Congress / Health Care — 1 comment
12
Nov 09

Pelosi defends putting people in jail for not doing what she wants

The other day I said “Don’t tell me that my choice [to be uninsured] affects everyone else, because if you’re even slightly informed, you know that in this case that’s a total lie.” Since Princess Pelosi is out there today trumpeting this line of nonsense, (again!) I should elaborate a little more on the point I made last time.

Here’s Nancy, telling a reporter that the bill is “very fair” in its requirement that you get insurance or else:

A couple of months ago, I found a great article on Reason about this topic. Thankfully, I was able to dig it up. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to read Peter Suderman’s The Madness of the Mandate. Among other things, Suderman points out:

But according to the Urban Institue, a left-leaning think tank, uncompensated care only accounted for about 2.2 percent of health spending in 2008. So, at most, savings would amount to measly 2.2 percent—and that’s before accounting for the additional costs imposed by a mandate.

A left-leaning think tank that came to that conclusion! Could you imagine what conclusion the Heritage Foundation would come to? The bottom line is that the amount of money saved by a mandate is negligible. But that’s not all! As Suderman pointed out, mandates by themselves will impose greater costs. This nonsense has already been tried in Massachusetts. Here’s what happened:

As Cannon explains, “when government makes health insurance mandatory, it must define a level of coverage that satisfies the mandate.” That means that many lower-coverage, lower-cost plans no longer make the cut—and premium costs go up. As Cannon calculated based on a study by Massachusetts Division of Finance and Policy, mandatory coverage requirements can “increase the cost of insurance by as much as 14 percent—or nearly $1,700 per year for family coverage.” Two-and-a-half years after first imposing a mandate, the state now has the dubious honor of having the nation’s most expensive health insurance premiums, and the future looks even more grim: Insurers have already announced plans for double-digit hikes next year.

This mandate will also effectively outlaw the tried and tested approach of Medical Savings Account (MSA) coupled with high deductible insurance which has already proven to lower costs and is already in place at savvy businesses like Whole Foods. Instead, the Pelosi bill utilizes an insurance mandate which is not only principally and morally detestable in the way it takes away liberty, but is also based on policies which we already know will fail.

These liberals will not take down the legal barriers which make it difficult for businesses to give their employees HSAs if they choose to because they know it will work. Not only would it work, but it would lower their influence over us, and that’s the last thing they want.

I consistently found it astonishing how quickly they dismiss non-government solutions to our health care crisis. If a proposal doesn’t make government bigger, doesn’t increase their prominence and prestige, and doesn’t give them more power, the option is off the table.

Abortion / Barack Obama / Congress / Health Care / Taxes — 1 comment
08
Nov 09

House of Representatives sells out American taxpayers, prosperity

By now, you should be accustomed to this happening. Luckily, this stands little chance of passing in the Senate. In all likelihood, this bill stands to suffer the same fate as the economically devastating cap and trade bill from earlier this year. Like that bill, this one narrowly passed in the more partisan, more Democratic body. It stands little chance in the Senate, and for that we should be grateful.

I’d like to take a few minutes to remind you what’s in this 1,990-page monstrosity. All of these points are what I see as the most egregious observations from the WSJ article by Betsy McCaughey, with my astute observations after each one.

1. Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a “qualified plan.” If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a “grace period” to switch you to a “qualified plan,” meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there’s no grace period. You’ll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

Anything that forces employers to meet more government mandates in this economy is stupid. Will “qualified plans” be more expensive? These Democrats need to get a clue. Employers are uneasy enough about expanding operations or hiring people as it is without this perverse and costly legislative agenda being held over  their heads.

2. Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be of the “one size fits all” variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

This will escalate the current problem with American health insurance. Namely, that it isn’t insurance. I would love a policy with a $5,000 deductible whose only purpose would be saving me from financial catastrophe should I get in a car wreck, crack my head, and need neurosurgery or something. Such a policy should cost a healthy young person very little. Since the government at many levels has stamped out the possibility of such a policy being available to me in the private market, I have to get the policy my employer provides. I am forced to take substantially reduced wages from my employer because I am only able to get one of the two policies they offer – policies tailored for a wide array of afflictions that I will never have. I am pooled with everyone else I work with – people who will have their babies and baby-related expenses covered by the same insurance I have to pay for. (I use “pay for” to mean my reduced wages.) I’m sure my insurance policy also covers alcohol rehab should I ever need it – thankfully. As we go further into the age of Obama, drinking seems becomes a more attractive way to mentally weather these turbulent times.

Young people should be especially ticked off about this “qualified plan” B.S. What if you don’t want an insurance policy that covers drug rehab, alcohol rehab, hair restoration, or pregnancy? Too bad – you can bet most of that will be mandated in a “qualified plan.” Since this is Pelosi’s bill, Botox will probably be a part of a qualified plan, too. This societal pattern of responsible people subsidizing irresponsible people will be escalated here, only it will be done under the radar so nobody will call them on it.

So will young people be outraged that they’re getting screwed? Doubtful. Obama is the “cool” candidate and Democrats are the “cool” political party. After all, they’re the ones who want to legalize pot, right? …Right?

3. Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

Ahh yes, the mandate. I’m going to skip over legal and Constitutional issues. I’m even going to skip over matters of pragmatism. (i.e. that mandates solve the non-existent “free rider” problem.) I’m going to cut right to the chase and get to the principle of  the matter. I will now unleash the frothing militant extremist libertarian that dwells deep within my soul.

I have no interest in living under a federal government that is big enough and powerful enough to make me shell out money if I don’t do something they think I should be doing. I am not Pelosi’s child. They have absolutely zero right to make my decisions for me. If I don’t want to be insured, that’s my decision. Don’t tell me that my choice affects everyone else, because if you’re even slightly informed, you know that in this case that’s a total lie. This is not about helping people. This is about control and about expanding government. When they tell me “do what we say, or pay us,” I feel like saying “Don’t you think you should have abolished the second amendment before imposing this kind of totalitarianism?”

4. Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a “qualified plan” for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

So penalizing business? When there’s 10% unemployment? These elected leaders of ours… they’re brilliant. How did they get this smart?

In all seriousness, though, I need to explain something to those of you who support this bill. Employers have a payroll budget. That’s how much they can spend on their employees. BENEFITS COME FROM THIS BUDGET. For every benefit you receive, your wages go down. Do you understand? Every time I talk to someone about health care, it seems like they fail to grasp this concept. This is akin to mandating a massive wage increase. That means that employers will either have to lower wages or lay people off. They sure as @!*% won’t be hiring anyone. Is this the smartest thing to do in The Worst Economy Since the Great Depression®?

The bill also makes huge cuts to Medicare, (not necessarily a bad thing) “directs billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability,” and gives tons of little goodies to trial lawyers.

Wake up, people.

Oh, and let’s not forget. One Republican voted for this. So now it’s a “bipartisan” bill. No, I’m serious. They’re actually putting it that way:

Democrats, teasingly, immediately claimed a mantle of bipartisanship for their health care legislation.

“This was, as you observed, a bipartisan vote,” the House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said at a news conference to celebrate the passage of the bill.

Oh, and what would a contentious piece of legislation be without some debate about abortion? Apparently, many of the more conservative members of the Democratic caucus were withholding their votes without assurance that this bill would not fund abortions. Which means, of course, that abortion advocates are angry now. How about if the government doesn’t pay for anyone’s abortion? Since Planned Parenthood will do ‘em for free if you’re poor enough, why even touch the issue in this bill?

One more thing: Do you remember the contentious primaries? When Obama said that one of the meaningful and substantive policy differences between him and Hillary was that he opposed an insurance mandate? Well now he’s anxious to sign a bill which will criminalize being uninsured. There’s a good post over at Campaign for Liberty on that subject.

How do you Obama voters feel now? I bet you feel pretty betrayed, don’t you? You were promised hope, change, and a different kind of politics, but all you got was another liar who is a champion of political expediency.

Do one more thing for me. Just look at these crooks, basking in the fact that they’re working so hard to take away your liberty:

Look at them bask

Look at them bask

I’m pretty mad right now, in case you couldn’t tell.

Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the “qualified plan” is not yet designed, it will be of the “one size fits all” variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
Barack Obama / Economy / Elections — No comments
03
Nov 09

Election day! (But probably not for you)

Today, national attention is focused on 3 different off-year elections taking place across the country: The governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia, and the special election to replace John McHugh in the 23rd district of New York state.

There has been a lot of people who have claimed that these elections are representative of voters’ general sentiment of Barack Obama and Democrats. To a small extent, that might be true. Disapproval of Barack Obama could be an energizing force for some right-of-center folks, while left-of-center voters have less to be energized about. But don’t let anyone tell you that these elections are a surefire indication of things to come.

The most interesting race in my view is the one in New Jersey. New Jersey is a solid blue state which – for a variety of reasons – is in play for a Republican gubernatorial candidate.

According to the WSJ:

The race has been one of the nastiest in memory, with the Republicans personally blaming Mr. Corzine for the state’s fiscal woes and unemployment rate, while linking him to corrupt Democratic officials. Mr. Corzine fired back with a string of negative ads, including one that said the rotund Republican “threw his weight around,” using his position as U.S. attorney for personal and political benefit.

In the last month, likely voters told pollsters that they were uneasy with the lack of specifics in the Republican’s economic plans. Mr. Christie also took hits for suggesting that the state allow bare-bones medical insurance to be sold to those who aren’t covered, prompting Mr. Corzine’s campaign to attack him for wanting to eliminate mandatory mammograms.

But Mr. Christie’s losses may not translate into an easy victory for Mr. Corzine. A one-term governor and former Goldman Sachs chief executive, Mr. Corzine has been deeply unpopular with voters. Many told pollsters they blame him for failing to address the state’s persistently high tax rate, and they also held him partly accountable for the state’s unemployment rate, which was 9.8% in September. Much of the northern part of the state makes up New York City suburbs, and its economy has been battered by Wall Street’s woes.

John Corzine may be a Democrat – the candidate who wins by default in states like New Jersey – but he is connected with Goldman Sachs, the archetype Wall Street firm that is hated by anti-capitalists the world over.

The Virginia race isn’t as interesting. I think Bob McDonnell will win handily. Virginia has historically been a red state. Obama won it narrowly aided primarily by his star power. Without as many college students and passively political voters who like his speeches participating, I think Virginia will return to its historical trend.

The race in NY-23 isn’t particularly interesting. Some say that it represented the conflict between the conservative and moderate factions of the Republican party. Now that the “moderate” (some have said liberal) Republican has dropped out of the race, the conservative candidate seems poised to win, since the district usually goes that way.

So my attention will be on the race in New Jersey. Union goons are getting involved there. The WSJ again reports

The AFL-CIO tried to field an army of union volunteers — as many as 15,000 — in New Jersey to clinch a come-from-behind win for Mr. Corzine. The union organization pledged to call 180,000 union households, leaflet 125 work sites and knock on 140,000 doors.

I’ll reiterate my previous point that these elections aren’t indicative of “huge Republican momentum” even if they win all three of them. Obama and much of Congress’ reelection prospects will depend on economic conditions in the country. Democrats have framed things in a “heads we win, tails we win” scenario. If the economy recovers, Obama gets credit because they can claim that the stimulus bill fixed everything. If the economy doesn’t recover, they will continue to blame Bush and “Wall Street greed.”

If the economy and jobless rate stay where they are or worsen they will have a harder time, though. Unfortunately the greed/Bush/Republican obstructionism arguments are for some reason extremely effective.

Obama’s reelection depends on economic conditions and to a lesser extent the outcome of health care reform. It has nothing to do with the elections taking place today, so don’t let anyone tell you it does. If the economy gets worse – and I believe it will – Obama’s election in 2012 will be competitive. The US Weekly and People Magazine variety of voter could still push him over the edge because of his celebrity-like appeal, but at least it will be competitive.

Barack Obama / Foreign Affairs — 7 comments
27
Oct 09

Obama should rush Afghanistan decision

I decided on that headline after seeing this headline somewhere else: Obama says he will not rush Afghanistan decision.

He should rush the decision because it should be an easy one - at least with the two choices he’s put in front of himself.

We have just had the deadliest month in the entire effort. For what reason, then, is Obama sitting around mulling over whether or not he should listen to his general?

I’ve always believed that should you be compelled to complete a specific goal, you should plan on doing what’s needed to succeed. This is just common sense. If you’re not willing to work hard enough to achieve the goal, you should not be engaging in the activity at all. When it comes to tasks that are difficult, we make a decision about whether we should do it in the first place. Obama has already done this part – he claims that he wants to win in Afghanistan.

If you decided that you wanted to work hard enough to lose 50 pounds, you would plan on exercising and eating right. Later, you might figure out that you don’t have the willpower to stick to that goal, so you’d give up. You wouldn’t say “I’m going to lose 50 pounds” and then plan to eat a fudge sunday every morning.

Why plan to half-ass something?

Obama is trying to figure out how to sell what he really wants to do – and that’s half-ass the effort in Afghanistan. Usually, planning on doing something without meaning it implies that one is insincere. Think fake apology.

Gen. McCrystal has said that we need 40,000 more troops to win, and I doubt he would make that up.

Obama is not deciding between the ideal choice of ending the war or continuing the war. He’s deciding between doing what might lead to victory or continuing until we lose. Without more troops, and possibly even with more troops, this will turn into a Vietnamesque debacle.

Obama will not end the effort in Afghanistan. That option is off the table. Instead, he is decideing whether or not he should take the recommendation of a military leader with 30 years of experience or ignore it. If you’ve already made up your mind about what you’re going to do, shouldn’t you plan on doing it right?

The fact that Obama has framed the debate as a choice between the two options he has put before himself indicates that he is indifferent towards the war’s outcome. In my opinion he does want it to continue but only for political expediency. Ending the war would be the best choice for this country. That would, however, be a fairly radical decision and possibly an unpopular one. Obama is more concerned about the advice coming form his campaign consultants than the advice coming from his military leaders. He knows that ending the war will result in Republicans calling him wimpy, and that could have a devastating effect in the next election. He further knows that doing what’s needed to have a shot at winning would upset his precious far-left anti-war base. So he walks this fine line. What he really wants is the politically safe option – the choice that will outrage few but satisfy even less. What he’s doing now is figuring out how he can sell that choice.

Uncategorized — 2 comments
23
Oct 09

The unintended consequences of doing the most politically popular things

Before getting into the topic I wanted to discuss today, here’s some information on why I haven’t updated in 6 days:

There are two major contributing factors. The first is that my laptop went belly-up a couple of weeks ago, which leaves my lady and I sharing one computer. Since the laptop was “my” computer, I’ve had to squeeze in time on “her” computer. I ordered a laptop earlier this week, and it should arrive soon. Once it does, I should be able to get back to my approximately every-other-day to daily updates. The second reason is because I’ve been busily sending out resumes and applying for jobs. I have a couple of interviews lined up, so cross your fingers for me.

Now I want to talk about this desire on the part of Obama to “cap” or otherwise “regulate” executive salaries at companies who have received TARP money. The rationalization for this is that taxpayer dollars should not be used to pay exorbitant executive salaries. This might seem pretty reasonable to a lot of people. Without a doubt, it will be a politically popular move.

It will be politically popular because most people hate the rich. Unless, of course, the rich person in question happens to be an athlete or celebrity. Our culture gives a pass to individuals who have huge sums of money if they are a celeb or a jock. Rich people who became rich by being successful in the business world, though, are subject to the worst form of vilification by not only our country’s political class, but also by the vast majority of the American public. For some reason, great wealth is fine as long as you’re an entertainer. If you’re a businessperson, though, you will be the subject of much resentment.

That’s where this drive to cap salaries is coming from: Hating wealthy businessmen is extremely popular. Obama knows that if he feeds the left’s innate desire to punish people with MBAs and six-figure incomes he will come out on top, at least politically. This is theatre. It’s nothing more than a clever distraction. It will make a statement and nothing more. This has nothing to do with wanting to be a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, and everything to do with making politically popular moves. I repeat: This is a distraction. The amount of TARP dollars that will go to pay for executive bonuses and salaries constitutes a tiny fraction of the program.

Consider this proposition: If an executive can save a TARP recipient $10 million that it desperately needs to save, shouldn’t he (or she) get a $500,000 bonus? Executives get bonuses based on their performance, and these companies need somebody who can get things done. If the White House were really interested in saving these companies, they would mandate that executive bonuses be twice what they would normally be.

National Review has a good editorial on the subject. The article talks about Kenneth Feinberg, the White House’s “pay czar.” Here are some fun excerpts:

For those executives who accept Feinberg’s terms, these pay cuts probably will in fact amount to pay shifts: Clamping down on cash salaries and bonuses, Mr. Feinberg encourages firms to reward their top executives with restricted stock instead. That means that shareholders’ interests will be diluted while the shift does nothing to secure shareholders’ interests. The most highly sought-after talent surely will exit the targeted companies and, short of giving some presidential czar or another the power to reduce executives to indentured servitude, there is nothing that the government can do to stop them from taking very lucrative positions at firms free of the TARP taint.

…

There is little reason to believe that an AIG laboring under political restraints on compensation will make better investment decisions than an AIG not operating under those restraints. There is some reason to believe the opposite will be true.

…

TARP was an emergency measure. The emergency has subsided, and the first order of business is restoring at least some separation between Washington and Wall Street, between political power and the private economy. The love of power can prove at least as corrupting as the love of money, and the American political class does not seem likely to resist either temptation, much less both at once.

Further, the Washington Post details which employees have already left executive positions in TARP companies, anticipating the very nonsense we’re watching unfold today. My favorite quote from the story is from a former Goldman Sachs employee: “It’s going to affect a small portion of a small portion of the industry. It won’t have a lasting impact.”

I say double the bonuses at these companies: Attract the kind of talent that can turn these companies around.

About Myself / Economy — 1 comment
17
Oct 09

The toils of a crappy job market

I’ve spent a good part of my day applying for jobs.

Unfortunately, though, the job market is tight right now. I happen to live in a state (Oregon) with one of the worst unemployment rates. What this means is that there’s more qualified people out there looking for jobs than there would otherwise be.

I have a job right now. It pays reasonably well for what it is, but staying where I am renders my bachelor’s degree useless. Oh, and I kind of hate my job, too.

Searching for a job right now sucks.I have the fortune of at least not being unemployed while I carry out my job search, which takes away from some of the urgency. So I haven’t been searching too terribly hard. I have been applying to places, somewhat passively, since August. My sympathy goes out to those who have been laid off. Really, it does. I’m sorry to be out there competing with you, but you’re welcome to apply for my job once I leave it. (Not that I would recommend that.)

What’s emerging as a likely scenario is a “jobless recovery,” a term which refers the technical ending of a recession (in GDP terms) but where unemployment remains fairly high. Obama will get credit, of course, because he signed that stimulus bill.

As a recent college graduate facing a job market with few entry-level positions, I feel the need for a crass outburst:

You suck, jobless recovery!

With that out of my system, I’d like to put forth an effective but politically incorrect way of partially alleviating our nation’s unemployment pain: Deregulate the labor markets. Here’s an excerpt:

As libertarians know, government sages should first direct their fire to reduce market drag by—shudder!—deregulation. Yet on a matter that intersects health and labor, Democratic health care reform proposals predictably protect collective bargaining rights in all health care markets, thereby perpetuating highly inefficient labor monopolies.

That interventionist mindset, writ large, is killing labor markets today. This past July, a third 70-cent increase has raised the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 per hour in just over two-years. Why is anyone surprised that this 40%-plus increase caused a current sharp increase in teenage unemployment that hits minority males especially hard?…

Far worse, just keeping the misguided Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) on the legislative agenda sets up a massive disincentive for firms to hire new workers. Who wants to expand a workforce in the face of the potential double whammy of a card check and compulsory contract arbitration, capable of sending any firm into bankruptcy? Finally, the massive confusion over health care reform is yet another stealth job killer. The prospect of new employer mandates and special taxes make it prudent to trim workforces or to avoid creating new businesses at all.

Yet look as you may, none of the administration’s current champions of job creation will lift a finger to take the heavy foot of Uncle Sam off the throats off the private employers, who are the only persons who can sustain job growth. Perhaps our government wizards fear that deregulation cuts budgets and reduces their power. But their dubious motivations are not the core of this debate. The great curse of the current downturn is to delude well-intentioned people to cling to the miraculous idea that policies known to be dangerous in good times somehow become social necessities in bad times. Sorry, but there is no way to ease the pain of labor markets without a massive dose of deregulation. Shame on the Obama administration for missing the point.

Will the Democrats help put people back to work at the expense of their power? Of course they won’t. They don’t care about unemployed people. They don’t care whether or not people can find a job. Their first priority is power and control. You and me are an afterthought, if we’re lucky.

Congress / Health Care — 3 comments
15
Oct 09

The status of the Democrats’ government takeover of health care

As is often claimed, even by the President himself, “no one’s talking about taking over health care.” Technically, this is accurate. They’re not talking about it because talking about it would immediately kill the effort. When you’re working towards the establishment of a radical agenda, things have to be taken slowly. Which is exactly the approach these people are taking. We know that the foundation for government medicine is “public option,” followed by an incremental expansion of said public option until it is the only option. When the Democrats found out that “public option” was too big of a step to be taken at this time, they started throwing out ideas like insurance mandates and the other nonsense found in this despicable Baucus bill.

Today’s “person who sucks” is Olympia Snowe, the only Republican on the finance committee to vote for this.

Make no mistake, however. Her vote for this bill in committee was entirely symbolic and may in fact wind up being a good thing. The only thing that can still save our country from this detrimental first step towards government medicine is an inability of Democrats to agree with each other. The Democrats have the numbers to pass a bill without any Republican support – filibuster or not.

Politico has a good analysis of the meaning of Snowe’s vote.

If anything, this bill is slightly farther to the left of where she ideally wants it to be, and she made clear her vote Tuesday doesn’t guarantee a yes on the Senate floor.

So how can Obama move left to win a few liberals — at the risk of losing Snowe and his claims of bipartisanship? He probably can’t.

It will be easier to get liberal Senators on board with this monstrosity than it will be to get moderates on board with a public option. So the Democrats are taking the right approach. Liberal Democrats won’t lose their elections by supporting a bill with no public option. Moderates, on the other hand, run a grave risk of having that happen if they support a more extreme version of government medicine.

With that simple reality accounted for, we acknowledge that a public option really can’t happen at this time. So this nonsense – the mandate-filled, taxapalooza that is the Baucus bill – has the biggest chance of making it. Snowe and Collins are the only Republicans in play. Moderate Democrats are in play, too, meaning they might be “no” votes on the Baucus monstrosity. Most notably Ben Nelson, who I’ve already identified as being deserving of a big kiss on the mouth. Mary Landrieu and the vulnerable Blanche Lincoln may also be difficult to win over.

There are other wild cards in the Democratic caucus, most notably Jay Rockefeller. According to the Politico article, he had this to say: “Let me be crystal clear: This yes vote is not an endorsement of this bill as it stands today. My vote is a pledge to continue on the Senate floor, and in conference, the fight for policies that work and represent the real needs of West Virginia families.” Does this mean he will not vote for something without a public option? His words imply such things, but I doubt it. I think that when it comes down to a step towards government medicine versus no step towards government medicine, he will come around.

Uncategorized — 1 comment
13
Oct 09

The great success of Cash for Clunkers

This is what happens when I get insomnia!

Just look at it for a minute. You’ll laugh, too.

About Myself / Pure Nonsense — 1 comment
12
Oct 09

My letter to The Oregonian on the latest “all non-liberals are racists” column they printed

Yesterday at work, I picked up the opinion page of the Sunday paper on my break. I was greeted with yet another “opponents of Obama are racists” editorial screaming from the front page of the section. Here’s the guy’s article.

I’m sick of this. We get it your argument, people! A tiny minority of signs at tea parties were racially insensitive and crass, therefore, the entire movement is racially insensitive and crass, and probably the entire Republican party is too. Give me a freakin’ break. Anyway, here’s the letter I submitted to the paper. So far, I’m 2/2 getting my letters to them published. If they print this one, I’ll link to it. It usually takes them a week or so. I also have to give credit where it’s due: Commenter Underground Bunker first put the idea in my head, and I expanded on it a little.

I am writing in response to Gary Younge’s column, which appeared on October 11th.

How many left-wing columns which attempt to connect any opposition to Obama’s policies with racism must we stomach? Think about this story of two boys.

Johnny and Billy are brothers. Billy is the more misbehaved one. One day, though, Johnny decides that he should engage in some mischief, and eats all of the cookies from the cookie jar. Knowing Billy’s reputation, their mother blames him. “It wasn’t me this time,” Billy would plead. She didn’t believe him. Johnny keeps it up, knowing that blame would be pinned on Billy for his actions. Not seeing a way to escape the situation, Billy decides – logically, I might add – that he may as well just eat the cookies. Since he had to take the blame for it, why not indulge in the behavior?

That’s exactly what could happen to race relations in this country if these people keep it up. The left, with their never ending chorus of editorials, are rekindling the dying fires of racial animus.

These people use the infinitesimal minority of isolated incidents which could be interpreted as racially insensitive as their evidence that all non-liberals are racist. Who would imagine that in an ideology consisting of millions of people, some of them might act inappropriately? Instead, I’d like to draw attention to the truest sign held up at any tea party: “No matter what this says, you’ll call it racist anyway.”

In other news, the Senate Finance Committee will vote on the Baucus bill which forces you to buy insurance tomorrow. The Baucus bill that forces insurance companies to accept everyone. Will they do the right thing? Everything I’m reading says they will pass it handily, with only the vote of Olympia Snowe being up in the air. We’ll know for sure tomorrow.

Welfare — 11 comments
11
Oct 09

Slow weekend, so let’s have fun with welfare!

In response to what has become a mostly uneventful weekend with no central focus, I want to rant about a topic that is close to my heart.

We’ll start with this story out of Detroit. Basically, some shady liquor store has been accepting food stamps from people in exchange for cash, Viagra, liquor, porn, and other things. “The government says fraud at the store topped $130,000 over 2 1/2 years,” the story informs us. Lovely.

I have had the “privilege” of working as a cashier and self-checkout attendant in a grocery store for over three years. I took the job as a way to earn some money while I was going through college. Although I finished college a couple of months ago, I’m still there. Getting a good, entry-level position in this job market isn’t exactly easy. So I’m holding on to it until I can at least find something that pays me more than I make now. Enough about me, though. I only tell you this because this job has given me the unique opportunity to observe exactly how food stamps are used and what kind of people are using them.

Food stamps as they are currently practiced should be abolished. Sure, they are a drop in the bucket compared to federal and state budgets, as some of the “compassionate” folks out there might point out. The problem with thinking this way is that thousands of drops in several buckets is what has our nation in a budgetary bind. Not only that, but food stamp programs represent bigger drops than a lot of other programs.

Let me give you the basic rundown of some of the more egregious things I see every day. This is going to be long, so I apologize. 

It is fairly common for food stamp recipients to initiate a “shoulder tap” to convert their food benefits into cash. Here’s an example of how that transaction might work: ”Psst…” they say to a regular shopper. “I see you have a hundred dollars’ worth of groceries there. How about if you pay me $60 in cash and I pay your grocery bill?” Most of the time, regular shoppers don’t have any idea why someone would do this. Sometimes, they know what’s going on but choose not to say anything because it’s a good deal for them. Other times, the welfare cheat will make something up to seem legitimate. i.e. “I have a gift card for this store, but I need to buy bus tickets.” Whatever the case, the shoulder tap is a pretty common way of converting electronic food stamp benefits into cash which can be used for drugs or booze.

One time, I was told that this was going on. I informed the guy with the food stamps that if he used his card to pay for the other people’s groceries, I would be making note of his account number and calling the fraud hot line. He lied to me and told me that he knew the people. “Oh yeah?” I asked. “How do you know them?” He stumbled for an answer. “Uh.. uh.. We’re friends,” was his reply. “Oh, all right then.” I allowed the transaction to go through and did exactly what I threatened to do. I called the fraud hot line.

 After spending about 5 minutes of my break going through an automated “Push 1 for this, push 8 for that” process, I came to a dead end. “We’re sorry. Our fraud reporting extension is only available between 9 a.m. and 4:45 p.m. eastern standard time, Monday through Friday. Please call back during regular business hours. Thank you.” Since it was Friday evening, I slammed down the phone in anger. I knew that even if I called between 9 and 4:45 on a regular business day, I would have to wait on hold for an hour.

The government knows fraud occurs constantly. If they gave a damn, it would be easy to report.

Another fairly common tactic is the use of the bottle return law as a very inefficient way to change food benefits into cash. This only works in states that have bottle deposit laws, like mine. These laws require you to pay a small “deposit” for canned or bottled drinks (usually $.05). The idea is that this creates a monetary incentive to return the empty containers to be recycled. Here’s how it works: Since food stamps pay for the bottle deposit as well as the drink, the person with food stamps buys several cases of water or cheap soda. They then go behind the store and dump the drink down the drain. They return the empty bottles for cash. This takes a lot of time, but when your only goal in life is procuring more drugs, you probably don’t have a job and therefore have time for this sort of thing.

Some food stamp recipients cut right to the chase to get their high: They purchase either cooking wine or pure vanilla (which has 40% alcohol, the same as liquor). I say if they’re willing to stomach these products to get a buzz, we should allow them to spend their food dollars on a more drinkable form of alcohol. Welfare offices should have a convenient setup: Exam rooms where people can go to get their “alcohol endorsement.” It would be akin to having a motorcycle endorsement on a driver’s license. All you would have to do is go into a room and prove that you’re willing to get drunk off of either cooking wine or pure vanilla. If you are, you should be allowed to use your food benefits to purchase alcohol. After all, pure vanilla is expensive and if people are using it to get drunk, we might as well let them buy cheaper booze.

Now let’s move on to the (probably) liberal twentysomething, whose food stamps are simply a mechanism through which they can get free groceries while they spend their income on more important things, like going to bars, restaurant meals, or throwing parties at their apartments. I actually know quite a few of these customers by name. Were I to meet them in some other situation, I would deem them likable enough. I put on a cheerful face and engage in chit-chat, though, even though in my heart of hearts I despise them. Other people might not apply the stigma to these people that I do, but we’re talking about individuals who are taking welfare benefits that they clearly don’t need when there exists a small minority of people that actually need them.

These people usually purchase large quantities of alcoholic beverages on a fairly regular basis. The food stamps automatically separate out the alcohol portion, so they can easily and quickly use their own money for their alcohol purchase. I would estimate that around 1/3 of people who use food stamps also make an alcohol purchase on the same visit. So it’s barely an uncommon thing. As soon as you witness the alcohol purchase, you have a surefire guarantee that these people are in no danger of starving when they can somehow find room in their budget to purchase alcohol.

A lot of them are even buying things like expensive micro brews that I like, but generally can’t afford. They will either use a food stamp card to get a few groceries along with their alcohol, or I’ll catch a glimpse of one in their wallets while they show me their ID to buy alcohol. It drives me crazy knowing that my tax dollars are going to support “fun” lifestyles. But alas! I am powerless to stop it.

The people that aren’t using food stamps for outright fraud or to continue drinking when they should be using their drinking money on food are either eating better than me or buying their children junk food. There seems to be no middle ground. Practically every swipe of the food stamp card would be what a reasonable person would deem misuse.

These billions of dollars in food stamps are also being used to support retail profits. I would propose a “government store” as an alternative so that this wouldn’t have to be the case, but if the government ran a grocery store, everything in it would cost 3 times as much as it would in a for-profit, private store.

If any liberals caught wind of this blog post, they would no doubt come along and say “Well you’re focusing on the negative. A lot of people really need food stamps.” Fine. So let’s expand food banks. Give people a box of healthy, inexpensive food. Probe their lifestyles to make sure that they are living responsibly and genuinely struggling. Make them prove that they are non-drinkers, non-smokers, and non-drug users before giving them food. Don’t simply ask for income, number of kids, plug those numbers into a formula and say “Here ya go!” Don’t allow people to buy brand names, trendy organic nonsense, and filet mignon. That’s insanity.

Think I’m full of crap? Ask any grocery store cashier. They will back me up.

← Older Entries