Week in Review
The problem with a generous welfare state and porous borders is that they attract a lot of foreign-born people to your country to cash in on those generous welfare benefits. Some even make the journey while pregnant so their child is born in the country with the generous welfare benefits. And not the cruel, cold-hearted benefit-free country they are escaping. Giving them an ‘anchor’ in the country they’d much rather live in than the country they don’t want to live in. Their native country.
The United States has a porous border with Mexico. And many Mexicans give birth in the United States while in the country illegally just so their child doesn’t have to grow up in Mexico. Which when you think about is a statement on how these Mexicans feel about the ‘imperial’ United States. They must really hate them for not taking the rest of Mexico when they won the Mexican War. Had the Americans done so there would be no need for anchor babies. For they would already be enjoying American citizenship south of the Rio Grande. Based on the number of Mexicans entering America illegally, at least.
The United States isn’t the only country people want to live in. Canada, too, is a beautiful country with a generous welfare state. The winters are a little colder, though. But that doesn’t stop people from trying to become Canadian citizens with anchor babies. Only they call them ‘passport babies’ in Canada (see Canadian citizenship bill to be tabled Thursday by Susana Mas posted 2/2/2014 on CBC News).
Alexander said the proposed changes to the Citizenship Act would also aim to reduce the current backlog of applications and change the conditions for eligibility.
The government is also considering changes to tackle the problem of so-called “birth tourism” or “passport babies,” but Alexander told CBC News they would not be included in this bill.
Americans and Canadians aren’t better people. They just live in countries that allow their people to be better. Which is the problem in Mexico. Not the people. As the Americas were colonized Britain was further along in representative government than Spain. Free market capitalism replaced mercantilism quicker in British America than it did in Spanish America. And democratic institutions were more developed in British America than they were in Spanish America. Such that the foundation for representative government, free market capitalism and democracy was more robust in British American than it was in Spanish America.
Because of this when the Americans gained their independence great peace and prosperity followed. A first following a civil war. Allowing America and Canada (later granted their independence from the British Empire) to be lands of opportunity. With strong human rights. Ironically, in large part to the School of Salamanca. One of the greatest gifts Spain gave to the world. Which is why people want to have their babies born in these countries. So they can be as great as they want to be. Because only representative government, free market capitalism and democracy can make this possible. At least based on history.
But you can’t have people entering your country unchecked. Especially if they’re coming for the benefits. And your country has annual deficits and a growing national debt. For adding more people to the benefits roll when you can’t afford it will transform the country from that land of opportunity people want to come to into the country they are fleeing. Countries with high spending and devalued currencies that lead to black markets and lawlessness. The very things people want to get away from by having their babies in the United States and Canada.
Tags: America, anchor babies, Britain, British America, Canada, capitalism, citizenship, democracy, free market, free-market capitalism, Mexicans, Mexico, passport babies, porous borders, representative government, Spain, Spanish America, United States, welfare benefits, welfare state
Week in Review
The movie Full Metal Jacket made R. Lee Ermey a star. Who, you may ask? Gunnery Sergeant Hartman. Oh, that guy, you say. Yes, he was a real ass. A mean, callous, heartless bastard. But he was good. He trained his Marines so hard and so well that they would rather face the enemy on the field of battle than train with him. That’s why the Marines are so good at what they do. Their training is so intense and their DIs are so good that actual combat can be easier than training. Which is how you want to train your Marines because combat is a stressful, exhausting, frightening, horrific hell on earth. And you want to send people into combat who already have been to hell. So they can take whatever the enemy throws at them.
Life is hard. It’s not as hard as combat. But it can overwhelm you at times. And if you grew up in a pampered cocoon life will chew you up and spit you out. America’s military is the best in the world. But America has grown soft. Because we pamper our kids today. Give them participation trophies instead of letting them win and lose. To know the thrill of victory. And the agony of defeat. To borrow the opening from the Wide World of Sports. Could the current generation produce the citizen soldiers that took out Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Germany? Could we even pry them away from their smartphones long enough to go through basic training? Probably not.
Making life easy is not good. For it makes us weak. That’s why we have the expression ‘That which does not kill us makes us stronger’. Courtesy of Friedrich Nietzsche. The more arduous the journey the more we learn and stronger we grow. That’s why Gunnery Sergeant Hartman was such a mean, callous, heartless bastard. To give his Marines the best chance of survival. Because that journey with him was so arduous. If you want to bring the best out of someone you can’t make life easy for that person. Whether it be going to combat. Or building a career (see Your Nice Boss May Be Killing Your Career by Greg McKeown posted 9/4/2013 on the Harvard Business Review).
Over a twelve-month period I have gathered data from 1,000 managers about their experiences at over 100 companies including Apple, Cisco, HP, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Novel, and Symantec. I wanted to understand the conditions under which people did the very best work of their careers. What I expected to find were examples of over managing, controlling, tyrannical managers. About half of the participants confirmed this assumption. The other half surprised me: what they described were managers who were nice but weak.
I once spent two days running a strategy session with just such an executive. He spoke with a soft, quiet voice. He never interrupted anyone when they were speaking. When he walked into the meeting he had a “nice” word for everyone. Every time the team became “positively frustrated” and ready to make the change necessary to get to the next level he would stand up and say sweetly, “Oh, I just wanted to remind you all of how far we have come.” And after a few more sentences the spark of aspiration was gone from the room. He unintentionally signaled the status quo was plenty good enough. There was no need to try harder or change how things were going. He reminded me of what Jim Hacker (the fictional politician in the English cult classic “Yes, Minister“) said to his bureaucratic colleague, “You really are a wet blanket, Humphrey, you just go around stirring up apathy.”
Apathy. Yes, that’s what you get when work (and life) gets too easy. When life gets too easy people get lethargic. They get soft. And become a less likely candidate for a high-stressed position that will help them up the corporate ladder. And it is the same for the welfare state.
Everything that weakens an employee because work is too easy is true when we make a person’s life too easy with a generous welfare state. They get lethargic. Soft. And fill with apathy. Which is why when you make welfare too comfortable people are less willing to get off of welfare. And when they do they parallel what a worker gets with a nice boss. The worker gets a dead-end career. While the person on welfare gets a dead-end life.
Tags: apathy, career, Gunnery Sergeant Hartman, lethargic, Marines, training, welfare state
Week in Review
President Obama is a horrible president. Why? Because he’s black? No, that’s not it. He’s a horrible president who just happens to be black. One of the big reasons why he is a horrible president is because he is a Keynesian. And has tried the same failed Keynesian policies of the past to turn the economy around. And just as they failed in the past they have failed consistently during the Obama presidency.
Keynesian economics states that during a recession when people aren’t spending money the government should do something about it. They should start spending money. And they should implement policies that put more money into consumers’ pockets. So they go out in the economy and spend it. Thus generating economic activity. And pulling the nation out of recession. The government could cut taxes to put more money into consumers’ pockets. But they don’t like cutting taxes. Preferring to add more welfare programs. Which give money to consumers. So they can spend it. That’s how President Obama has chosen to pull the nation out of the worst recession since the Great Depression. And as expected by every non-Keynesian, his Keynesian policies have been an abject failure (see Incomes Have Dropped Twice as Much During the ‘Recovery’ as During the Recession by JEFFREY H. ANDERSON posted 8/23/2013 on The Weekly Standard).
New estimates derived from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey by Sentier Research indicate that the real (inflation-adjusted) median annual household income in America has fallen by 4.4 percent during the “recovery,” after having fallen by 1.8 during the recession. During the recession, the median American household income fell by $1,002 (from $55,480 to $54,478). During the recovery—that is, from the officially defined end of the recession (in June 2009) to the most recent month for which figures are available (June 2013)—the median American household income has fallen by $2,380 (from $54,478 to $52,098). So the typical American household is making almost $2,400 less per year (in constant 2013 dollars) than it was four years ago, when the Obama “recovery” began.
Importantly, these income tallies include government payouts such as unemployment compensation and cash welfare. So Obama’s method of funneling ever-more money and power to Washington, and then selectively divvying some of it back out, clearly isn’t working for the typical American family. Nor would his proposed immigration bill help the income prospects of the median American. And perhaps it’s just a coincidence, but the span of time over which the typical American household’s income has dropped by about $2,400 a year (during an ostensible “recovery”) corresponds almost exactly with the span of time that we’ve been living with the looming specter of Obamacare—which began to be debated in earnest around June 2009.
Another reason why President Obama is a horrible president is that he is more interested in transforming the nation than he is in improving people’s lives. He wants to make it what it was before President Reagan made the nation great again. President Reagan followed President Carter. Who was another horrible president. Because of his Keynesian economic policies. While President Reagan wasn’t a Keynesian. Which is why the economic recovery following Carter’s malaise was one of the strongest economic recoveries in history. Making President Reagan a great president. Because he made life better for people. Unlike Carter and Obama. Who made life worse. Because of their Keynesian economic policies.
Obamacare, the pathway to national health care, is a big driver of the fall in household incomes. The plan for Obamacare was to put the private health insurance business out of business. So Obamacare can evolve into full-blown national health care. And to do that they forced businesses to spend more money on their health insurance for full-time employees. Of course, the idea was for businesses to avoid this additional cost by pushing people to part-time. And taking away their health insurance. Advancing the nation further down the Obamacare pathway to national health care. Which is more important to him than household incomes. Which he will gladly trade away to transform the country. Not to just what it was before Ronald Reagan. But even further left. Because, for President Obama, what he wants is more important than what the people want. Jobs, a rising household income and private health insurance. Which makes him a horrible president. Just as his Keynesian economic policies make him a horrible president.
Tags: Carter, household income, Keynesian, Keynesian economic policies, Keynesian economics, Keynesian policies, National health care, Obama, Obamacare, President Obama, President Reagan, Reagan, recession, welfare
Week in Review
We’re supposed to trust the federal government taking over one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Our health care system. Because they are so good at running vast complex bureaucracies. Like the food stamp program (see NY food stamp recipients are shipping welfare-funded groceries to relatives in Jamaica, Dominican Republic and Haiti by KATE BRIQUELET and ISABEL VINCENT posted 7/21/2013 on the New York Post).
Food stamps are paying for trans-Atlantic takeout — with New Yorkers using taxpayer-funded benefits to ship food to relatives in Jamaica, Haiti and the Dominican Republic.
Welfare recipients are buying groceries with their Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards and packing them in giant barrels for the trip overseas, The Post found.
The practice is so common that hundreds of 45- to 55-gallon cardboard and plastic barrels line the walls of supermarkets in almost every Caribbean corner of the city.
The feds say the moveable feasts go against the intent of the $86 billion welfare program for impoverished Americans…
“Everybody does it,” said a worker at an Associated Supermarket in Prospect Lefferts Gardens, Brooklyn. “They pay for it any way they can. A lot of people pay with EBT…”
Workers at the Pioneer Supermarket on Parkside Avenue and the Key Food on Flatbush Avenue confirmed the practice.
They said food-stamp recipients typically take home their barrels and fill them gradually over time with food bought with EBT cards.
Everyone does it. Everyone knows it. And yet nobody stops it. Even though all they have to do is look at who is buying the big blue barrels. It just can’t get easier than that. This is our government at its finest. Is it any wonder that government at every level is inefficient and incompetent? And rife with corruption? For if everyone knows that people are committing fraud and one of the everyone—the government—doesn’t do anything to stop it then they must be corrupt.
Why does the government look the other way? Because from the government’s perspective the program is a smashing success. Because people committing fraud will vote for the political party that makes it easier to commit fraud. And it doesn’t get any easier when they look the other way. New York City is a Democrat-controlled city. The Democrats shower the city with an easy-to-fraud welfare system. And they don’t lose elections. Is there a causality here? Perhaps.
Now the Democrats will be in charge of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. Thanks to Obamacare. Which will control far, far more money than the food stamp program. Which they’ve proven themselves to be incompetent to control. Just imagine the job they’ll do running Obamacare.
Tags: barrels, corrupt, Democrat, EBT, food stamp, food stamp program, fraud, Obamacare
Week in Review
The sequester has hit America hard. A reduction in the growth of future expenditures has caused the White House to stop public tours of the people’s house. And it caused the furlough of numerous air traffic controllers. Leading to long lines at airports. And cancelled flights. That just shows you how painful a cut in the growth rate of future expenditures can be. They caused cuts in actual current spending. Because there is just not an extra dime the government can spare to keep the White House open for tours. Or to keep air traffic controllers at their jobs. But there’s tons of spare cash lying around for this apparently (see Shocking US government leaflet tells Mexican immigrants they can collect food stamp benefits without admitting they’re in the country illegally posted 4/26/2013 on the Daily Mail).
A Spanish-language leaflet that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has provided to the Mexican Embassy in Washington advises border-crossing Mexicans that they can collect taxpayer-funded food stamp benefits for their children without admitting that they’re illegal immigrants.
Underlined and in boldface type, the document tells immigrants who are unlawfully in the United States that, ‘You need not divulge information regarding your immigration status in seeking this benefit for your children.’
The Agriculture Department says SNAP benefits are only to be distributed to U.S. citizens and other legal residents. On its website, it acknowledges an education ‘partnership’ with the Mexican government, but insists that its aim is to help educate only ‘eligible Mexican nationals living in the United States’ about nutrition benefits for which they might qualify.
Judicial Watch obtained the Spanish language leaflet through a Freedom of Information Act request. An attached email dates the document to March 2009, just months after President Barack Obama took office.
In an email, a spokesperson for the SNAP program told The Daily Caller, which first reported on the leaflet, that “non-citizens who are unlawfully present, are not, nor have they ever been, eligible to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits…
And in a March 2012 communication, Judicial Watch said, the USDA asked the Mexican Embassy to approve a letter addressed to that country’s 50 consulates. That letter encouraged staff at those Mexican diplomatic missions to learn in another webinar how to encourage more of ‘the needy families that the consulates serve’ to enroll in the SNAP program.
Judicial Watch said Thursday that the 2012 document did not discriminate between legal US residents and illegal immigrants.
So Americans can’t visit the White House. And can’t get on an airplane because the sequester cancelled that flight. But we can have illegal immigrants who are non-citizens in the country unlawfully sign up for food stamps. Kind of tells you where the administration is when it comes to immigration reform. Instead of controlling the border they’re telling them to come on up. Free food stamps for everyone. But you may not be able to catch a flight once you’re in the country. Or visit the White House. For these costs are too great to include in the current budget.
Is it me? Or is there something wrong with that?
Why are they doing this? Simple. These aren’t illegal aliens waiting for a pathway to citizenship. These are future Democrat voters. And President Obama wants them voting in U.S. elections as soon as possible. For with only about 20% of the population identifying themselves as liberals while some 40% identify themselves as conservative they have to buy as many votes as they can. And they’re hoping these soon-to-be citizens will remember who their benefactor was when they enter the voting booth. To tip the balance of power towards the Democrats. So they can enact their liberal agenda the majority of the people don’t want. That’s why.
Tags: air traffic controllers, food stamp, illegal immigrants, sequester, SNAP, tours, White House
Week in Review
When it comes to government policies there are unintended consequences. And then they are the ‘I don’t care what the consequences are’ as long as those policies are politically expedient (see US childhood obesity dips for first time in decades: study by AFP posted 12/27/2012 on channelnewsasia.com)
CHICAGO: Obesity rates among small children may finally be on the decline after more than tripling in the United States the past 30 years, a study out Wednesday indicated.
The study found that obesity rates peaked in 2004 and then declined slightly among low-income children aged two to four who receive benefits from a federal food stamp program called SNAP…
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. David Ludwig said the declines seen are not enough, and he urged an overhaul of the federal food stamp program (SNAP) to help low-income families tackle obesity by eliminating junk food and adding more fruit and vegetables to their diet.
“SNAP is essential for hunger prevention in the United States, but its exclusive focus on food quantity contributes to malnutrition and obesity, and is misaligned with the goal of helping beneficiaries lead healthier lives,” wrote Ludwig, who works in an obesity prevention centre at Boston Children’s Hospital…
Ludwig noted that it pays for an estimated US$4 billion in soft drinks per year, which adds up to about 20 million servings of soda a day.
“The public pays for sugary drinks, candy, and other junk foods included in SNAP benefits twice: once at the time of purchase, and later for the treatment of diet-induced disease through Medicaid and Medicare,” he wrote.
“The nation’s US$75 billion investment in SNAP could provide a major opportunity to reduce the burden of diet-related disease among low-income children and families if policies that promote nutritional quality are instituted.”
Peaked in 2004? Why, that was when George W. Bush was president. At least 4 years before Michelle Obama began her war on childhood obesity. To ensure success she should consult with George W. Bush. Who must have done something right to reverse a trend that was in the making for 30 years. And not her husband. Who appears to be hell-bent on making children obese again.
One of the major causes of childhood obesity has been the federal food stamp program. Which President Obama has expanded like no other president. Even earning himself the moniker ‘The Food Stamp President’. Guess he doesn’t like kids. Well, not all kids. Just the poor ones. Who he is helping to a life of diet-induced disease.
So the president may be sacrificing another generation of children to heart disease, diabetes and all those other diet-induced diseases. Why? Well, like Bill O’Reilly said, to give the people stuff. So they will vote for him. Which he has. And our poor children will pay the ultimate price with poor health. While we pick up the cost for their extensive and costly medical care.
Tags: childhood obesity, diet-induced disease, diet-related disease, federal food stamp program, food stamp, obesity, obesity rates, President Obama, SNAP
Week in Review
Newt Gingrich called President Obama “the best food-stamp president in American history.” Because, Gingrich said, President Obama has spent more on food stamps than any other president. Supporters of the president have attacked Gingrich’s comments. Calling them untrue. And racist. So is Newt Gingrich a lying racist? Or is President Obama the “the best food-stamp president in American history?” All we can do is look at the numbers (see Report: Welfare government’s single largest budget item in FY 2011 at approx. $1.03 trillion by Caroline May posted 10/18/2012 on The Daily Caller).
The government spent approximately $1.03 trillion on 83 means-tested federal welfare programs in fiscal year 2011 alone — a price tag that makes welfare that year the government’s largest expenditure, according to new data released by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee…
The data excludes spending on Social Security, Medicare, means-tested health care for veterans without service-connected disabilities, and the means-tested veterans pension program…
CRS reports that food assistance programs — the third largest welfare category behind health and cash assistance — experienced the greatest increase in spending, with 71 percent more spending in 2011 than in 2008. The agency explained that this spending increase was largely due to the growth in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or food stamps.
Well, apparently President Obama is “the best food-stamp president in American history.” At least, based on his 71% increase in food assistance programs spending. Where most of the increase in spending came from food stamps. So it would appear that Newt Gingrich is not a lying racist.
Total 2011 defense spending (military defense, veterans, foreign military aid and foreign economic aid) was $964.8 billion according to us government spending. Or $0.9648 trillion. Which is less than $1.03 trillion in spending on means-tested federal welfare programs. Now here’s an interesting side note. The Constitution calls for defense spending. While it doesn’t call for any welfare spending. So this is quite the deviation from our Founding. And one the Founding Fathers would probably not approve of. As you can enrich some defense contractors with that defense spending. But you can’t buy a lot of votes with it. Not like the votes you can buy by giving people lots and lots of free stuff. And $1.03 trillion can buy a lot of stuff.
When you have an economic record that is an abject failure you can’t run on your record. Because most people are not better off after 4 years of President Obama. Unless, of course, they got some of that $1.03 trillion in additional federal spending. Which is about all a failed presidency can hope for. Grateful benefits recipients. As long as there are enough of them. And when you increase some federal spending by $1.03 trillion there just may be enough of them.
One final note. We’ve had trillion dollar deficits in each of President Obama’s 4 years in office. Deficits that we had to finance by borrowing from China. Excessive spending and borrowing that caused the first credit downgrade in US history. All, it would appear, to create more grateful benefits recipients to help with the president’s reelection. Because his 4 years in office have been an abject failure. With his only success being the expansion of the welfare state. Leading to the aforementioned credit downgrade. And a bleak future of a new normal. High unemployment. Low GDP growth. High taxes. Stagflation. And Malaise.
Tags: $1.03 trillion, benefits, credit downgrade, defense spending, deficits, food assistance programs, food stamps, food-stamp president, free stuff, means-tested federal welfare programs, Newt Gingrich, President Obama, welfare programs, welfare spending
Week in Review
Money can’t buy happiness. A new study proves it. For it’s not buying the richest country in the world happiness. So there is something else apparently that leads to a people’s happiness (see Canada among the happiest countries in the world by Tavia Grant posted 4/2/2012 on The Globe and Mail).
It finds the world has, broadly speaking, become a “little happier” in the past three decades, as living standards have risen. (One exception is the United States, where life satisfaction has not improved).
Interesting. Life satisfaction in America hasn’t improved. I wonder why. And what are the things that make people more satisfied in life. Here are some of those things according to this study.
•Happier countries tend to be richer ones. But more important for happiness than income are social factors like the strength of social support, the absence of corruption and the degree of personal freedom.
•Unemployment causes as much unhappiness as bereavement or separation. At work, job security and good relationships do more for job satisfaction than high pay and convenient hours.
•Behaving well makes people happier.
•Mental health is the biggest single factor affecting happiness in any country. Yet only a quarter of mentally ill people get treatment for their condition in advanced countries and fewer still in poorer countries.
•Stable family life and enduring marriages are important for the happiness of parents and children.
•In advanced countries, women are happier than men, while the position in poorer countries is mixed.
•Happiness is lowest in middle age.
Liberal Democrats are all for bigger government. Continuously raising taxes to pay for it. The federal budget has exploded as a result. As has the debt. For despite the vast wealth they’re taxing out of the private sector it isn’t enough. And as it is anywhere where people manage large piles of money there is corruption. The bigger the pile the bigger the corruption. And so it is with government. Just look at the billions thrown away on pork barrel spending on worthless projects like the Murtha Airport. This kind of out of control corrupt pork barrel spending makes people unhappy. Apparently they would be happier with a government that lives responsibly within their means like they have to. At least, according to this study.
High taxes and onerous regulatory compliance costs are squeezing small business. Millionaire entrepreneurs of yesteryear say they couldn’t do what they did today. The explosion in new regulatory law just squashes innovation. It’s simply too costly and too complicated to go into business. There are so many laws that it impossible to know them all. Unless you’re a lawyer. And lawyers are about the only ones who understand these laws. Or, at least, understand them enough. So they can sue any business for violating some obscure law the business owner is unaware of. And they do this all the time. It’s legal extortion. For business owners find it cheaper to settle out of court just to make the lawyers go away. As a result this active interventionist government pushed by liberal Democrats is a drag on job creation. Whose answer is more benefits for the unemployed rather than helping the job creators. This tenuous job environment makes workers feel less secure in their own jobs. And less happy. According to this study.
Liberals attack religion and their moralizing. They attack conservatives and their moralizing. Liberals instead prefer fewer restraints placed on life. For who is to say what is right and wrong? So they favor relaxed drug laws. Free contraceptives. Abortion on demand. And as much consequence-free fun as they can have. In public places. And in quiet neighborhoods. Where property damage is just kids blowing off a little steam. I mean, who hasn’t done a donut on a neighbor’s lawn because they told them to be quiet at 2 in the morning? Well it turns out people prefer having quiet church-going people for neighbors. Who treat people with respect and behave well when in public. These are the people that make other people happy. According to this study, at least.
LBJ was a big liberal Democrat. His Great Society was a bonanza of welfare benefits for the poor. Especially for single mothers. The government said to these single moms, “Look, you don’t need a husband in your life. We will provide for you and your children. We’ll even provide public housing for you to live in. So you don’t need a husband. And your children don’t need a father. We can be all of that for you.” Well, the worse place to live was in public housing during the Seventies. Where crime and drugs use was rampant. With no stable family structure kids of single parents turned to the street. And crime. Taking that behavior into their schools. Spreading the trouble. Having the government take over the role of family was like introducing a cancer into a healthy being. And it spreads still to this day. The idea that family isn’t important. And that government can provide. But more government has only made people less happy. At least, according to this study.
The policies of liberal Democrats encourage irresponsible behavior. Consequence-free fun. They’ve attacked religion and tried to remove it from everyday life. To the point that people today have very little if any moral compass. Young women have babies out of wedlock. Some of these mothers sacrifice everything in a herculean struggle to raise their children. Working and sacrificing everything for their children. Even a happy family life with a husband and father that would have made children rearing easier. Some single mothers are superheroes. Some are not. And neither as are happy as a family with two parents providing for and nurturing their children. And having time to spend with them in their childhood because they’re not working a second or third job.
So this is why America has not improved in the area of life satisfaction. Because of the extraordinary growth of liberal Democrat policies. The very things that lead people to be less happy. At least, according to this new study.
Tags: children, consequence-free fun, corruption, family, father, happiness, husband, job security, jobs, law, lawyer, liberal Democrat policies, Liberal Democrats, liberals, marriage, moralizing, parents, pork barrel spending, public housing, regulatory compliance costs, Religion, single mothers, small business, stable family life, taxes, unemployment, welfare benefits
Week in Review
When it comes to battles between conservatives and liberals the battle lines they draw often concern welfare benefits. The conservatives want to take away milk for children while liberals want to make sure welfare recipients still have their dignity. And can enjoy strip clubs, booze, cigarettes and scratch tickets (see Pundit: EBT card overhaul puts Hill bigs ‘in the hot seat’ by Chris Cassidy posted 4/5/2012 on the Boston Herald).
Outraged lawmakers trying to prevent taxpayer-funded EBT card abuse are putting the political screws on House and Senate leaders, who will face election-year pressure to place real reforms on the floor for an up-or-down vote, a GOP pundit told the Herald…
Three members of the state’s EBT Card Commission, formed to clean up the program, yesterday announced details of a bill to crack down on abuses, after last week slamming the commission’s failure to come down hard enough. The rogue group’s bill would ban the use of EBT cards at such places as strip clubs, rent-a-centers, gyms and gun shops; banning card use outside New England states; and restrict how much cash can be drawn. The reform efforts followed Herald reports of welfare recipients spending benefits on booze, cigarettes and scratch tickets.
This is politics. And, sadly, politics as usual. Buying votes versus responsible governing. For both conservatives and liberals know of these welfare abuses. The difference is that conservatives want to reform the system to stop the abuses. And liberals want to allow the abuses for the votes these abuses buy. For they need those votes as few people will vote to raise their taxes to pay for poorly run welfare programs. But if you’re the recipient of those welfare programs, well then, that’s a different story. Your votes are for sale. Which is why liberals fight to make sure welfare recipients can enjoy strip clubs, booze, cigarettes and scratch tickets. As long as these people remember who it was that allowed them to enjoy these things in the election booth.
Tags: benefits, booze, buying votes, cigarettes, conservatives, EBT card, EBT Card Commission, liberals, politics, scratch tickets, strip clubs, welfare, welfare abuses, welfare benefits, welfare programs