Ignoring the Poor Cat’s Meow : Enough with giving handouts to every Fido and Fluffy who sticks out a paw.

It’s another Sunday morning and I’m immersing myself in Column Right. Suddenly my reverie breaks at the voice of my wife: “You forgot to feed the cat.” Guilt. Images sweep over me of an emaciated gray and white feline, barely able to raise her head, lying on our doorstep.

Something snaps. My eyes rise from Charles Krauthammer’s byline. I feel a new spirit, a new defiance surging through my veins:

“Feeding the cat is not my responsibility at all,” I tell my wife. “The problem is you and other animal lovers have bred dependency relationships with species that have been self-sufficient for millenia.”

Words rush ahead: “We have created generations of pets that now need to get off the dole and stand on their own four paws. It’s time that they pulled themselves up by their own choke chains.”

I continue: “Why, you may ask, do we have a population of pets wholly lacking in any individual initiative? I’ll tell you why. It is because of soft-hearted liberal do-gooders, like you, who have chosen to ‘take care’ of these creatures. What do we get for all these years of indulgence? Pets, totally lacking in self-respect, who think that all they have to do for their keep is slavishly slobber all over our faces or curl up quietly in our laps.

“But the costs incurred by our pets greatly exceed those associated with victimless crimes like prostitution. Just compare sales of pet food with the cost of welfare. And these sales figures do not include necessary ancillary services, like flea baths and obedience school.

“Ah, but you say, pet expenditure is a private choice paid for by private dollars. Not so. We taxpayers are stuck with a significant portion of the bill for little frou-frou: Think of our fire departments rescuing kittens in lieu of complying with affirmative-action programs. Think of the expensive clean-up of Santa Monica Bay as the storm drains continue to spread pet wastes down the coastline. Think of the parks and recreation staff, who could be coordinating midnight basketball, now reduced to an army of pooper scoopers.”

I add in my most scholarly tone: “Research will certainly demonstrate that the public expenses associated with allowing pets to remain in our state is greater than what they contribute to the tax rolls.

“And while these free-loaders use both public and private services in the most profligate manner, how truly committed are they to the American way? Visit any grooming parlor in the state and, I guarantee, not one client will speak English.”

Suddenly, images of a major political campaign emerge . . . a statewide initiative denying public services to pets? Can this take me to the governorship?

Turning to my wife, I let her know that I refuse to be labeled a “specist” because of these views. “Some of my best friends are pets. I heartily support, for example, the presence of lawful contributing members of our society, such as seeing-eye dogs. It is just the layabouts, the freeloaders that have to now earn their keep. There are lots of opportunities if they would just look for them. For instance, since the infectious diseases of the 19th Century on the rise, we could once again use pet labor in ridding our cities of vermin. It is no longer acceptable for so-called pet advocates to claim there are not enough jobs out there.

“The question is, of course, how do you turn around the pet population after so many generations of dependency? They must regain self-supporting, dignified lives; yet this social transformation cannot happen on its own. We must consider a wide-scale revival of animal pounds. Yes, they have been portrayed by the liberal media as nasty and brutish places, but we must not forget that they can also be “homes” providing a corrective function for wayward pets.” We all know that the pound’s “program” can be an important deterrent for unwanted behavior.”

And I add, “ . . . especially if we include other species, certain to stand below me in the grand pecking order.”

Quiet until this point, my wife raises an eyebrow and simply replies, “Don’t be so sure.”