Of course: Republicans “just want people to starve…”

Pointing out the solely liberal phenomenon of casting any-and-all disagreement as “hate”, or some other similarly maximized pejorative, is hardly a new thought, I admit.

The examples are legion: in Salon, or the DailyKos, or simply tune into MSNBC on virtually any night of the week, and you’ll get a bellyful of it. Worse, they are simply voicing the same opinion (and often echoing the same language) as elected liberal Democrats in Congress, who seem to delight in ascribing the most horrific intentions to anyone who dares disagree with their policy goals.

Jerry Nadler  (Democrat – NY)

But this is an especially perfect example: Democrat Representative Jerry Nadler of New York, who was recently asked about his “No” vote on the Farm Bill:

A Great First Step: Voting Down the bloated, pork-laden Farm Bill

I’m reminded of the old phrase attributed to the Chinese philosopher Lao-tzu:

“A Journey of a Thousand Miles begins with a Single Step“

Whether most folks are aware of it or not, our nation just took that rather halting and awkward step.

Almost exactly a year ago, I had a fairly lengthy post titled “Food Stamp Fraud & Abuse: Business As Usual“, detailing the rampant waste, excessive pork and flat-out wrongheadedness in the so-called ‘Farm Bill’, and its unnamed-yet-primary component: Food Stamps, now known as SNAP. 

It appears that in the last twelve months, some of our politicians actually listened to their constituents, and (amazingly) managed to vote down this year’s bill.

“ENTITLEMENTS” – Another press conference with Mr. Virtual President

“Mr. Virtual President” has returned, and today he’s discussing one of the most troubling issues that we have: Entitlements. 

We’ve come a long way from our country’s beginnings in this area. Self-sufficiency was once a uniform point of pride for our citizenry, a virtue that didn’t begin to deteriorate until the advent of Social Security. And then the floodgates opened: Medicare and Medicaid; SSDI, Food Stamps, and widow’s benefits being paid out to unmarried mothers. Unemployment. And on, and on…

Though allegedly done out of compassion, the result was easily predicted: a nation in staggering debt. Worse, we now have individual and generational dependency upon the Government at an all-time high.

Hardly a “Great Society“.

A President who honestly believed in the capability and capacity of the American people, and had the strength of his own convictions, would take steps to correct this. And the very first step would be to honestly discuss it, as is seen below:

Election 2012: the Growth of Government and how (and why) it must be stopped

Since we’re in the middle of Debate Season, I went back into the archives and found a post which I think may be important to keep in mind. 

Big Government is what we’re really deciding this year. If Obama gets four more years, at this rate it won’t just be Big (or even Bigger) Government, it’ll be Monstrous, Godzilla-sized Government. If Romney wins, and IF we then hold both him and Ryan accountable, …our Federal Government may just get the gastric bypass surgery it so desperately needs, before it eats itself to death. 

The challenge, of course, is government itself. It grows: that’s simply what governments do.

Read this post from earlier this year and let me know if you agree. 

—–

The Inexorable ‘Ratchet of Government’

–by justturnright;   (Published on: Jun 9, 2012 @ 13:01) 

In the Huffington Post several years ago, a pro-health-care blogger posited:

“Change is a math formula: C=Co(SQ)>R(C). The formula reads: Change happens when the cost of the status quo is greater than the risk of change.”

At the time, the author was using this to argue for the Healthcare law. His application actually pointed out the fallacy in his formula: what he was changing to wasn’t adequately defined. Remember, we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. I think the formula may work, however, IF the change is a return to a previous, known data point (e.g. “do we stay, or do we go back“?).

Say, for instance, in the spending on Food Stamps. From the Daily Caller:

The vast majority of federal spending in the Senate farm bill, which is  estimated to cost over $100 billion annually, is going toward food stamps,  representing a 100 percent increase since President Barack Obama took office,  according to Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions.

“The legislation will spend $82 billion on food stamps next year, $82 billion and an estimated $770 billion over the next ten years. So, to put these figures  in perspective, and they’re so large it’s difficult to comprehend, we will spend next year $40 billion on the federal highway program,” said Sessions, the  ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

“Food stamp spending has more than quadrupled, four times, it’s increased fourfold since the year 2001. It has increased 100 percent since President Obama took office,” he said.

Even though he has worsened this trend, we can’t lay all of this at Obama’s feet. What Mark Steyn likes to refer to as the inexorable ‘ratchet’ effect of government is a bi-partisan effort. In much the same way that water always seeks its own level, government always seeks to grow larger.

Always.

From budget.senate.gov:

“While the poor economy has undeniably increased the number of people on food stamps, this alone cannot explain the extraordinary growth in the program. For instance, between 2001 and 2006, food stamp spending doubled—but the unemployment rate remained around five percent.” (**which qualifies as full employment – JTR)

Three factors help explain this extraordinary increase.

–The first is that eligibility standards have been loosened over time, with a dramatic drop in eligibility standards in the last few years.

—Second, it has been the explicit policy goal of the federal bureaucracy to increase the number of people on food stamps—bonus pay is even offered to those states who sign more people up.

–And third, the way the system is arranged—with states administering the program but the feds paying for it—states have an incentive to see their food stamp budgets swell, not shrink. That means overlooking a dramatic amount of fraud and abuse.

There is no question that food stamps help some truly needy families. But there is even less question that this program is being abused like an 8-yr-old at a blackjack table.

—–

Take a look at THIS chart: when you think “Farm Bill”, aren’t you picturing stuff that has to do with, oh, I don’t know, …farms?

GBL wrote about this the other day, arriving at the same conclusion: this program, regardless of its original good intentions, has become corrupted far in excess of anyone’s worst nightmares. And this is just one example of countless such abuses.

—–

What needs to happen, what must happen, is plain for anyone who is willing to see. It’s the change formula which I referenced at the beginning. The cost of the status quo is the ever-increasing levels of dependency of our country upon our government. The change is means testing and strict controls for Food Stamp eligibility, rather than the awarding of Stamps being an end unto itself.

The conclusion from budget.senate.gov sums it up perfectly:

“We need to re-establish the moral principle that federal welfare should be seen as temporary assistance, NOT permanent support. The goal should be to help people become independent and self-sufficient.

Such reforms, made sincerely and with concern for those in need, will improve America’s social, fiscal, and economic health.”

The inexorable Ratchet of Government

In the Huffington Post several years ago, a pro-health-care blogger posited:

“Change is a math formula: C=Co(SQ)>R(C). The formula reads: Change happens when the cost of the status quo is greater than the risk of change.”

At the time, the author was using this to argue for the Healthcare law. His application actually pointed out the fallacy in his formula: what he was changing to wasn’t adequately defined. Remember, we had to pass the bill to find out what was in it. I think the formula could work, however, IF the change is a return to a previous, known data point (e.g. “do we stay, or do we go back“?).

Say, for instance, in the spending on Food Stamps. From the Daily Caller:

The vast majority of federal spending in the Senate farm bill, which is  estimated to cost over $100 billion annually, is going toward food stamps,  representing a 100 percent increase since President Barack Obama took office,  according to Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions.

“The legislation will spend $82 billion on food stamps next year, $82 billion and an estimated $770 billion over the next ten years. So, to put these figures  in perspective, and they’re so large it’s difficult to comprehend, we will spend next year $40 billion on the federal highway program,” said Sessions, the  ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

“Food stamp spending has more than quadrupled, four times, it’s increased fourfold since the year 2001. It has increased 100 percent since President Obama  took office,” he said.

Even though he has worsened this trend, we can’t lay all of this at Obama’s feet. What Mark Steyn likes to refer to as the inexorable ‘ratchet’ effect of government is a bi-partisan effort. In much the same way that water always seeks its own level, government always seeks to grow larger.

Always.

From budget.senate.gov:

“While the poor economy has undeniably increased the number of people on food stamps, this alone cannot explain the extraordinary growth in the program. For instance, between 2001 and 2006, food stamp spending doubled—but the unemployment rate remained around five percent.” (**which qualifies as full employment – JTR)

Three factors help explain this extraordinary increase.

–The first is that eligibility standards have been loosened over time, with a dramatic drop in eligibility standards in the last few years.

—Second, it has been the explicit policy goal of the federal bureaucracy to increase the number of people on food stamps—bonus pay is even offered to those states who sign more people up.

–And third, the way the system is arranged—with states administering the program but the feds paying for it—states have an incentive to see their food stamp budgets swell, not shrink. That means overlooking a dramatic amount of fraud and abuse.

There is no question that food stamps help some truly needy families. But there is even less question that this program is being abused like an 8-yr-old at a blackjack table.

Take a look at THIS chart: when you think “Farm Bill”, aren’t you picturing stuff that has to do with, oh, I don’t know, …farms?

GBL wrote about this the other day, arriving at the same conclusion: this program, regardless of its original good intentions, has become corrupted far in excess of anyone’s worst nightmares. And this is just one example of countless such abuses.

—–

What needs to happen, what must happen, is plain for anyone who is willing to see. It’s the change formula which I referenced at the beginning. The cost of the status quo is the ever-increasing levels of dependency of our country upon our government. The change is means testing and strict controls for Food Stamp eligibility, rather than the awarding of Stamps being an end unto itself.

The conclusion from budget.senate.gov sums it up perfectly:

“We need to re-establish the moral principle that federal welfare should be seen as temporary assistance, not permanent support. The goal should be to help people become independent and self-sufficient.

Such reforms, made sincerely and with concern for those in need, will improve America’s social, fiscal, and economic health.”

Welfare Reform…a tiny first step

This is a follow up to my post awhile back in which I lamented that welfare reform is difficult because it will negatively affect a class of people who have no say in the matter and who are not at fault:  namely, the children.

Once again, a mundane event spurs me to think about the Big Picture…my younger son and I were shopping at our local supermarket yesterday.  He’s been in the workforce some years now, buys much of his own food and is more aware than he used to be.  He was there to buy sweet corn for a pot luck that evening.  It was a good sale: 6 ears for $1.   I’m grateful that our grocery stores here have begun providing a place for shucking the corn  and disposing of the husks, right there in the produce aisle, so that one can take home ready-to-cook sweet corn.   Adam and I were husking his dozen ears when an older woman walked up.  She looked at the sign, looked at the corn, muttered something about, “Oh, you have to clean it yourself.  I’m not gonna do that.”  Then she picked up a shrink-wrapped package of already cleaned ears–which were two and a half times more expensive–and walked away.

Put WHO in the zoo?

[Note:  Although “two heads are better than one,” my brother has been ably holding down the fort “single-headedly” for the past two weeks.  I’m hoping to have more of a presence here in future.  Today’s post is an apt illustration of the fact that fodder for blogs can be found anywhere…]

One of my granddaughter Lucy’s favorite books is Put Me In the Zoo, the story of a fantastical creature with large spots which change shape and color.  He visits the zoo, sees the animals being groomed and fed and generally pampered, and wonders why he can’t live there, too.

Lucy loves animals and I was counting the days last month until our local zoo opening.  We’ve visited at least five times so far…including twice this week.

We are fortunate to live in the same town as the Fort Wayne Children’s Zoo, which has been voted one of the ten best zoos in the country.  With a huge African Journey section, (which includes a herd of giraffes that come to a viewing station where we can actually feed them!); Indonesian Rain Forest (tigers and orangutans, among other delights); Australian Adventure (walk-through aviary and kangaroo areas); and model Indiana Farm, this zoo is not only beautiful but focuses intentionally on educating all its visitors.