Posts Tagged ‘Welfare’

MAKING LIFE EASIER MAKES LIFE HARDER

December 2, 2019

The block letters above may seem like a total contradiction. In fact, they best illustrate what happens when people with supposedly good intentions wantonly interfere with normal progression and interaction of life.

There’s no place to start that is better than our current K-12 education system. Across this great nation over the past 2-3 decades there has been a trend to lower the standards in order to allow greater graduation rates (ego is more important than education). Emphasis on what were once core subjects (English, math, science, history, geography, economics, politics [objectively] and civics) has been replaced by softer (social, gender and racial) matters. In doing so, students of higher intellect and more capable learners suffer a lack of education in the basics required for a successful independent life. They do, however, gain an in-depth knowledge of the ethereal. High school graduates, in many cases, can barely read their own diploma or count the change received from a purchase without the aid of a virtual assistant smart phone app.

To avoid causing problems with fragile sensitivities through exposure to contrasting thoughts, conflicting or alternative ideas are prohibited from “safe spaces” where students congregate with only like-minded peers. This detachment does not work outside of select and controlled environs such as schools and only makes life in the real world near impossible for those who have relinquished acceptance of others and their individual thought processes to the unnecessary and harmful protection.

Making life easier/harder most often happens through government intervention, aka, entitlement programs. Meant to assist the temporarily disadvantaged through rough times, government intervention via subsidies and stipends actually coerce a majority of recipients into extended dependency. Those who do transition back to employment, earnings and independence are generally grateful for the stopgap assistance. Others, complain that they do not receive enough but remain unwilling to extend themselves for self betterment.

It happened with mortgage loans in the first decade of the current millennium. Mortgage interest rate structuring was changed supposedly to benefit people of lower income. Loans were made available to people with questionable credit and work history to allow ownership so that they, too, could take advantage of a rapidly appreciating housing market. Many loans were devised with low or no down payment and low monthly payment for the first few months to years. The concept was great in principle…on paper. However, the unrealistic qualification requirements caused tens of thousands of first time buyers to lose their entire investment when the loans reset, per original loan contract, to realistic terms in 2, 3, 5 or 7 years.

When they were unable to meet the new payments, many simply packed their furniture and other belongings into a trailer and drove off, later filing personal bankruptcy to relieve themselves of the obligation. With a collapsed and devastated housing market, banks and other lenders inventoried a glut of worthless and unmarketable homes. Many long established financial institutions were also driven into bankruptcy thanks to the pressures Chris Dodd and Barney Frank put on the Fannie Mae Corporation in 1999 such that parameters of lending standards were revised to include unworthy borrowers.

More recently it has happened by making student loans more easily accessible. Same principle, just a different clientele. Low interest government backed or government direct student loans tend to entice unqualified students to enter colleges and accept unreasonable debt. Many young people expecting the high school experience (e.g. show up for class and pass) to continue into higher education soon learn that they must actually study, learn and pass tests designed to measure knowledge. The recognition comes after signing in obligation for the government to pay tuition and some stipend costs while attending. Many of the under educated entrants (those graduated from high school despite a lack of academic achievement, knowledge or learning ability) soon drop out owing more than they can willingly repay. Thus, without a degree and mounds of debt they are caused to accept lower-paying positions and frustration with the process.

It happens through science. Vaccines, pills, capsules and immunizations meant to mitigate a particular malady or disorder frequently treat only the exposed symptoms and not the underlying problems. The negative side effects of these laboratory synthesized remedies often create more problems than they mask and require other medications to allay the symptoms of the previous application.

The American (and to a certain extent, world) society is being compromised by our government. Making life easier is actually making life harder in many ways. The current crop of presidential candidates are pushing socialism and ultimately communism as the answer to individual economic challenges. The federal government is looking for ways to totally control our lives by reducing personal responsibility and ownership. So, if you’re raking in money from the likes of Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), Electronic Benefits Payment (EBT), Medicaid, etc., you may be causing your own dependency. If you’re looking forward to receiving $1,000 per month Universal Basic Income (UBI), you are prostituting yourself to government sponsored indentured servitude.

Please take responsibility and vote wisely, not for what you can get for yourself today, but what is best for you and all others over a longer term.

LET’S TALK ABOUT THE JOBS AMERICANS WON’T DO AND HOW TO SAVE $MILLIONS

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.

LIFE IN THE WEEDS

December 4, 2015

Some people say a fetus is not viable because it cannot survive without its host. They want taxpayers to fund on-request abortions for women who refused to heed caution when having sex. They seem to be the very same people mandating that taxpayers fund adults who lack the will or ability to provide for themselves; the adults who need a host to survive. When will the government quit making the working few pay for the irresponsible?

Why, when a child shows higher than “normal” brain or physical activity, shows boredom and can’t sit quietly in mundane classes, do we suppress their potential with neuro-psychoactive drugs rather than offering them a more stimulating environment?

After a person of deranged mind chooses a gun-free zone to create chaos and take lives, why do some people insist that there be more gun-free zones? Why do those people insist that fewer sane people have the opportunity to return fire and save lives with their own weapon?

According to the P.C. police, we can no longer refer to parents as mother and father. They mandate that we refer to parent 1 and parent 2. Won’t this cause many parents to feel “second class”? I thought all couples and all partners (gay, straight, multi-alternate) were supposed to be treated equally. Who’s to be #1? Does the numeric order change with time? Is the ranking based on employment status, dominant or submissive, size, weight or is it simply a random choice? What happens if you mistakenly refer to parent #1 as #2, are you then a parentphobe? It’s just impossible to constantly be politically correct.

How is it that the youth and young adults who must take prescribed psychoactive pharmaceuticals to make them more “normal” seem to be the ones who commit suicide, ram their car into large groups of people or otherwise murder large numbers of innocents? Who should be held responsible for the activity, the person, the car, the gun or the psychiatrist?

The highly politicized DOJ recently found there was no criminal wrong doing or targeting of conservatives by the IRS or former director of Exempt Organizations, Lois Lerner. If that’s the case, if she is truly not guilty of any wrongdoing, why did she fear incriminating herself when she appeared before a congressional investigative committee?

In many states a person can vote, even if not registered, simply by producing a gas or electric bill at the polls with their claimed name on it. In California, and many other states, felons, foreign nationals and illegal aliens can choose the local, state and national representatives simply by applying for a driver license. In some cities and counties they can even become elected representatives. Could Charles Manson govern California from his cell if he got enough votes?

When a person is hired as a checker at a grocery market, how is it that she or he can’t be fired for not doing their job? If a customer presents bacon, pork chops, ham or alcohol to be scanned for price, and the checker refuses to handle the meat or drink, wouldn’t that disqualify him or her from the position for failing to do the job? Likewise for the taxi driver who refuses to pick up a disabled person with a service dog.

GIVING FREELY v. TAKING UNMERCIFULLY

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.

WELFARE AND ASPARAGUS

May 18, 2012

The following excerpt from an article by Dan Springer illustrates why we, as a nation, and the rest of the socialist world are on the brink of collapse.

Immigration issues at center of labor shortage for Washington State farmers

Asparagus growers in eastern Washington State are scrambling to find enough workers to cash in on their crop’s rising popularity without much success. “We have a labor shortage, pure and simple,” says Dan Fazio of the Washington Farm Labor Association.

Farmers are being forced to leave 10 percent of this year’s crop uncut, which is costing them, according to the state’s asparagus commissioner, a combined $200,000 a day. But one place growers are not looking for labor is the unemployment office — even though the jobless rate in Franklin County, where most of the asparagus is grown, is 10.7 percent.

Washington has among the country’s most generous unemployment benefits.  Out-of-work people can receive up to $583 a week for 73 weeks. It’s an amount that covers, on average, 42.3 percent of the person’s weekly wage when employed. “The state has created a disincentive to work,” says Erin Shannon of the Washington Policy Center, “with our generous benefits, with the weekly maximum and the duration of benefits.”

No problem Washington farmers,  our give-away government is here to help!  We’ll just open the borders to more illegal immigrant labor that will ultimately be more costly to the state and the nation, but you’ll get your asparagus picked.

Hey Iowa, how’s the corn crop doing?  Mississippi, need help with your cotton?