Why Attack the Poor?

I shouldn't be surprised because I've seen and read about the ignorance of attacking the indigent in these precarious times. During the 1929 Great Depression, the poverty-stricken farmers were the scapegoats instead of the big banks who had a great role in bringing down our financial system. I wouldn't mind it so much if the claims of millions of able-bodied men too lazy to go to work were true and backed by documented facts. The information I get by reading our local paper and our online forum is equivalent to neighborhood gossip. A couple of back -to- back letters indicate that hard-working Republicans are supporting democratic leaning ingrates with their tax dollars. There's even one neighborhood Jezebel, who has six kids and is clamoring for more just to receive more government money. How many times have I heard stories like that before?

The truth is Democrats aren't as anxious as their Republican counterparts to make drastic cuts on entitlements and social programs. Those programs are in need of reform and reasonable cuts, but it shouldn't be at the expense of giving tax cuts to the wealthy. That doesn't make economic or moral sense. I do know that we should heed to the warnings of the Congressional Budget Office about the fiscal cliff that we are approaching. We will go back into a recession if we insist on the $500 billion in tax increases and spending cuts set to hit in January. Those are the issues we should be concentrating on instead of constantly hammering the poor.

There certainly is some waste in the SNAP (food stamps) program, which comes out to $176 million but that's just 0.0444% of the $400 billion total waste of government dollars. We are a wasteful nation; we throw away 40% of our food supply, which amounts to $165 billion every year. That's the reason I can never understand why some people are totally against child nutrition programs and free school lunches. Do we want to punish the children, so we can send a lesson to possible irresponsible adults? I would rather error on the side of compassion, especially after seeing what we throw away.

Our country was hemorrhaging jobs at the rate of 500,000 to 750,000 a month before President Obama ever took office, so why is it surprising that the costs of food stamps went from $17 billion to $76 billion during the recession? Are we supposed to believe that John McCain would have kept the food stamps cost at $17 billion during the recession? 46 million Americans are on the SNAP program and 87% of those are seniors, single moms and children, so that leaves about 6 million of our fellow Americans vulnerable to being called lazy able-bodied people living off the government dole. Those people have to be careful because they're being scrutinized because their neighbors are probably reading their mail to come up with their assumptions. That's funny because a government check is a government check; there are no known ways of how to tell if they are SSI checks, Social Security or a tax refund. I wonder if the busybodies know the difference between their primitive mythology and actual facts. I will admit that I don't have any substantial facts to back up my assumption that people would rather work for a living at a decent wage then depend on something that's neither permanent nor guaranteed.

I've been told many times that it's the role of the church's and individuals to give a helping hand to the poor, not the government. That's good in theory; in fact ideal but a lot  of poor children would starve waiting on that to happen, and statistics bear that out. A 2011 IRS report reveled that “In 2008, the IRS says, Americans wrote off $172.9-billion in charitable contributions, a 10.6-percent drop from 2007. Its estimates for 2009, released this month, project a 14-percent drop, to $148.6-billion."

http://philanthropy.com/article/Americans-Gave-a-Lot-Less-in/127244/

I won't pretend that this blog will generate a good discussion about public policy, the role of government, or the safety net because people are locked in their own beliefs. It doesn't really matter whether it's 1929 or 2012. My opponents on this subject will call me a statist because I'm not in lockstep with their beliefs. I believe that government definitely has a role as a policeman in some cases, but frequently it's mostly about being the equalizer. I love the idea of entrepreneurs building their business from the ground up, but I don't look down at them if they take advantage of a government grant or a preferable loan rate for start-ups. I don't believe that we will get out of our economic doldrums without the help of government because the free market corporations are not stepping up. I saw a group of Romney supporters at one of his political events wearing tee shirts, with “I built this business" across the front. Do those people suffer from an inferiority complex that they need to be reminded of their accomplishments every day? If you're really that great you don't have to toot your own horn; others will gladly do it.

This blog will take the place of my occasional “Saturday Rant" blog because I'll be out of town tomorrow...I hope everyone enjoys their weekend.

We're constantly playing Whac-A-Mole

I first became acquainted with that phrase when John McCain used to describe our efforts in Iraq that way. Today, it's about the constant social issues that keep coming up and won't go away.

MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell had a segment on last night about a gay person being denied Holy Communion at the funeral services of her mother. As always, the priest announced that only church members in a “state of grace would be allowed to receive Holy Communion at the funeral mass for 85 year-old Loretta Johnson. When Loretta Johnson's gay daughter, Barbara Johnson,went up to receive the communion bread and wine, the priest put his hand over the body of Christ and looked up at her and said” I can't give you communion because you live with a woman and in the eyes of the church that is a sin.” The archdiocese of Washington D.C. Stated in their letter of apology; that the priest should've handled the issue privately without inflicting embarrassment on the daughter and those who were there to mourn the deceased. It should've never been made a spectacle.

If it would've ended there, it would not have been a story but doing the eulogy when daughter Barbara Jordan was speaking ,the priest made a spectacle of himself by walking off the altar in full view of the attendees. He later told the funeral director that he had a splitting headache and would not be able to conduct the burial services. I cannot imagine how I would feel if we were headed for the burial services expecting the rituals, which is one of the steps in the grieving process and instead being left with uncertainty. Thankfully, the funeral director was able to find a retired priest who had no qualms about fulfilling his duty.

As I said at the beginning, the Catholic Archdiocese issued a full apology  because the priest did not follow protocol. Father Marcel Guarnizo had to know the consequences of his actions. He took it upon himself to interpret the true intent of church dogma but failed to realize the embarrassment and even more grief he was putting on the family and friends of the deceased.

Today, I'm seeing our legislators enacting abortion laws as if we're having a serious abortion epidemic. Mississippi defeated a “person-hood bill” but that did not deter Alabama from producing one of their own  “person-hood” bill. I can’t remember what state it is (I believe it’s Virginia) where a woman can avoid the intrusive sonogram before she gets an abortion, if she can produce a police report. Can you imagine the thinking that went into making that exception? I remember during the health care squabble, when Senator Jon Kyl(R-AZ) did not think that he should be required to pay premiums to help finance maternity costs, since he has never needed maternity care. Senator Stabenow calmly observed, “I think your mom did.”

It’s not Christianity or religion that’s being put on trial here but it’s on those who interpret the true meaning of such.