I have had a number of people ask me “Why are you so involved in politics?” and “Why don’t you run for something?”
The answer to the first question is that I am as involved and active as I can be primarily because I feel personally threatened by what is going on at both Federal and state levels. For the first time in my lifetime, I am not optimistic that my children and grandchildren will have as good a life as I have had. Let me offer a simple way to think about it.
Spending is more fun than cutting.
I have had the opportunity over my career to manage some relatively large projects, both the kind that involve spending large amounts of money and the kind that involve cutting jobs, closing factories and restructuring. Cuts are painful. Spending is fun.
Put these thoughts into a political context and much of what is going on becomes clear. Politicians (of BOTH parties) love to spend money, take credit for the programs and use them to convince you to vote for them. Once a spending program is launched, it immediately creates a constituency that will fight very hard to keep that program going. Think about Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps. Yes, there are some benefits to these programs but the cumulative costs of expanding their constituencies and benefits (buying more and more votes) have now put the entire U.S. economy into real danger. This same simple principle is what drives the crisis in Europe and may prevent them from avoiding a complete meltdown.
That’s why I feel threatened.
Many folks agree with me. After the President overturned the work requirements of the popular welfare-reform law, a recent survey by Rasmussen revealed that these requirements had been quite popular: 83 percent of adults favoring work requirements with only 7 percent opposing them.
HHS Secretary Sebelius explained that the administration gutted the work requirement in order to increase work. However, the HHS has accepted waivers to reduce work, but has not accepted any policies that increase work and the agency stated that it will not approve policy initiatives that are "likely to reduce access to aid."
The government runs over 80 means-tested welfare programs and roughly one third of the population receives benefits.
Total welfare spending in 2011 rose to $927 billion in 2011.
A study found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits. Additionally, 57 percent of all Mexican immigrants are on welfare.
See the attached chart. Over 100 million people in the U.S. are now receiving some form of Federal welfare. Our country is entering very dangerous territory financially.
Keep this in mind as you weather the onslaught of campaign commercials on both sides. The phrase “end Medicare as we know it” is inevitable no matter who wins. The hard truth is that “Medicare as we know it” is completely unsustainable. The only question is whether it ends by migrating it to something workable or it ends by crashing into financial meltdown.
As for why I don’t run for something: I would make a terrible politician. First, I can’t remember names very well, a deadly fault for a politician. Second, I have extreme difficulty not telling the blunt truth as I see it. Third, I have difficulty compromising, especially on issues of principle. Fourth, I have little patience with the political manipulations that most members of our General Assembly or of Congress find necessary to “get along”.
I believe I can make a much better contribution by doing my best to bring attention to basic facts and logic and hopefully motivating some of you to get off the couch and get engaged in the process.
For more info see the Wall Street Journal article... http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424052702303644004577525253742799344-lMyQjAxMTAyMDAwMzEwNDMyWj.html?mod=wsj_valetbottom_email By the way, in 2005, the Republican Governors Association requested such waivers. See this letter signed by, among others, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Jeb Bush, Tim Pawlenty, Jon Huntsman, Mitch Daniels, and Rick Perry... http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/08/prg052605a-41.pdf
These pols suck the juice like they're entitled to it or something. In point of fact, they are entitled to nothing more than a decent wage for a decent day's work. Anything beyond that is opportunistic. Nothing more. Thanks for your comment.
One of the 'provisions' of his change is that states getting waivers have to put in place some system to measure and verify compliance. But there is obviously a lag time between getting the waiver, and getting a monitoring system in place that actually works. In the meantime, there could be plenty of abuse of the system, hence the charge of 'gutting' the law...
Stop Congressional Entitlements!!
In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. We can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work.Obama gutted not only the program but what constitutes work. The Problem with the 20% Work Increase Requirement By requiring states to increase Welfare work participation by 20% and removing the federal definition of what constitutes work, the administration is encouraging states to add non-work activities so they can hit the increased target. Getting 20% more recipients to perform activities will require states to get creative in order to receive their share of more than $16 Billion in federal subsidies. One can expect art classes, group therapy and workouts at the gym to be included before long.
"Section 1115 of TANF does give the Secretary of Health and Human Services the ability to grant waivers to states for requirements in the law. The hitch is that HHS may only waive requirements listed in section 1115, which the work requirement is not. The work requirement and definitions are listed in section 407 which means that waivers may not be granted under the section 1115 authority. These requirements were put in a separate section specifically to prevent this kind of maneuvering." "By dictatorial edict, President Obama has illegally gutted President Clinton’s Welfare Reform. He hasn’t directly redefined the work requirements, but by granting the states waivers and demanding higher participation, he has guaranteed that states will game the system and individually weaken existing work requirements directly in contradiction to the intent of the law."
Here's and excerpt. "HHS responded that Romney, as governor of Massachusetts, sought a waiver from federal work requirements in 2005. In support of this concoction, the Administration provided a letter from Romney and 28 other Republican governors to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R–TN) from that year. But this letter makes no mention at all of waiving work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. In fact, the legislation promoted in the letter—the Personal Responsibility and Individual Development for Everyone (PRIDE) Act—actually would have toughened the federal work standards. It proposed raising the mandatory participation rates imposed on states from 50 percent to 70 percent of the adult TANF caseload and increasing the hours of required work activity. The governors’ letter actually contradicts the Administration’s main argument: If the law has always permitted HHS to waive the work requirements, then why didn’t the governors just request waivers from then-President George W. Bush? Why would legislation be needed?" http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/19/obama-administration-rebuffs-congressional-inquiry-on-legality-of-gutting-welfare-reform/
If Obama had the power to retract ANY part of this bill, why did it have to be passed by Congress in the 1st place? Obama is positioning Congress to be irrelevant, and--until lately--a constant critic of the Supreme Court. Why? He wants them neutralized and neutered so he can "rule" (their word) by Executive Order fiat. If we keep down this path and reelect Obama, there is no telling what our country will look like in less than 4 years. What I DO know is, it won't be on the side of freedom. (BTW: Do you ever hear Obama speak of freedom? Nope!).
Part 2 Yes he did take out the work requirements which were written into the bill and replaced it by local government opinion with a carrot and stick. Make up this number of we'll cut your funding. Did you see some of the things they are proposing now as work? It's insulting. By the way, did you hear about the APS test cheating scandal. The federal government told them to make improvements in test scores. They sure did - by cheating. I'm sure that would NEVER happen in this case though ( tongue firmly planted in cheek).
Obama cuts the $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for Obamacare, not to extend the life of Medicare. You cant count the same dollar twice. Medicare’s demise will be hastened by the cuts. Romney’s plan is to repeal Obamacare, thereby returning that $716 billion to Medicare. Then using current funding the plan is to transition future generations to insurance plans ensuring Medicare’s viability into the future.
Glad someone has the true facts.
That someone would be the Truthseeker. Keep up the good work, TS!
You are obviously ignorant of what the Ryan plan is. How convenient for you to quote the exact same dollar amount in both plans. Golly gee what a coincidence! The truth about the Ryan plan. 1) No one over the age of 55 would be affected in any way. 2) Traditional Medicare fee-for-service would remain AVAILABLE FOR ALL WHO WANT IT. 'Premium support' -- that is, government funding of private insurance plans chosen by individuals -- is an OPTION for those who choose it. No senior would be forced out of the traditional Medicare program against his will. If Obama and Obamacare are fully implemented, CURRENT recipients are up the creek. Did you know a panel of 15 un-elected bureaucrats will determine how to dole out what money is left in a program that is projected to go bankrupt in 11 years (earlier if Obamacare is not repealed)? 3) Overall funding for Medicare under the Ryan-Wyden plan is scheduled to grow at the same rate as under President Obama’s proposals. WITHOUT the Obamacare cuts.
CBPP was recently cited as a neutral authority by Mitt Romney himself, but you won’t hear that on FOX. While you are examining these facts you may want to peruse the column on the right to get more useful FACTS about Paul Ryan’s plans! Blatant Right-Wing Lie about Obama “stealing from Medicare” cuts exposed here: http://www.offthechartsblog.org/health-reform-strengthens-medicare-doesnt-rob-it/ Medicare in the Ryan budget: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3731 Mitt Romney’s Budget plan for America: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3658 Of course you are probably part of the 2% that benefit from these extreme and draconian policy proposals – if that is the case I am wasting my time. However, the chance of that is slight, so I will put this out there for any other American that may be consumed or bombarded with “one liner” and “bumper sticker” politics - or worse yet informed by FAUX NEWS (Fox) or your comments. So, turn off FOX and Limbaugh, and spend the weekend reading – I will!
However, I find it hard to believe that the Welfare Program was developed as a way to "buy votes" as you suggest. Statistics tell us that the poor are among the least likely groups to even be registerd to vote, not to mention actually vote on an election day. And, besides, if anyone could find a way to "buy votes," don't you know the Republicans would be all over it by now?