Shocked!…Not Really

I should be used to the selective memory of Joe Scarborough and other conservatives when they are outraged by a story accusing the Obama Administration of spying on its citizens.  The Guardian broke a story about the National Security Agency (NSA) collecting all of Verizon’s phone records under a top secret court order.  I bet if we wait a little longer, we will find out that all the telecommunications industries have cooperated with the government. And if we polled it,people wouldn't care.This story will benefit those who like to keep the pot stirring, and will tie this  to the IRS, and Benghazi so-called scandals and for good measure throw in an Obamacare scare.

Let's go back a few years and all of those of you that know me, have read where I have railed against this intrusive practice for a long time. I wrote a blog about being disappointed in presidential candidate  Barrack Obama voting for  legislation granting legal immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated with the Bush administration’s program of wiretapping without warrants.  While it's true that this program now goes through the FISA Court, Congress, and the Supreme Court, doesn't make it any more right for me. The program gathers all the digits from the telephone number but does not get the content. If a terrorist blows up a hotel in Italy and leaves behind a cell phone  or a telephone number on a napkin, we would, then be able to trace back that number to a customer in the United States.  It's all right there in the Patriot  Act which gets renewed in a bipartisan manner. To act shocked or to try to use this for political purposes is shameful. Did a candidate Obama run against the Bush policy? Of course, he did and in many ways he has doubled down on a few of them, and he should be called out on it but nothing will change unless Congress repeals the Patriot Act.

Democrats, progressives, and liberals have to accept the fact that President Obama now owns our foreign policy. The president has put in his people in all the key positions, so good or bad, it’s officially the Obama Doctrine.

I wonder if anyone who thinks the IRS controversy amounts to anything but a case of questionable labeling read the  excellent column by Will Durst in this morning’s Advocate? How about the article on page B5, titled “Conflicting IRS Rules Confuse All?” I’m afraid some read the first paragraph, found out it contradicted their opinion, so they went on to something else. The reader does not have to agree with the article, but they could at least share the points where they disagree and give their opinions or better yet, argue the merits or intent behind the law..

There are so many myths that are taken for fact. I got out of my recliner last night to applaud Lawrence O’Donnell  for some points he made. OK, I symbolically got out of my chair. Anyway, he went after Tennessee Congressman Stephen Fincher, who wants to make drastic cuts to the food stamp program. Congressman Fincher has received millions in government assistance in the form of farm subsidies.  As Lawrence pointed out, only in American can a farmer/legislator sit a committee to benefit himself. It didn’t stop there;Congressman Fincher quoted scripture to justify cutting the food stamp program by saying into the congressional record. “the one unwilling to work shall not eat.” To which Lawrence replied, "what jobs would you have the children, elderly and disabled perform?" However, more importantly he gave the proper context of that passage. 

How long are we going to allow problems to persist because we are unwilling to accept that we may not always be right? Just this morning,Fox’s Ed Henry asked  Jay Carney why Susan Rice was appointed to head the NSA after being mired in the Benghazi scandal. Jay Carney said"And I welcome the opportunity to correct the record, especially for some news outlets who persist in misrepresenting the facts."

Buying Junk Food With Food Stamps

I still can’t get over the fact that some people scrutinize other people’s shopping basket looking for food stamp fraud. Do they pick a minority in front of them before peeking or do they check everyone as a routine habit? I’m not a regular shopper, so I wouldn’t know what fancy frozen vegetables are. I don’t like to shop,so if I’m in a grocery line,I don’t want small talk from the cashier nor do I look to see what some people are purchasing and how they are paying.

First, I wouldn’t particularly mind if the government  changed their rules to force a healthier choice for food stamp recipients because it would help the overall problem of nutrition and health care.  I can remember Michelle Obama getting vilified by the right, when she tried to make people aware of the benefits of eating healthy.  I get it ,it's not government intrusion if it's imposed on poor people.

A Victoria online forum poster, Denise Scott has the right to get angry when she sees a violation of the food stamp laws, but she doesn't get to make stuff up.  Cashiers at grocery stores who take food stamps go through a school to learn what can or cannot be purchased with food stamps.  The grocery stores do not want to lose their food stamp license.  Every cashier knows that food stamp recipients cannot buy cigarettes, beer and household items, and they make sure that the camera that’s watching them doesn't see an illegal transaction taking place.  If a violation takes place outside the camera's view, then it's up to people like Denise to tell someone, if she wants to stop fraud.  I think companies take a lot of steps to make sure they are in compliance because one citizen’s complaint will alert the authorities;not to mention the bad PR.

The poster pointed out an illegal food stamp profiteering scenario by Wal-Mart and H-E-B without offering any proof.  In 2012, the government spent $103 billion for food stamps, and CBO predicts that the $110 billion will be spent this year.  The money from food stamps goes to pay the grocer and  stimulates the economy  because the money will be spent to pay employees, truck drivers and farmers, so they can pay their taxes.  When employment is at normal levels, food stamp recipients decrease and those people start paying income taxes. Again, I don't think those companies will jeopardize their license or their reputation for a few bucks.

If we're trying to make a case that some human beings will take advantage of a worthwhile program; point taken but that's throughout society, not just government assistance recipients.  We'll always have that slave mentality when it comes to government assistance.  It's like when we criticize our brother –in- law for buying a six- pack after we just lent him $500 because he was  laid off.  We tell ourselves that we're helping our sister and the children,  so we have to criticize their lifestyles.  I’ll say it again; for the most part, people would rather work and fend for themselves than have people look down at them. They can also avoid those who are  always trying to control all aspects of their lives because they are the ward of someone's ear marked tax money.  That's how some people are.

Some people would like to see all welfare recipients be drug tested.  I could use the pro gun slippery slope logic and say what's next;all those who receive government contracts need to be drug tested? That’s been tried and only 2% of those tested were found to be drug users.

Now I got that out the way and I feel a lot better.