"I am Tony Montana, a political refugee, and I want my food stamps, just like Barack Obama promised me."
It has come to this.
Now Daily Caller informs us that our government is partnering with the Mexican government to spread the good news about food stamps.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/19/usda-partnering-with-mexico-to-boost-food-stamp-participation/
"Nutritional Assistance"
Since when do we need the Mexican government to help us inform Mexican-Americans about accessing food stamps in the US? What an insult to Mexican-Americans.
"Hispanic families add to the vibrant diversity of US society and contribute significantly to our cultural melting pot. In 2008, 15 percent of the U.S. population was Hispanic and 24 percent of U.S. population was under age 18. Latino families are much more likely to live in poverty and experience food insecurity than white non-Hispanic households."
Pandering aside, I have no disagreement with that statement, but I would argue that taxpayers (of all ethnic groups) who are funding this program are contributing more than food stamp recipients.
But is it really Mexican-Americans that this idea is directed at? I doubt it. It is designed to "spread the wealth around to all" as President Obama told Joe the Plumber in 2008. Even illegal aliens can enjoy the benefits of food stamps.
If you want to limit the criticism to the USDA, which when I was in government, was the largest bureaucracy in Washington, you could say that this is designed to justify their jobs and positions by getting as many people as possible into the program. On a larger scale, it sure makes sense politically for the administration to get as many people as possible on government assistance in order to gain more votes.
Maybe Obama and his minions should provide food stamps to Greece, Spain and Portugal as well. After all, Obama wants to have the U.S. as part of the "world community", governed by the U.N. I am sure that Harold Koh would love this idea.
ReplyDeleteSquid
Just further examples (as if we needed them) of, among other things, becoming more and more of an “entitlement” society as well as vote pandering. Keep in mind, for example, that it was libs/Dems/lefties who were out and about in vans during recent election(s), picking up homeless transients and paying them, at least with cigarettes if nothing else (I did not actually see any booze or money pass, but who knows for sure??), to be taken by van to go “instantly” register and vote.
ReplyDeleteConsider this. If I am not mistaken, unemployment benefits in Washngton State run something like $500.00 per week. This translates, of course, to something like having a job making about $12.50 per hour (significantly above minimum wage) for actually doing nothing at all. Add to this access to any other available free social programs (food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, ADC, whatever), and it adds up quickly.
And if two individuals in the same household can draw unemployment (and I admittedly do not know if they can or not, but I would bet they can, at least under some conditions), why then total effective annual family income will easily at least equal, even exceed, both the national average and median income for a “working” family of four. Again, all for doing nothing.
Point is that except for personal initiative, not only is there no incentive for these people to go back to work at a job paying anything less than these benefits, there is in fact a disincentive to do so, and a lot of them will not do so until absolutely necessary (Siarlys is an apparent exception, but he does not live in Washington State, either). In addition, it is usually fairly simple to “game” the various systems, all of which makes these programs much more expensive than they really need to be.
As far as “spreading the wealth”, I and just about everybody I know has no heartburn at all with paying taxes for social programs as safety nets, but I for one do not believe they are, or for that matter were ever intended to be, or should be, vehicles for a permanent status or a way of life. If they do become permanent, whether for a very few, or the many, of the unproductive, they should provide subsistence only. Otherwise, as noted above, there are no incentives to work, which is at least partially the reason much of our society is where it is today, thanks primarily to those afore-and-hereafter mentionedlibs/Dems/lefties.
It is outrageous, however, that many/most libs/Dems/lefties in general, and most certainly the current crop in power in particular, are hell-bent on taking from the “more fortunate” (not necessarily only the “rich”, and how about using the more accurate terms energetic/responsible/productive) and giving to the non-producers such that the circumstances of each are equalized insofar as it is possible to do so. It is my belief that while government may, probably even should, guarantee equality of opportunity, it has no business in similarly guaranteeing equality of result or outcome.
If I managed to multiple post here once again, please forgive me.
ReplyDeletequadrupled, in fact, but you are forgiven.
ReplyDelete