Archive for the ‘Welfare’ Category


December 20, 2016

As president, Barack Obama managed to turn our culture from one of pride and responsibility into one of government dominance and citizen dependence. With a few of his signature moves, he encouraged acceptance and addiction to government control.

It’s true, very true, that there are jobs of labor that Americans refuse to do. Why should they submit themselves to exertion when they can sit at home and have money deposited into their bank accounts or their EBT card replenished each month?

Why work when it takes up your free time and demands that you be somewhere at a specific time, for a designated period and perform a defined task? Transportation becomes a problem if you have to report to an employer. Public transportation is often slow and indirect. Gasoline, maintenance and insurance is costly for a personal auto. Walking or biking is out of the question because the employee is often spent by the time they get coffee in the break room before beginning a work shift.

Americans are trained for a mediocre existence, not for productive and rewarding work. Flipping burgers, making up hotel beds, sweeping floors, picking grapes and oranges are all time and labor intensive tasks that are now beneath the dignity of Americans. These tasks and others of like ilk are rapidly becoming beneath the dignity of immigrants too, legal and illegal alike, thanks to the generosity of our government.

When sending money to support family members abroad, it is necessary to take advantage of all income avenues and streams. If that means using a stolen social security number to obtain stipends and benefits from the government while cleaning houses, mowing lawns or hauling trash for homeowners without reporting the income, so be it. The dual income model also works for citizens, just not as often because most of the “under the table” jobs are those Americans won’t do.

These habits and ethics are promulgated by liberals and, in particular progressive liberals such as HRC and Marxists like BHO. They are necessary to develop and build upon a socialist structure of government dependence. They promote voluntary enslavement to the ignorant, indolent and slovenly.

Turn now to a culture where everybody works for what they receive; a society that requires recipients of taxpayer funds to partake of meaningful toil in order to justify the benevolence bestowed upon them. Rather than sitting at home (in section 8 supplemented housing) awaiting the next cash infusion, why not make it mandatory that the recipients pick a head of lettuce or clean a motel.  How about removing graffiti from walls and bridges or picking up roadside trash?

Encouraged employment” worked when President Bill Clinton reluctantly signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). Colloquially known as the Welfare-to-Work Act, it passed the House with 256 ayes (226 Republican) and 170 noes (165 Democrat). The bill also passed the Senate with a 73(R) and 1(D) approving with 24(D) rejecting. Most surprisingly, Chris Dodd was the sole Democrat to approve the measure. President Clinton now claims credit for the success of this measure.

The Welfare-to-work program, thanks to the warmhearted Democrats, is now so diluted and polluted that it is no longer a viable program, thus opening opportunities for illegal workers and unreported income. A re-institution of the program with some minor modifications would benefit Welfare recipients, the economy and the country greatly.

Depending on the state of residence, a family of four can receive as much as $46,000 in combined stipend and related benefits. (The actual cost to taxpayers, for this inefficient government interference assistance exceeds $120,000 per recipient.) For equivalence, a working family paying payroll and income taxes, would have to earn approximately $57,500 That works out to about $27.65 per hour for full time (40 hr/wk) employment. According to the New York Times, the median family income in 2015 was only $56,500 (about $27.15 per hour, 40 hours per week). Therefore, it is advantageous for a person of limited education, skills or desire not to seek employment and simply live off the generosity of the government and contributing taxpayers.

A program that would supplement wages for entitlement awardees rather than handing them cash and perks is one possibility to end, or at least moderate, the viscous cycle. Perhaps a tax break to the employer or even a reimbursement for a portion of wages may be in order. Granted, it might be difficult to incentivize employers with this carrot given that a family of four on Welfare receives about 102% of the median worker income for the same family size. But it would definitely reduce the federal and state financial burden for low-income families.

Of course, this would mandate that each benefit grantee (unless legitimately 100% disabled) seek and obtain employment – at any level available. Social welfare case workers and “job developers” currently employed by the taxpaying few, would also be expected to do outreach in local communities rather than spending the workday playing solitaire on their our computers or texting friends and family.

Help Wanted signs appearing in a particular area would warrant investigation, program explanation and contractual offering to hire the most job needy and capable. Though no obligation to hire benefit recipients would be required of any business, mutual gain for employee and employer should cause enough interest to invest in the program. Example: If a business hires Jane or John for an open entry position and pays them minimum wage + 25%, the program reimburses the employer 40% of the total wage paid.

To present an example, some assumptions are required. For this demonstration let us consider:

  1. a state minimum wage of $9.50 per hour. The federal minimum is currently $7.25.
  2. an employer burden of $23 per $100 in wages or 23%. (This figure, entirely dependent upon the Worker Compensation Insurance cost for a particular position, also includes SSI, Medicare, unemployment insurance.)
  3. compensation for sick or vacation time or additional benefits burden are not included in this formula.

Given the parameters above, the true employer cost for a minimum wage worker is currently $11.69 per hour, not $9.50. Adding 25% to the $9.50 per hour means the minimum wage for a program participant is $11.88. The new cost to the employer including burden is $14.61 per hour as the burden is figured on the $11.88 per hour figure.

By reimbursing the employer at a rate of 40% of the new hourly wage ($11.88 x .40 = $4.75), the business now has an employee at an hourly cost of $7.13 (not $9.50) plus the burden of $2.73 or $9.86. The employee receives $2.38 per hour above minimum wage for a starting position and the employer saves $1.83 per hour per employee. Both entities contribute to the federal tax revenue whereas only the employer does now with the Welfare recipient drawing from it.

The savings realized by the employer could then be awarded to the most productive employees.

Based on the $46,000 annual figure, under this program the taxpayers’ burden is reduced by $36,120 annually and the participant regains his or her self respect. This is not intended to make a person now on Welfare wealthy. It is not meant to compete with the median income of the U.S. It would simply offer a hand up rather than a hand out. It would also offer the opportunity for someone to increase their own income by demonstrating their worthiness before the lower level jobs are overtaken by electronics and robotics.

The suggested program will track participants for a period of 180 days. This 180 day term allows the participant sufficient opportunity to become familiar with the job and expectations. It allows the employer to evaluate the participant and determine whether or not to continue his or her employment.

An option available to the employer to terminate employment of the participant, for cause, at any time within the 180 day period is always open and would provide feedback to the program case workers and administrators regarding the individual participants. After three terminations by different employers within the 180 day term, eligibility for Welfare or program participation is revoked. (This will keep players from gaming the system and frustrating employers.)

The model identified above is nothing new or innovative. It has been used in numerous situations by non-profit organizations (NPO) for decades. What might be considered new would be direct state or federal involvement through established Employment Development Departments.

Is this the perfect solution to jobs and Welfare? Nah, it’s just a hell of a lot better than paying people to waste their time sitting at home and collecting benefits as is being done now.


March 27, 2015

Some liberals, most liberals, don’t understand. They don’t understand anything to do with freedom, responsibility and caring. They cannot comprehend the difference between graciously sharing and stealing. They don’t see the difference between inviting a family member to share a meal and an unknown someone breaking into your home to steal your wallet.

For instance, Rep. Loretta Sanchez tried to justify theft of after tax dollars with the following inane questions.

She asks, “What work requirements are there to inherit up to $10 million tax free?” I ask, “What work requirements are there to receive Welfare?”

Then she asks, “Why is it that [a single mother] should be drug tested, which is an unrelated requirement to receive food assistance, to make sure that her family has enough to eat, and people who are lucky enough to inherit millions of dollars are literally required to do nothing to get the federal tax benefit with their inheritance?”

Ms. Sanchez is, as are so many liberal progressive Democrats, unable to recognize that one group to whom she refers willingly gives after-tax dollars to family members while the second group takes money earned by others for their own personal use. Using her own words, she seems to be okay with taking someone’s hard earned money to buy drugs.  Welfare to druggies is not putting food on the table. It’s taking other people’s money to enable a personal habit or addiction.  It’s another needle between the toes.

Perhaps if the individual on Welfare was tested he or she might have to do something other than spend endless days in la-la land. Maybe they could get a job from someone who inherited a business or started a business with inherited money.

She fails to comprehend that taxes have already been paid on earned money that is passed to family members. Taxing an inheritance is double taxation.

Did she not hear about what happened in Boston Harbor back in 1773? That, too, had to do with a government unduly taxing the hard working people of this country for no reason other than they could.


November 30, 2013

There are many reasons to explain why the country is constantly running deficits. All of which revert to reckless government spending. Spending without oversight or accountability is the norm within every agency, bureaucracy, and entity of the public service genre. Lavish retreats with thousands of taxpayer dollars spent on spoof videos, expensive wines, extravagant dinners in 5 star hotels is the proverbial drop-in-the-bucket spending.

Estimates of government waste run as high as 20% of the annual budget. Twenty percent, one fifth of the national economy, is unaccounted each year. A few hundred million here, a billion or so there…it’s not long before we’re talking real money. With current annual federal expenditures around $3.5 trillion, the waste, at a very conservative 15%, is about $5.5 billion. At 20% that figure would be around $7 billion or just shy of $200,000,000 for each man, woman and child in the United States…legal and illegal.

Frauds are perpetrated without repercussion. Sometimes it takes place by individuals within the offices funded by the taxpayer and sometimes it is by those receiving otherwise unearned remuneration from those taxpayers. When it occurs within the agencies, culpability is infrequently identified and thus no accountability is brought forth. Department heads claim ignorance of their charges’ actions and almost never held to answer for the wrongs.

As it is with congress and other governmental departments, if a person is identified as doing wrong, often they are reassigned or resign and draw their pension. If they are not eligible to receive a pension, a large departing gift deposited into the bank account of their choice becomes their mouth-shutting reward. In either case, we pay for their slothful work, then we pay for their departure and life beyond.

Welfare is one of the easiest targets for fraud. Overpaid government workers accept bribes, kickbacks and other compensation for neglecting to clearly identify who is and who is not eligible for services and stipends.

A few months ago, my wife and I went to an ATM at a bank in an upscale neighborhood just north of San Diego. There was one person using the one ATM offered at this location, so we stood somewhat back from the machine and discussed plans for the rest of the day. Avoiding any particular identification of the individual, I’ll simply say that she was not a round-eyed, white European.

Over my wife’s shoulder, I could see the woman take money out of the dispenser, put some of it into her purse, then change screens and insert the rest of the cash into the ATM, obtaining a receipt for the transaction. She then reached into her purse withdrew a different card which was inserted into the ATM. From my vantage point, twelve to fifteen feet away, I could see that the screen offered images of two cards. At first, I could not see the one on the left, but the one on the right clearly read SNAP. For those not in the know, SNAP stands for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, a federal program. As she proceeded through her routine, she stepped slightly aside and I saw that the choice on the left of the screen said EBT. Electronic Benefits Transfer is the California assistance program for low income residents.

Now I was more attentive!

She continued to insert a card, touch an icon, enter a pass code, receive cash, deposit the cash into the machine, and then place the receipt in her purse. She then went through the process not less than three additional times. I have no idea how long she was using the ATM before we arrived or the total number of cards inserted.

One might derive a number of conclusions from what I observed all of which I believe might constitute fraud.

1. She had been saving her unused subsistence payments.

If she had unused benefits from prior months then she was not truly in need of assistance and was receiving it fraudulently.

2. She had possession of cards for multiple people.

Possession of cards belonging to others is illegal.

3. She had multiple identities under which she received payments.

Applying for assistance under multiple identities constitutes fraud.

It seems as though there is little cause for concern within the state or federal governments to investigate fraud of this type. Why? Could it possibly be that the public employees themselves are so engaged in fraud and theft that they don’t want to start rolling an uncontrollable snowball in which might turn on them at the bottom of the hill?

I’m sure it will all change for the better with immigration reform. Millions more people, now in the shadows, coming forth as responsible individuals surely will help stop those who illegally and fraudulently abuse the system.

*Just a note here: Please keep earning money and paying taxes. Many, many people depend on you. And, the government is able to spend your money far more wisely, diligently and efficiently than you. Give a little, give a lot.


July 6, 2013

“Who’s Sorry Now?”  A great song sung by many artists is most closely associated with Connie Francis.  Back in 1958, she crooned the song that included the line, “I’m glad that you’re sorry now”.  Most of the ill informed young voters who praised the PPACA as the all encompassing guardian of health have never heard those lyrics.  Even if they have, they probably would have voted with emotion rather than information.

Well, now is the time to realize just how important and impactful your vote really is kids.  Though it is too late to correct your past three major polling booth stupidities, it is not too soon to begin paying attention to future candidates and elections.  Your vote for progressives and this President allowed passage of a law “so that we can find out what is in it”.  Nobody read the bill before voting on it.  Thus, nobody knew or cared what is in it.  Three years hence and we continue to find out why it streamlined to vote without anyone reading it.  If you’re not sorry now, sorrow is coming.  If you are, I’m glad that you’re sorry now.  Unfortunately, it is hurting us all.

Statistically, 66% of all voters between 18 and 29 voted for an unknown Senator from Illinois to become President of the United States of America.  It was an emotional vote.  There was no room for reasoned forethought.  You should have paid attention in your high school civics class.  Knowledge of history might have helped as well. 

Many of you went on to attend college so that you could make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year and drive Porsches.  Since mom and dad both lost their jobs and could no longer afford to foot the bill, it seemed worth the risk to take out loans to finance your future livelihoods.  With interest rates at, say a reasonable 3.4%, and twenty years to repay the $50,000, taking the $287.42 servicing cost out of your $10,000+ monthly income would be a cake walk.

Unfortunately, thanks to you ignorant fools, Obamacare is now law and an additional tax on every American, especially those making less than $250,000 per year.  Starting this month, Obamacare caused your student loan servicing to jump from $287.42 to $381.66.  For the same reason, most graduates will remain unemployed, underemployed or employed in their field of education only part-time.  Missed payments on the student loans just become principal with interest accruing at the new, higher rate.   

The news just gets worse for low information voters with a new college degree.  The same officials you elected to represent you are voting to make it even harder for you to get a job.  Competition from amnestied border jumpers, not subject to mandatory health care, will drive down wages for most positions throughout the country.  As an additional spit in your faces, the newcomers receive special grants and only have to pay in-state tuition for many schools unlike Americans attending classes in a neighboring state.

Hey, no problem kids!  Your President has made it so easy to receive Welfare that you can be on the dole tomorrow.  Use your monthly stipend to pay for the student loan with the higher interest you pay going toward health insurance that you’ll probably not need for another twenty years or so.  Living in the spare room of your parent’s home isn’t so bad.  That is, if the house isn’t taken from them because their Welfare check isn’t enough to cover the payment and your expenses, too.

2014 is just around the corner.  Begin studying the issues and possible candidates now.  Maybe your next vote will not hurt you as much.  There are many more surprise lessons for you to learn, but you must be attentive.  I don’t want to be glad that you’re sorry, ever again.