husband of "Sue" -- fictitious names to protect the ignorant. Bill was complaining about state welfare laws that weren't measuring up to his and Sue's expectations. A bit of history:

Sue, a 21-year-old college student, and Bill have a young child. Because Bill works during the day -- and Sue is "desperately trying to stay in school" -- they need full-time day care. But (welling tears here) they can't afford it.

Enter the state (wild applause).

The state of Illinois, according to Bill, offers subsidized child care with a minimum co-pay to "needy" families. Bill and Sue, alas, don't qualify because Sue works two jobs "to barely make ends meet," and thus earns too much to qualify.

This, despite the fact that Sue "has made the sacrifice of only seeing our daughter and myself a couple of hours an evening in between work to finish the one year of school she has left," writes Bill.

Anyone can understand Bill and Sue's frustration. The state is supposed to take care of these things. Bill and Sue are hard-working Americans. They have ambition. They have goals. And then suddenly this baby comes along and everybody expects Bill and Sue to take care of her.

Life is tough when you're a brat.

Not to be too hard on Bill and Sue. They are, after all, products of these times. They've been sold a bill of goods: You-can-have-it-all; it's-not-your-fault; come to Papa, come to Papa, do. The state will take care of everything.

No one suggested to Bill and Sue that having it all was a big fat lie. No one told them that having a baby means real sacrifice, though preferably not the baby herself. It apparently hasn't occurred to Bill and Sue that they might pursue several options that would ensure their child's emotional security -- assuming this is at least a subliminal priority -- without permanently derailing Sue's education.

A few thoughts: Sue could attend night classes, staying home during the day to nurture her firstborn. She could postpone her college education until Baby is in school. Bill could work two jobs. If they really need two incomes to put cereal in the bowl, Bill and Sue could work opposite shifts so that Baby has at least one parent at home.

The problem with Bill and Sue and too many other nouvelle parents is that they, themselves, are children -- emotionally and intellectually if not chronologically. They want what they want; what Baby needs is tangential.

The erstwhile American dream -- to have shelter, food and opportunity -- has been distorted by greed and the insatiable lust for instant gratification. Sacrifice, meanwhile, has been redefined. It's no longer about needs, only wants.

Bill ends his letter with this tan- trumesque query, suggesting that keyboards of the future should come equipped with a foot-stomping icon : "Why (oh, why?) does the state need to make it next to impossible to receive this aid?" he writes.

Because, Bill, the state is funded by taxpayers who row their own boats. Toss the hankie and grab a paddle.

JWR contributor Kathleen Parker can be reached by clicking here.


09/21/99:Focus on more than baby's first 3 years
09/16/99: Commentary from kids sheds no light on day-care debate
09/14/99: Fathers' group seeks to right inequities
09/09/99: Son now has a license to grow up
09/07/99: A slap in the face of domestic violence
09/01/99: No, ma'am: Legislation on manners misses the mark
08/26/99: For better boys, try a little tenderness
08/24/99:The ABC's of campaign questions
08/19/99: Male 'sluts'
08/11/99: Language doesn't excuse bad behavior
08/09/99: When justice delayed is still justice
08/03/99: Unemployment? Not in this profession
07/30/99: It's not about race -- it's about crack babies
07/22/99: Tragedy tells us what's important
07/19/99: Study denouncing fathers sends danger signals
07/15/99:'Happy marriage' belongs in the Dictionary of Oxymorons next to 'deliciously low-fat.'
07/11/99: 'Brother Man': An American demagogue in Paris
07/08/99: Only parents can fix broken families
07/06/99: America is home, sweet home
07/01/99: Tales out of Yuppiedom
06/28/99: Men aren't the only abusers
06/23/99: Is the entire country guzzling LSD punch?
06/20/99: The voice remains -- as always -- there beside me 06/16/99:Stating the obvious, a new growth industry
06/14/99: Calling for a cease-fire in the gender war
06/10/99: We owe children an apology

©1999, Tribune Media Services