welfare

by

Florida’s New Welfare Law Disregards Simple Human Decency


For probably four thousand years, people have had to deal with addiction. Drug addiction and alcoholism are two of the most misunderstood issues in today’s society. And until the late 1930s people probably had good reason to believe those issues were of a moral nature. Then a man named William Wilson and his friend, Dr. Robert Silkworth, took a different view of the issue. Dr. Bob, as he was known, defined alcoholism, and by default addiction, as a medical issue and not a moral issue.

The start of both alcoholism and addiction is a matter of choice. But there is a marked difference between the alcoholic to be and others in taking their first drink. The alcoholic to be uses a drink as one would take aspirin for a headache, to him it is medication. The same is true for the addict to be. And this means that there is far more to this disease than meets the eye. It means that absent an historical view of the individual, it is easy to lay blame at the feet of the alcoholic or addict. But that is simply not the case.

Alcoholics and addicts share common traits: past traumas, untreated psychological issues, and sometimes other medical issues. Taking the last first, it is not uncommon for a person who is prescribed one of the opioid medications to become addicted through long-term use. This means that once the physical necessity has passed a psychological necessity kicks in. Where a well-grounded person will overcome this short-term addiction, the psychologically damaged person will not even try. Or if he does try, will give into temptation.

One of the most common expressions in use in our society today is: “After that, I need a drink!” Or, “If you had to put up with that, you’d need a drink too.” The simple fact is, there has never lived the person who truly “needed a drink.” What such people are seeking is an escape. Most of those people will not become alcoholics but some will. But our society does not challenge the idea of a drink of alcohol as ever being a necessity.

For the most part, alcoholism and drug addiction starts at a young age. In meetings of alcoholics anonymous the story of getting drunk in the early teen years is quite common. But even though nationally the drinking age is 21, underage drinking is not only common but accepted. That being true, the fault lies in our society’s mores. With society allowing teens to have parties with alcohol, they are not considering that the use of drugs in such parties becomes quite possible. It is well-known that alcohol and drug addiction usually starts at a young age. This means as a society, we can do something about it by become vigilant and not turning our heads to underage drinking.

Medical research has shown that the brain is not fully formed in females until about their 21st birthday and for males it is even later. Research at the University of Rochester suggests that full development for everyone is about the 25th year. (https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?ContentTypeID=1&ContentID=3051)

It is also well documented that the use of alcohol and drugs retards the growth of the brain as-well-as a person’s psychological growth. Sadly, the incident of alcoholism and drug addiction by age 25 is extremely high relative to other age groups after the 25th year. But this same research has shown that the person who becomes the alcoholic or addict has his ability to choose against drinking or drugging taken away. Alcohol and drug use has gone from choice to necessity. This, by definition, puts it into the category of a medical disease.

This all brings me to the law the state of Florida just passed requiring drug screening of welfare applicants. If a person tests positive for a banned substance, they are denied access to welfare. The problem with this approach is that is simply exacerbates the situation. It seems the rationale behind such a law is to curb the use of illegal drugs by welfare applicants. But that of course ignores the fact that these are sick people who need to get well and not bad people who need to become good.

It is time we all become “our brother’s keeper.” I mean that in the sense that we as a society must become responsible for all those suffering from alcoholism, drug addiction and all forms of mental disease and disorder. A disease of the mind is difficult to both understand and treat but it is none the less a disease just as getting the flu, cancer, or malaria is. We do not stigmatize, for the most part, people who contract diseases in the rest of the body, why must we continue to stigmatize those with diseases centered in the brain?

by

Entitlements Are Bankrupting America


According to the December 14 2012 issue of US New & World Report, nearly two-thirds of the U.S. Budget goes to payments of entitlements, social security, welfare, etc.  In 1960 that amount was less than one-third.  One of the biggest problems has been congress’s unwillingness to properly deal with entitlements.  At that rate our annual federal budget will, in the not too distant future, have 90% going out to various entitlement programs.  That fact is, we simply cannot afford to continue at this rate.  We have got to come to terms with the fact that we cannot be all things to all people.

Since its inception, social security has been the one entitlement program where Americans have contributed a portion of their income into it.  But the problem is, that money is not banked but used as funding for other federal programs.  This should be the first, and easiest, program to fix.  While I do not agree with the Republican plan to privatize social security, I do believe that the government should take that revenue stream, and through a dozen or so investment firms, set aside this money for future use.  Although I do not know, I suspect there is some federal law that prohibits such transactions at this point.  That can be cured by Congress passing a law that allows for the investment of social security revenue alone into private investment firms.  This would not resolve the short-term problems of social security funding, it would most definitely help in the long-term.

The next entitlement program that needs tackling is welfare and its various programs.  I think this program can be reigned in by turning over most of the program’s management and fund distribution to the various states.  Each state would be responsible for identifying individuals eligible for welfare.  They would also contribute, say 20%, to the funding of the program.  That all by itself should help with accountability in the programs.  Each month every state would submit a listing of those eligible to start receiving, or continue receiving, welfare benefits.  The federal government would in turn issue the checks.  But each state would be responsible for food subsidies to include who is eligible and how the program is administered in their states.  That state would submit its annual welfare budget to the federal government for payment.

We also need to end all forms of corporate welfare, particularly oil subsidies and farm subsidies.  The farm subsidy started in the late 1930s when the federal government needed to reign-in what and how much of any particular crop was grown.  Farmers, for example, had been growing wheat on land that could no long support the crop and driving down prices to a point where few people made a profit.  But since the 1950s, and the evolution of modern farming techniques, American farmers are much more responsible with what and how they grow their crops.  Farm subsidies are an anachronism and need to end now.

Where oil subsidies are concerned, Republicans claim that ending them will necessarily drive up the price of gasoline.  In the short-term, they are probably correct, but in the long-term market forces will help set reasonable prices.

Democrats need to take a much more pragmatic view of America’s entitlement programs if we are to ever get some control over the federal budget and the federal debt.  And for their part, Republicans need to moderate their demands away from the draconian and towards a form that conservatives and liberals alike can work with.

by

Killing the Federal Government’s Sacred Cows


This post may seem rather odd coming from a lifelong registered Democrat and yet it does.  But I do believe that there are entire agencies within the federal government that need to be greatly reduced if not entirely disbanded.  Our government is trying to be all things to all people, and that is just an impossibility.  Most agencies were founded with the idea that since they apply to all people in the United States the federal government is the natural head.  That is both idealistic and overly optimistic.

One of the sacred cows of the Democrat Party is Health and Human Services.  This is an agency that should probably exist, in a much reduced form, under another cabinet head with most of its services being relegated to the individual states.  I think this also applies to housing and urban developement.  This does not mean I am in favor of eliminating welfare, but it does mean I believe welfare should be entirely funded by the individual state.

I have no idea why the Department of Energy exists as a cabinet post at all.  It would seem that its various organizations are better fitted beneath other existing agencies such as transportation and commerce.

Another cabinet post that thoroughly aggravates me Homeland Security.  This was a knee-jerk reaction by the Bush administration to the events of September 11, 2001.  While I agree in principle that greater security measures were needed, I entirely disagree, obviously with how this was carried out.  Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code dictates how our military troops can be used on U.S. soil.  Events following the incident at Kent State in the 1960s forced the issue of how the army can be used during civil discord.  It was affirmed that they cannot arrest any U.S. citizen for any reason, that is the domain of local, state, and federal police forces.  It should be noted, however, that there is absolutely no function which is the domain of Homeland Security that did not exist under some other authority prior to the events of 9/11.  It did mean that such activities needed to be better defined and expanded, but not to the extent that has happened.  Our troops, to included the Coast Guard, can be and should be used to assist in security our airports and seaports.  In fact, an open military presence at such facilities would likely underscore the commitment of the U.S. Government to the protection of its people.

Democrats are calling for a huge reduction in the Department of Defense’s budget citing the reduction of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.  The Republicans seem to be complicit by the simple fact that they have not raised much of a fuss over proposed budget reductions.  This is one, along with State, of the cabinet posts that neither needs reduction in personnel nor funding.

The Department of Veteran Affairs should be made a part of Defense.  And with that, a compact needs to be struck such that anyone who has honorably served in our armed forces can expect lifetime care by the DoD.  This would not only make the military a more attractive place to young men and women, but would also enable all disabled veterans to get a consistently high level of care they deserve.  Understand, the VA would not go away but would become an active arm of DoD and find its funding there.

The federal government does need to redefine how its distributes funding among its various agencies to support the needs of the states.   Republicans are fond of saying how American business is better suited to do certain things the government now does.  And where the Department of Energy is concerned, save the regulatory portion, I could not agree more.  I believe that all portions of research and development done by the DOE, as well as any number of other agencies, is better left to the private sector.

Every person in every state must realize that to reduce the size and cost of the federal government means individual states taking on those tasks.  Health, welfare, housing, and many other programs now run by the fed will be taken over and funded by individual states.  As an individual you have to come to terms with what that means and what it is going to look like.  Personally, I am all for it.

by

Political Identity Crisis


For my entire adult life I have been a registered Democrat.  I am not certain what in my childhood pushed me in that direction as both my parents were registered Republicans.  I loved my parents.  Politics was never discussed in our house so that was not an influence.  But I know my parents supported Eisenhower and Nixon.  In 1968 when Nixon was elected president I was in the army but I did not trust him for reasons I am not certain of.  I was not of age to vote but I remember having strong negative feelings about him, even though I was already in the military.  Those feelings did not change some years later when he was responsible for a huge increase in our military pay.

I bring up my military background because I have very strong feelings about the military.  I am very proud of my service and feel very protective towards it when I see anyone threaten any part of their existence.  That is, I have never fully embraced the base closures and reductions that started under the first Bush and have continued to this day.

Among conservatives, it seems to me, there is a belief that if you are a registered Democrat you are not strongly in the military’s corner.  Nothing could be further from the truth for me.  I guess that means that my beliefs about the military are extremely Republican.  I have no desire to change that in the least.

Then there is my somewhat strange stand of being anti-abortion but pro-choice.  For me there is nothing conflicting about such a stand.  I think abortion to be morally wrong, reprehensible.  But since I view it as a moral issue I also believe in the idea that each person must have the right to make a decision about the morality, or lack of morality, associated with abortion.  Every woman must be given the right to decided if having an abortion is the right thing to do.  Were I to be asked by such a woman, I would always tell her that I think she should not have an abortion, regardless of the condition that made her pregnant or of any implication of the state of the child upon birth.  I simply believe that upon conception there exists a human life.  We as a society decry the taking of a human life and I extend that to mean “at any stage of life.”  To differentiate is to abrogate responsibility.  This, quite sadly, includes cases of rape, incest, and where it is reasonable to expect that a live birth will result in a child with substantial physical and/or mental problems.  I am also against the death penalty for the very same reasons.  I believe in consistency and I think it inconsistent to believe in one but not the other.

I think that we as Americans have a responsibility to the unfortunates of our society.  That includes programs such as welfare and other such government sponsored programs.  But that said, I also think we have gone beyond the point of reasonableness in the administration of these programs.  We have made it easier for some to continue on such welfare programs than it is desirable for the individual to remove themselves from its roles.  The size of social programs need reduction, desperately.

We are one of the most violent nations in the world.  We want all deserving Americans to be afforded the right to possess the fire arms of their choice but we are unwilling to take the responsible task of clearing each person for their right to possess any single arm.  It seems to me reasonable that any law-abiding person would not mind a background check to ensure they have not at some point in their past given up the right to legally possess a fire arm.  I do not think there should be any restriction, with a very few exceptions, on the type of fire arm a person might purchase, just on how that comes to pass.  Any reasonable person who truly desires to have responsible purchase and sale of fire arms necessarily wants safeguards in place to restrict the criminal element from gaining access to such arms.  That does not exist in America today.  That means Americans, right now, do not mind criminals purchasing fire arms since they refuse to allow reasonable background checks.

In that same vein, Americans are also unwilling to provide for the proper incarceration of criminals, particularly violent criminals.  America’s laws in the prosecution of violent criminals can vary greatly from one state to the next.  A criminal can commit a murder, admit to it, and walk free because of certain deals that prosecutors make.  If we are ever to get a substantial reduction in our crime rate we must do several things.  One is a more uniform sentencing criteria from one state to the next.  Part of that would include a universal minimum sentence requirement in all states, to include cases where a criminal makes a plea deal.  Minimum sentencing would eliminate any criminal from getting “a walk” on a serious crime because of his help in prosecuting another criminal.  But this also means we are going to have to build more facilities to accommodate the increased prisoner population.  We also have to increase the size of our police forces and their budgets of course.

There is no place for God in our American government.  God is a purely religious concept that has as many variations as there are people in the United States.  To allow God into the government, regardless of the level, necessarily requires definition.  The creates the problem of what definition is accepted, and ultimately, how is that definition fair to all the people of the United States.  To be fair, there are millions of people, other than atheists, who do not believe in God as the Judeo-Christain concept goes.  Ultimately those people are opted-out when such a definition is decided upon.  Our government must be better than that.  It is better that all religious definition be removed from our government than to allow even an amalgam in.

I believe in my state that my district US representative and both my state’s US Senators have failed us.  The are more concerned with political expediency that constituent desires.  I have heard nothing out of the Elizabeth Warren camp in her opposition to Scott Brown, the incumbent Republican.  My tendency now is to vote for Brown even though I am a Democrat because I think the arrogance of the Democrat party in Massachusetts has resulted in too much failure.  I can only think Warren is displaying some of that arrogance now, thinking Massachusetts Democrat tendencies will propel her come November.  She will be surprised if she continues to think that way.

I am disillusioned with America’s Republican and Democrat political parties because I think it painfully obvious that each has allowed PACs to rule its positions, to select its candidates in some cases, and to ultimately become insensitive to the needs of its constituency.  Each party has with lies, which it euphemistically calls spin, to justify positions it takes.  Each party uses various fear tactics to reel in voters to the positions they desire, even when such positions are at the peril of the very voters they represent.  As Pogo said so eloquently, and so long ago, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.”