I've been thinking a great deal about poverty lately, specifically its causes as well as what our obligations are (both personal and societal) to alleviate it.
This is a dicey subject to address for two reasons. First, because of our current economy, there are many people who are a heck of a lot poorer than they were two years ago. And second, any time someone addresses the issue of poverty, except from a leftist position, they are automatically labeled as cruel, unfeeling, lacking in compassion, and the usual plethora of criticism – without consideration as to whether the arguments have any merit or not.
The reason this issue came up was because of a recent comment on my blog entry "The Ant and the Grasshopper."
I had posted one of those humorous modern-twist rewrites of Aesop's classic fable circulating around the Internet. Most of the readers got a chuckle out of it.
But someone took exception to our amusement and accused us of not being Christian because we preferred the original moral of the story ("Be Responsible for Yourself").
This poses an interesting question. To what extent are we socially, morally and ethically responsible for others? At what point do the Ants share their hard-earned resources with the Grasshoppers? And is it ethical to force the Ants to distribute their resources to the Grasshoppers at the point of a gun? What responsibility do the Grasshoppers have in their own fate?
Let's make one thing clear: In Aesop's fable, what distinguishes the Ant from the Grasshopper is a work ethic. Nothing more, nothing less. The Grasshopper is not down on his luck while the Ant is busy storing food. He is not ill, or handicapped, or in debt, or out of work, or any other hardship an insect might face which would keep him from working toward a secure future for himself. The resources are freely available to both insects. Nothing – nothing whatsoever – is preventing the Grasshopper from getting his rear in gear and storing food for the winter – except an attitude problem.
Yet according to the critic, we should not presume to call ourselves Christian because the Bible admonishes us to love our neighbor as ourselves. The selfish Ant should share his food with the poor helpless Grasshopper regardless of what caused the Grasshopper to get into his predicament in the first place.
So, since I am clearly a flawed Christian unable to appreciate the finer points of loving my neighbor, I need to know to what extent the Grasshopper is called upon to provide for himself before the Ant steps in to keep him from starving in the cold of winter.
Is the Ant required to applaud the Grasshopper's idleness, then uncomplainingly feed him during the winter? Does God smile upon the idle Grasshopper receiving the Ant's hard-earned resources without requiring anything of the Grasshopper in return?
Perhaps. Certainly Jesus died for both the Ants and the Grasshoppers of this world. Not one single one of us – Ants or Grasshoppers – are worthy of such a sacrifice, but He did it anyway.
However I don't believe that releases us from our obligation to try our best to provide for ourselves.
Many of us in this economy are poorer than we were before the downturn due to credit crunches, medical bills, unemployment, inflation, and other unavoidable situations. These people are not Grasshoppers. They are just down on their luck, something that happens to Ants and Grasshoppers alike.
I wish – oh how I wish – people could grasp this very basic concept: No one objects to helping others get back on their feet when they're down. Most of us consider it a privilege, a duty and a pleasure to help those who are down on their luck.
But the Grasshopper is not down on his luck due to misfortune. He simply does not have a work ethic to match the Ant's. Not only does the Grasshopper expect the Ant to help, but he refuses to help himself even when he can. Worse, our government then compels the Ant to help the Grasshopper at the point of a gun, whether the Ant wants to or not. That's when the milk of human – er, insect – kindness starts to run thin.
To forestall the firestorm of criticism undoubtedly in the works by outraged readers, I'll ask again: To what extent should able-bodied, perfectly-capable Grasshoppers be asked to provide their own resources for the winter? Or are Grasshoppers absolved from all responsibility for their own future?
And if the Ants are called upon to love their Grasshopper neighbors as themselves, why are the Grasshoppers excused from returning the sentiment? The Grasshopper, if he loved the Ant as himself, would get busy and store his own food so as not to be a burden to the poor hard-working Ant when the snow flies.
For those who accuse us Ants of un-Christian attitudes with regard to our neighbors, I'll reference a few biblical passages in support of personal responsibility, the most succinct of which is 2 Thessalonians 3:10: "… If a man will not work, he shall not eat." Note that it does not say "Can not work" but "Will not work." Big difference.
It should be obvious to anyone with an insect-sized grain of common sense that government entitlements discourage able-bodied Grasshoppers from working. And on a larger scale, I'm concerned that as more and more Grasshoppers receive the resources which are forcibly removed from the Ants, there will be fewer Ants to support the Grasshoppers.
Since the Bible is ever a handy resource for life's concerns, I'll direct the doubtful to parts of Proverbs 6:
"Go to the ant, you sluggard; consider its ways and be wise! …it stores its provisions in summer and gathers its food at harvest. How long will you lie there, you sluggard? When will you get up from your sleep? A little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to rest – and poverty will come on you like a bandit and scarcity like an armed man."
Just a thought.
Patrice Lewis is a freelance writer and the author of "The Home Craft Business: How to Make it Survive and Thrive." She is co-founder (with her husband) of a home woodcraft business. The Lewises live on 40 acres in north Idaho with their two homeschooled children, assorted livestock, and a shop that overflows into the house with depressing regularity. Visit her blog at http://www.patricelewis.blogspot.com/.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Elitist disdain - Now here is CHANGE we can use!
"According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they're ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans -- for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn't an 'electoral wave,' it's a temper tantrum." --Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson
Cheer up; it could be worse
"Turning to the U.S. economy and the latest reading on the job market for August. Employers cut 54,000 workers from their payrolls, less than what analysts had predicted. The unemployment rate ticked up a notch: 9.6 percent now as discouraged workers restarted their job search. It's a mixed picture here, but it's giving some encouragement to those who are out there looking, some who are hanging onto their jobs and their businesses by a thread." --NBC's Brian Williams
Our Nung Allies know this story all too well...
"Politically divided, committed to two wars, in a deep recession, insolvent and still stunned by the financial meltdown of 2008, our government seems paralyzed. As European socialism implodes, for some reason a new statist U.S. government wants to copy failure by taking over ever more of the economy and borrowing trillions more dollars to provide additional entitlements. As panicky old allies look for American protection, we talk of slashing our defense budget. In apologetic fashion, we spend more time appeasing confident enemies than buttressing worried friends." --historian Victor Davis Hanson
Summer of Recovery - Jobless Claims UP AGAIN!
"It's not as bad as it could've been. That, as the Labor Day weekend began, was the cold comfort that many in the media took from the still-dismal August jobs report. Can't we expect something a little better? True enough, 68,000 new private-sector jobs were created last month, showing that private businesses, though gasping for breath, aren't dead yet. But overall, 54,000 jobs disappeared, raising the toll during the 'Recovery Summer' Vice President Joe Biden ridiculously hailed two months ago to 238,000. Nor was the uptick in the unemployment rate to 9.6% from 9.5% what you expect in a 'recovery.' This is not 'better than expected'; it's worse than expected. This can be gauged not by market expectations for modest job creation, but by long-term experience watching how jobs are created in a normal recovery. By that gauge, we're in the worst jobs slump since World War II. ... If it wasn't clear to everyone by now, it should be: All the actions this government has taken -- the $700 billion TARP program, the $862 billion 'stimulus,' the health care takeover, financial reform -- haven't 'saved or created' 3.8 million jobs, as claimed. Instead, they've destroyed millions of jobs -- and with them, the hopes and dreams of those who've lost the jobs. But the administration remains clueless, hinting that it may seek another 'stimulus' costing billions. This bunch is either willfully doing damage to the U.S. economy, or completely incompetent. On Friday, the president actually patted himself on the back, saying the employment report was 'positive news' that 'reflects the steps we've already taken to break the back of this recession.' If there's one thing that marks this administration as different from others, it's the steadfast refusal to remove its ideological blinders and learn from its mistakes." --Investor's Business Daily
BATF and the Night of Terror
by Bob Lesmeister
"What are you doing in my house? Get out of my house!"
This is what Janice Hart screamed as she witnessed agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (BATF) literally tearing her home apart. What had Janice Hart done to have her house destroyed? NOTHING. BATF had the wrong house and the wrong suspect. In what has become the rule instead of the exception, BATF agents blatantly and knowingly violated Hart's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th Amendment rights. In addition, agents once again forcefully abused children in the "pursuit of their duties."
As related by Margie Boule in the Washington OREGONIAN, in the evening of February 5th Janet [sic] Hart had just returned home to her house outside of Portland, Oregon, from the grocery store with her two young daughters when she noticed law enforcement agents swarming in and out of her home. Little did she realize that they had literally torn the inside of her house apart in the search for guns that didn't exist. When she stormed up to the side door (it had been torn off its hinges and then nailed back on) demanding an answer a BATF agent yanked her inside telling her she was going to jail. In typical BATF fashion, Hart was not informed of the charges against her, she was not read her rights, nor was she allowed to see after her children.
The children were terrified. Both daughters heard the BATF agent say Mrs. Hart was headed for jail and they became horrified. As Hart's daughter told THE OREGONIAN, "I was crying. They (BATF agents) say, 'Shut up and get back in the car.' So, I put up my knee like to get out, and he shut the door on my knee." BATF may call this act of child abuse an "accident" or something that happened in "the heat of confrontation" but the truth is, agents have been engaging in this sort of behavior since the inception of the BATF as a bureau. The most blatant case being the storming of the Branch Davidian compound with automatic weapons, knowing full well that children would be caught in the crossfire. Another incident was the case of Del and Melisa Knudson. During a raid on the Knudson home (no illegal firearms were found), Mrs. Knudson was hand-cuffed and forced to leave her 21-month old daughter unattended in a bathtub. Luckily, the baby didn't drown. Evidently, the agents were not concerned with the baby's welfare nor that of the parents.
As the daughters were being held outside the home, Hart was forced inside. In what must have seemed like a scene from a Gestapo raid in Nazi Germany, Janice Hart witnessed the destruction of her personal property by the "secret police." As she related to THE OREGONIAN, "I'm screaming, 'Oh my God, what are you doing to my house?' They told me to shut up. They said I could talk later. And they kept saying, 'You're going to prison, Janice.' The whole house was totally destroyed."
BATF agents in the kitchen were throwing plates and dishes on the floor. In the bedroom agents were ripping clothes off hangers and dumping them on the floor. Dresser drawers were overturned and strewn all about. Hart's life was terrorized, her children were abused, her house destroyed, and her personal belongings ravaged. During the Gestapo-style raid, while Mrs. Hart was in custody, BATF agents did not bother to insure that Hart was indeed the subject of their warrant. They simply didn't bother to check. And what's worse, when it was obvious the had the wrong person, they continued to terrorize Hart and her family.
In a complete violation of Hart's civil and constitutional rights, BATF agents herded her into the basement of the house and interrogated her. Like a scene from some cheap detective move, agents gave her the "third degree."
"There's about eight of them down there," she told the OREGONIAN, "and they're asking my over and over my name, my Social Security number, my birthdate. On and on, over and over. And I'm saying, 'What did I do?'"
Hart was forced to answer questions for over an hour before she was read her rights and then agents refused to allow her to call an attorney, both serious violations of Hart's Constitutional rights knowingly violated by BATF. George Kim, main investigator, should have known better. The person cited in the warrant was Janice Marie Harrell, who had used "Hart" as an alias, but that's where the similarity ends. The Janice the BATF was in search of had a scar on her face. Janice Hart did not. Harrell was a street woman, while Hart was a working-class homeowner with two children. Hart's eyes were a different color than Harrell's, her hair was different and she was heavier than the real suspect. There was nothing in Hart's background or physical appearance that matched Janice Marie Harrell.
"They pulled up my sleeves, looking for scars," said Hart. Of course, they weren't there. "I say, 'How do I remove scars? Scars don't disappear.' That's when he (Kim) started getting this expression on his face like 'I think I messed up.' But of course, they don't admit that to you."
So, when it's obvious that Agent Kim and his bumbling agents have the wrong person, do they release Hart? No, they arrest her. They read Hart her rights and take her to the Portland slammer. It was at the Portland police station when things finally turned around. The Portland police, professional and conscientious, treated Hart as a person, without intimidation and threats. Immediately upon being fingerprinted, they released her because it was obvious that Kim and his Keystone Cops had arrested the wrong person. It took Portland police 30 seconds to recognize that Janice Hart was not Janice Harrell and they released her, while Kim and his agents were standing nearby scratching their heads.
OREGONIAN reporter, Margie Boule recounted Hart's story for local Portland BATF resident agent in charge, Pete McLouth and he basically said that his agents did indeed pick up the wrong person. He couldn't deny it because Harrell was picked up shortly after the terrorist raid on Hart's home. That's about all he said, however, because McLouth took the standard BATF line of "I can't talk about it because it's an ongoing investigation."
The search warrants used by the BATF in the Hart case were much like the ones used in the Branch Davidian case. Someone, with hearsay knowledge, tipped BATF off. There was no evidence that Janice Hart was Janice Harrell and absolutely no evidence or even the slightest indication that Hart was illegally dealing firearms.
The raid was conducted simply because of one person's gossip. Even though Janice Hart no longer faces criminal charges, she is still feeling the harassment of BATF. She now suffers both sleep and eating disorders. She and her older daughter visit a psychiatrist to deal with the stress and her 4-year-old daughter has had related problems in school. Added to that, Hart's neighbors are no longer the friendly sort. To them, Hart is still a criminal subject of a police raid.
What is evident once again from this raid is the fact that BATF agents did not feel that violent behavior, destruction of property, violation of rights and child abuse would be challenged. It shows once again that silence from the top, read that to mean BATF Director Stephen Higgins' office, is taken as a green light to commit atrocities in the name of the law. Director Higgins is well aware that violations are being committed on a daily basis by his agents, yet he has done nothing and continues to do nothing about it. He once again has proved himself to be an ineffectual and incompetent law enforcement officer. Over the past year it has been shown that sexual harrassment and intimidation even within the ranks of the BATF has gone unabated and violent terrorist raids on innocent citizens continue at an alarming rate. This continues because the Director allows it. One word or one directive from Higgins could prevent future Constitutional and civil rights violations by BATF agents, but so far, he denies there is a problem. Unless citizens get involved and pressure the White House to appoint a professional person with integrity and respect for the Bill of Rights to head BATF, the abuses will continue.
Tom Cloyd, writing an editorial to THE OREGONIAN in response to the raid, sums it up best. "But the horror and violence go even beyond this, for child abuse was apparently involved in this case. Three children, ages 12, 9 and 4 were in the car when Hart arrived home to find it being trashed by federal agents. The children had to watch this act of incomprehensible violence and the 12-year-old was physically abused when and agent closed a door on her leg to keep her from getting out of the car. I hope others will join with me in demanding that federal law enforcement agents of all sorts be briefed on the Bill of Rights, be held accountable to the public for their actions and be prosecuted when they take our society's legitimate and law-driven pursuit of justice into their own hands."
Unfortunately, it seems that Director Higgins is unconcerned with the Bill of Rights as he permits his agents to violate the law time and again without censure or reprimand. I try hard not to draw parallels to the Gestapo of the 1930's and 40's and Stalin's ruthless NKVD, but breaking down of doors, the destruction of property, illegal interrogations etc. of innocent people by BATF are so close to "secret police" tactics that they could be right out of the KGB manual. Russia's first secret police was formed by Ivan the Terrible in 1565 and they were every bit as cruel as their descendants in the Cheka and the KGB. French biographer and historian Henri Troyat describes some of Ivan's secret police tactics: "Husbands were tortured in front of wives, mothers in front of children." I'm sure 12-year-old Nina Hart and 4-year-old Randi Hart know the feeling.
"What are you doing in my house? Get out of my house!"
This is what Janice Hart screamed as she witnessed agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, & Firearms (BATF) literally tearing her home apart. What had Janice Hart done to have her house destroyed? NOTHING. BATF had the wrong house and the wrong suspect. In what has become the rule instead of the exception, BATF agents blatantly and knowingly violated Hart's 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th Amendment rights. In addition, agents once again forcefully abused children in the "pursuit of their duties."
As related by Margie Boule in the Washington OREGONIAN, in the evening of February 5th Janet [sic] Hart had just returned home to her house outside of Portland, Oregon, from the grocery store with her two young daughters when she noticed law enforcement agents swarming in and out of her home. Little did she realize that they had literally torn the inside of her house apart in the search for guns that didn't exist. When she stormed up to the side door (it had been torn off its hinges and then nailed back on) demanding an answer a BATF agent yanked her inside telling her she was going to jail. In typical BATF fashion, Hart was not informed of the charges against her, she was not read her rights, nor was she allowed to see after her children.
The children were terrified. Both daughters heard the BATF agent say Mrs. Hart was headed for jail and they became horrified. As Hart's daughter told THE OREGONIAN, "I was crying. They (BATF agents) say, 'Shut up and get back in the car.' So, I put up my knee like to get out, and he shut the door on my knee." BATF may call this act of child abuse an "accident" or something that happened in "the heat of confrontation" but the truth is, agents have been engaging in this sort of behavior since the inception of the BATF as a bureau. The most blatant case being the storming of the Branch Davidian compound with automatic weapons, knowing full well that children would be caught in the crossfire. Another incident was the case of Del and Melisa Knudson. During a raid on the Knudson home (no illegal firearms were found), Mrs. Knudson was hand-cuffed and forced to leave her 21-month old daughter unattended in a bathtub. Luckily, the baby didn't drown. Evidently, the agents were not concerned with the baby's welfare nor that of the parents.
As the daughters were being held outside the home, Hart was forced inside. In what must have seemed like a scene from a Gestapo raid in Nazi Germany, Janice Hart witnessed the destruction of her personal property by the "secret police." As she related to THE OREGONIAN, "I'm screaming, 'Oh my God, what are you doing to my house?' They told me to shut up. They said I could talk later. And they kept saying, 'You're going to prison, Janice.' The whole house was totally destroyed."
BATF agents in the kitchen were throwing plates and dishes on the floor. In the bedroom agents were ripping clothes off hangers and dumping them on the floor. Dresser drawers were overturned and strewn all about. Hart's life was terrorized, her children were abused, her house destroyed, and her personal belongings ravaged. During the Gestapo-style raid, while Mrs. Hart was in custody, BATF agents did not bother to insure that Hart was indeed the subject of their warrant. They simply didn't bother to check. And what's worse, when it was obvious the had the wrong person, they continued to terrorize Hart and her family.
In a complete violation of Hart's civil and constitutional rights, BATF agents herded her into the basement of the house and interrogated her. Like a scene from some cheap detective move, agents gave her the "third degree."
"There's about eight of them down there," she told the OREGONIAN, "and they're asking my over and over my name, my Social Security number, my birthdate. On and on, over and over. And I'm saying, 'What did I do?'"
Hart was forced to answer questions for over an hour before she was read her rights and then agents refused to allow her to call an attorney, both serious violations of Hart's Constitutional rights knowingly violated by BATF. George Kim, main investigator, should have known better. The person cited in the warrant was Janice Marie Harrell, who had used "Hart" as an alias, but that's where the similarity ends. The Janice the BATF was in search of had a scar on her face. Janice Hart did not. Harrell was a street woman, while Hart was a working-class homeowner with two children. Hart's eyes were a different color than Harrell's, her hair was different and she was heavier than the real suspect. There was nothing in Hart's background or physical appearance that matched Janice Marie Harrell.
"They pulled up my sleeves, looking for scars," said Hart. Of course, they weren't there. "I say, 'How do I remove scars? Scars don't disappear.' That's when he (Kim) started getting this expression on his face like 'I think I messed up.' But of course, they don't admit that to you."
So, when it's obvious that Agent Kim and his bumbling agents have the wrong person, do they release Hart? No, they arrest her. They read Hart her rights and take her to the Portland slammer. It was at the Portland police station when things finally turned around. The Portland police, professional and conscientious, treated Hart as a person, without intimidation and threats. Immediately upon being fingerprinted, they released her because it was obvious that Kim and his Keystone Cops had arrested the wrong person. It took Portland police 30 seconds to recognize that Janice Hart was not Janice Harrell and they released her, while Kim and his agents were standing nearby scratching their heads.
OREGONIAN reporter, Margie Boule recounted Hart's story for local Portland BATF resident agent in charge, Pete McLouth and he basically said that his agents did indeed pick up the wrong person. He couldn't deny it because Harrell was picked up shortly after the terrorist raid on Hart's home. That's about all he said, however, because McLouth took the standard BATF line of "I can't talk about it because it's an ongoing investigation."
The search warrants used by the BATF in the Hart case were much like the ones used in the Branch Davidian case. Someone, with hearsay knowledge, tipped BATF off. There was no evidence that Janice Hart was Janice Harrell and absolutely no evidence or even the slightest indication that Hart was illegally dealing firearms.
The raid was conducted simply because of one person's gossip. Even though Janice Hart no longer faces criminal charges, she is still feeling the harassment of BATF. She now suffers both sleep and eating disorders. She and her older daughter visit a psychiatrist to deal with the stress and her 4-year-old daughter has had related problems in school. Added to that, Hart's neighbors are no longer the friendly sort. To them, Hart is still a criminal subject of a police raid.
What is evident once again from this raid is the fact that BATF agents did not feel that violent behavior, destruction of property, violation of rights and child abuse would be challenged. It shows once again that silence from the top, read that to mean BATF Director Stephen Higgins' office, is taken as a green light to commit atrocities in the name of the law. Director Higgins is well aware that violations are being committed on a daily basis by his agents, yet he has done nothing and continues to do nothing about it. He once again has proved himself to be an ineffectual and incompetent law enforcement officer. Over the past year it has been shown that sexual harrassment and intimidation even within the ranks of the BATF has gone unabated and violent terrorist raids on innocent citizens continue at an alarming rate. This continues because the Director allows it. One word or one directive from Higgins could prevent future Constitutional and civil rights violations by BATF agents, but so far, he denies there is a problem. Unless citizens get involved and pressure the White House to appoint a professional person with integrity and respect for the Bill of Rights to head BATF, the abuses will continue.
Tom Cloyd, writing an editorial to THE OREGONIAN in response to the raid, sums it up best. "But the horror and violence go even beyond this, for child abuse was apparently involved in this case. Three children, ages 12, 9 and 4 were in the car when Hart arrived home to find it being trashed by federal agents. The children had to watch this act of incomprehensible violence and the 12-year-old was physically abused when and agent closed a door on her leg to keep her from getting out of the car. I hope others will join with me in demanding that federal law enforcement agents of all sorts be briefed on the Bill of Rights, be held accountable to the public for their actions and be prosecuted when they take our society's legitimate and law-driven pursuit of justice into their own hands."
Unfortunately, it seems that Director Higgins is unconcerned with the Bill of Rights as he permits his agents to violate the law time and again without censure or reprimand. I try hard not to draw parallels to the Gestapo of the 1930's and 40's and Stalin's ruthless NKVD, but breaking down of doors, the destruction of property, illegal interrogations etc. of innocent people by BATF are so close to "secret police" tactics that they could be right out of the KGB manual. Russia's first secret police was formed by Ivan the Terrible in 1565 and they were every bit as cruel as their descendants in the Cheka and the KGB. French biographer and historian Henri Troyat describes some of Ivan's secret police tactics: "Husbands were tortured in front of wives, mothers in front of children." I'm sure 12-year-old Nina Hart and 4-year-old Randi Hart know the feeling.
Mortgage Slavery, King Obama Style!
I read a great article from the Roseburg Beacon on how Tax Freedom Day moved up to August 19th this year. This is the day that the average worker labors to pay for government at all levels. As the pace of government expansion has grown quickly in the last two years, it takes 34 more days of work since 2008 to feed government. If it continues at this pace we will work for the government 365 days of the year in just seven years from now. If we worked all year to satisfy government, wouldn’t that make us slaves? What is we work more than half the year to feed government? Doesn’t that make us half-slaves?
The Kings of old England allowed people to live on their property if they paid their yearly tribute. These are now called property taxes. Today, in our country, if the government wants your property so that someone else can pay more tribute, your property can be expropriated or made worthless until you give in. This is especially worrisome for our personal security and safety as the federal government now owns most of the mortgages in our nation. Owned by government?
The Kings of old England allowed people to live on their property if they paid their yearly tribute. These are now called property taxes. Today, in our country, if the government wants your property so that someone else can pay more tribute, your property can be expropriated or made worthless until you give in. This is especially worrisome for our personal security and safety as the federal government now owns most of the mortgages in our nation. Owned by government?
Oregon, the state of excess
I had a young couple with a new baby renting from me on a HUD (government assisted rent) contract. They claimed that the man threw a rubber dog chew toy on the floor. It bounced and put a small crack in a window. A visiting home health nurse noticed the crack and questioned the mother. The nurse told her, “You leave your husband today, or we take your baby!” The husband was charged with domestic violence (not domestic abuse as he did not abuse her). He was forced to attend anger management classes and a restraining order was put on him. He could not see his wife or his child without court supervision for a year.
Now here’s where it gets even more interesting: the father called to tell me this story to break his lease. Since he was not allowed to visit, he no longer qualified as “head of household” on the HUD contract. His wife could not take over the lease without going through HUD’s long wait list. He was crying when he told his story, yet I found it hard to believe. Oregon Children’s Service Division called to tell me I could not hold the breaking of the lease against her in a domestic violence situation. He verified the man threw a dog toy down and acted like I did not take domestic violence seriously. This means that I, the property owner, must absorb the losses from a broken lease that the government refuses to call broken. I’ll know better next time.
Now here’s where it gets even more interesting: the father called to tell me this story to break his lease. Since he was not allowed to visit, he no longer qualified as “head of household” on the HUD contract. His wife could not take over the lease without going through HUD’s long wait list. He was crying when he told his story, yet I found it hard to believe. Oregon Children’s Service Division called to tell me I could not hold the breaking of the lease against her in a domestic violence situation. He verified the man threw a dog toy down and acted like I did not take domestic violence seriously. This means that I, the property owner, must absorb the losses from a broken lease that the government refuses to call broken. I’ll know better next time.
Parents, Mark Your Calendars: September 14th Is Obama Day At School!
Yesterday, White House sources confirmed that President Obama will deliver another back-to-school address aimed at all of the nation’s children. That’s right, the president will make September 14 the second-annual Obama Day at your local school!
You might recall last year’s Obama Day, for which the U.S. Department of Education put out teaching guides that gave parents across the country reasonable cause to fear a day of liberal politics and celebrating President Obama. You might also remember the divisive national uproar that precipitated, which ultimately culminated in a relatively staid — but nonetheless campaign-esque — speech, not to mention a fair amount of after-the-fact sneering at people who either didn’t want public-school kids exposed to left-wing politicking or just wanted their kids, you know, left alone by the president. Finally, you might recall the May Parade magazine graduation “address” the president wrote that offered just the kind of profit-denigrating, “service” extolling rhetoric that people feared eight months earlier:
Of course, each of you has the right to take your diploma and seek the quickest path to the biggest paycheck or the highest title possible. But remember: You can choose to broaden your concerns to include your fellow citizens and country instead. By tying your ambitions to America’s, you’ll hitch your wagon to a cause larger than yourself. You can choose a career in public service or the nonprofit sector, or teach in an underserved school. If you have medical training, you can work in an understaffed clinic. Love science? You can discover new sources of clean energy or launch a business that makes the most efficient and affordable solar panels or wind turbines.
So will this year’s Obama Day be as controversial as the last installment? Probably not.
For one thing, unless the White House is not just wearing blinders, but living in a full-on isolation tank, it won’t authorize the release of any lesson plans to go with the talk. And if it does, it will scrutinize them, put them before focus groups, and torture them until they give up any and all material that could be even minutely controversial.
Second, while there is plenty of anger to go around right now, there’s been no burning summer of discontent like last year’s spree of town-hall conflagrations. It seems the growing ranks of fuming Americans are now more focused on ballot boxes than soap boxes.
Finally, last year there was a sense that President Obama — who’d led the “stimulus” charge, driven the takeover of GM and Chrysler, was championing huge and incomprehensible health-care legislation, and had repeatedly been in Americans’ faces — was simply too much in our lives. Directing his near-ubiquity toward peoples’ kids only made matters worse. Oh, and some of the rather off-putting stuff from the “Cult of Obama,” as Gene Healy dubbed it, probably didn’t help.
This year, while certainly still a presence, it seems the president has made himself more scarce.
So the coming address is not likely to launch nearly the same seismic outrage as last year’s. But there’s still good reason to object to it.
No doubt the speech will feature prominent backdrop propaganda, sweeping views of packed-in, star-struck students, and camera angles designed to make the president appear just a bit larger than life. You know — standard campaign stuff many people don’t want in their schools. The speech will also almost certainly tout “major achievements” in education by the administration, especially the mega-overrated Race to the Top. So it will be politically self-serving — though masked by the plausible explanation that it’s just about “the children” — and yet another reminder why the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to interfere in education.
But there is one other, more mundane argument against this speech, and it is being made — as it was in 2009 — by the Washington Post’s Jay Matthews: the president will once again be eating up student learning time. As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has often opined, American students probably need to spend significantly more time learning, not less. Yet his boss has apparently decided that every year he is going to take a little of that precious time and say “this is mine — look at me!”
And so we have to ask ourselves: Are the benefits of students being told to work hard and stay in school really worth the myriad problems that go with a controversial, inevitably politicized, time-grabbing, national presidential address? The answer can only be a resounding “no.”
You might recall last year’s Obama Day, for which the U.S. Department of Education put out teaching guides that gave parents across the country reasonable cause to fear a day of liberal politics and celebrating President Obama. You might also remember the divisive national uproar that precipitated, which ultimately culminated in a relatively staid — but nonetheless campaign-esque — speech, not to mention a fair amount of after-the-fact sneering at people who either didn’t want public-school kids exposed to left-wing politicking or just wanted their kids, you know, left alone by the president. Finally, you might recall the May Parade magazine graduation “address” the president wrote that offered just the kind of profit-denigrating, “service” extolling rhetoric that people feared eight months earlier:
Of course, each of you has the right to take your diploma and seek the quickest path to the biggest paycheck or the highest title possible. But remember: You can choose to broaden your concerns to include your fellow citizens and country instead. By tying your ambitions to America’s, you’ll hitch your wagon to a cause larger than yourself. You can choose a career in public service or the nonprofit sector, or teach in an underserved school. If you have medical training, you can work in an understaffed clinic. Love science? You can discover new sources of clean energy or launch a business that makes the most efficient and affordable solar panels or wind turbines.
So will this year’s Obama Day be as controversial as the last installment? Probably not.
For one thing, unless the White House is not just wearing blinders, but living in a full-on isolation tank, it won’t authorize the release of any lesson plans to go with the talk. And if it does, it will scrutinize them, put them before focus groups, and torture them until they give up any and all material that could be even minutely controversial.
Second, while there is plenty of anger to go around right now, there’s been no burning summer of discontent like last year’s spree of town-hall conflagrations. It seems the growing ranks of fuming Americans are now more focused on ballot boxes than soap boxes.
Finally, last year there was a sense that President Obama — who’d led the “stimulus” charge, driven the takeover of GM and Chrysler, was championing huge and incomprehensible health-care legislation, and had repeatedly been in Americans’ faces — was simply too much in our lives. Directing his near-ubiquity toward peoples’ kids only made matters worse. Oh, and some of the rather off-putting stuff from the “Cult of Obama,” as Gene Healy dubbed it, probably didn’t help.
This year, while certainly still a presence, it seems the president has made himself more scarce.
So the coming address is not likely to launch nearly the same seismic outrage as last year’s. But there’s still good reason to object to it.
No doubt the speech will feature prominent backdrop propaganda, sweeping views of packed-in, star-struck students, and camera angles designed to make the president appear just a bit larger than life. You know — standard campaign stuff many people don’t want in their schools. The speech will also almost certainly tout “major achievements” in education by the administration, especially the mega-overrated Race to the Top. So it will be politically self-serving — though masked by the plausible explanation that it’s just about “the children” — and yet another reminder why the Constitution gives the federal government no authority to interfere in education.
But there is one other, more mundane argument against this speech, and it is being made — as it was in 2009 — by the Washington Post’s Jay Matthews: the president will once again be eating up student learning time. As U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has often opined, American students probably need to spend significantly more time learning, not less. Yet his boss has apparently decided that every year he is going to take a little of that precious time and say “this is mine — look at me!”
And so we have to ask ourselves: Are the benefits of students being told to work hard and stay in school really worth the myriad problems that go with a controversial, inevitably politicized, time-grabbing, national presidential address? The answer can only be a resounding “no.”
We Don't Like Either of You
By Jim Yardley
Numerous opinion polls show that after the November elections, the Republican Party will have regained enough seats in the House to take back the majority position and the Speakership. Results for the Senate are less amenable to forecast, but even so, gains up to and including a remote chance for a majority are possible there as well.
It is necessary to remind Republicans of one salient fact about this predicted shift in political strength as a result of the 2010 midterm elections, and it is a fact that can be expressed in just a few words:
You may have a majority, but you do not have a mandate to govern in any way that you choose.
The Democrats have had a majority for six years, and they have controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House for the past two years. Their disastrous ouster in November will be because they tried to govern as if they had a mandate, and quite clearly, they didn't.
Significant majorities of American citizens have been opposed to many of the initiatives that have come out of Washington since January 20, 2009. The so-called Stimulus, Obamacare, the auto company bailouts, and other programs have all been based on Democratic Party claims that they held a popular mandate for "change." That these changes have been opposed by large majorities of voters in every case hardly indicates that such a mandate ever existed, except in the minds of political speechwriters and MSM apologists.
It should be clear that the Democratic Party majorities were a direct result of dissatisfaction with the direction the nation had taken in terms of limitations of personal freedom, the seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the increasing threats of Islamic fundamentalism, and the other items on a stunning list of Republican failures. In retrospect, it seems clear that the 2006 and 2008 elections were no so much a vote for Democrats as they were against Republicans.
The 2010 midterm election appears to be shaping up as a vote against Democrats. Republicans should give that sentence a bit of thought. Americans are not voting for you. They know you are just as likely as Democrats to be venal, corrupt, stupid, doctrinaire, foolish, and shortsighted. Unfortunately, Republicans are the only option available.
This theme has been echoed several times in recent days. Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal interviewed Grover Norquist, one of the original contributors to the Contract with America, who, 25 years ago, founded the organization Americans for Tax Reform. Mr. Norquist, a man who could hardly be called nonpartisan, compared the upcoming midterms to 1994, when the Republicans took the House. In his words:
There wasn't a Tea Party movement in '94. There was a Perot movement, which was much less visible and organized. This time we have a thousand mini-Perots (in the Tea Party leadership) who are against the Democrats and for the Republicans.
Well, the voters are certainly against the Democrats. As for being for Republicans, Walter Shapiro offered this assessment in his Politics Daily article describing President Obama's continuing rejection of the reality of voter motivation in 2008:
Obama has often spoken with frustration about his failure to receive enough credit from either the media or the voters for his long string of landmark legislative victories climaxing with health-care reform. But maybe the president's fatal error was that he saw the 2008 election as a mandate for far-reaching change when, in truth, it was a narrower rejection of Bush administration economic and military policies.
In essence, the balance of power in Washington is an endless ebb and flow of disgust for both parties, since each seems to react to the delusion that accompanies election to office. The delusion consists of the belief that (a) the voters love them, and (b) they have a mandate to govern.
The sudden and surprising emergence of the Tea Party movement is perhaps a response by voters to the seemingly endless series of elections that consists of voters going to the polls to "throw the bums out." It appears that the ordinary citizens of the United States want to be able to vote for something and are tired of being forced to merely choose which candidates to vote against.
Both parties should also be very, very afraid of the Tea Parties. Democrats still don't take them seriously and try to marginalize them by referring to them as "teabaggers," homophobes, racist, bigots, and so on. Perhaps the Democratic Party should keep track of the number of Tea Party-endorsed candidates who move into offices currently held by Democrats next January -- it should be very educational. They should also remember that pain is Mother Nature's tuition bill, and they are about to learn something.
Republicans view the Tea Parties differently but show the same condescension. Professional Republicans seem to think that Tea Partiers are available for their use as shock troops and can be ignored until the next election. That's why they seem so shocked when a candidate endorsed by the Tea Party wins a primary against their own chosen candidates. I refer Republicans to the paragraph above regarding tuition payments.
In short, both parties have to understand that the majority of American voters don't like either party. Until either party can produce candidates whom we are willing to vote for, instead of choosing which one to vote against, the Tea Parties and registered independents will continue to grow in size and influence until both Democrats and Republicans are listed in the encyclopedia next to the Whigs and the Bull Moose Party.
Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, Vietnam veteran, and libertarian (small "l"). Jim blogs at jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com.
Numerous opinion polls show that after the November elections, the Republican Party will have regained enough seats in the House to take back the majority position and the Speakership. Results for the Senate are less amenable to forecast, but even so, gains up to and including a remote chance for a majority are possible there as well.
It is necessary to remind Republicans of one salient fact about this predicted shift in political strength as a result of the 2010 midterm elections, and it is a fact that can be expressed in just a few words:
You may have a majority, but you do not have a mandate to govern in any way that you choose.
The Democrats have had a majority for six years, and they have controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House for the past two years. Their disastrous ouster in November will be because they tried to govern as if they had a mandate, and quite clearly, they didn't.
Significant majorities of American citizens have been opposed to many of the initiatives that have come out of Washington since January 20, 2009. The so-called Stimulus, Obamacare, the auto company bailouts, and other programs have all been based on Democratic Party claims that they held a popular mandate for "change." That these changes have been opposed by large majorities of voters in every case hardly indicates that such a mandate ever existed, except in the minds of political speechwriters and MSM apologists.
It should be clear that the Democratic Party majorities were a direct result of dissatisfaction with the direction the nation had taken in terms of limitations of personal freedom, the seemingly endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the increasing threats of Islamic fundamentalism, and the other items on a stunning list of Republican failures. In retrospect, it seems clear that the 2006 and 2008 elections were no so much a vote for Democrats as they were against Republicans.
The 2010 midterm election appears to be shaping up as a vote against Democrats. Republicans should give that sentence a bit of thought. Americans are not voting for you. They know you are just as likely as Democrats to be venal, corrupt, stupid, doctrinaire, foolish, and shortsighted. Unfortunately, Republicans are the only option available.
This theme has been echoed several times in recent days. Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal interviewed Grover Norquist, one of the original contributors to the Contract with America, who, 25 years ago, founded the organization Americans for Tax Reform. Mr. Norquist, a man who could hardly be called nonpartisan, compared the upcoming midterms to 1994, when the Republicans took the House. In his words:
There wasn't a Tea Party movement in '94. There was a Perot movement, which was much less visible and organized. This time we have a thousand mini-Perots (in the Tea Party leadership) who are against the Democrats and for the Republicans.
Well, the voters are certainly against the Democrats. As for being for Republicans, Walter Shapiro offered this assessment in his Politics Daily article describing President Obama's continuing rejection of the reality of voter motivation in 2008:
Obama has often spoken with frustration about his failure to receive enough credit from either the media or the voters for his long string of landmark legislative victories climaxing with health-care reform. But maybe the president's fatal error was that he saw the 2008 election as a mandate for far-reaching change when, in truth, it was a narrower rejection of Bush administration economic and military policies.
In essence, the balance of power in Washington is an endless ebb and flow of disgust for both parties, since each seems to react to the delusion that accompanies election to office. The delusion consists of the belief that (a) the voters love them, and (b) they have a mandate to govern.
The sudden and surprising emergence of the Tea Party movement is perhaps a response by voters to the seemingly endless series of elections that consists of voters going to the polls to "throw the bums out." It appears that the ordinary citizens of the United States want to be able to vote for something and are tired of being forced to merely choose which candidates to vote against.
Both parties should also be very, very afraid of the Tea Parties. Democrats still don't take them seriously and try to marginalize them by referring to them as "teabaggers," homophobes, racist, bigots, and so on. Perhaps the Democratic Party should keep track of the number of Tea Party-endorsed candidates who move into offices currently held by Democrats next January -- it should be very educational. They should also remember that pain is Mother Nature's tuition bill, and they are about to learn something.
Republicans view the Tea Parties differently but show the same condescension. Professional Republicans seem to think that Tea Partiers are available for their use as shock troops and can be ignored until the next election. That's why they seem so shocked when a candidate endorsed by the Tea Party wins a primary against their own chosen candidates. I refer Republicans to the paragraph above regarding tuition payments.
In short, both parties have to understand that the majority of American voters don't like either party. Until either party can produce candidates whom we are willing to vote for, instead of choosing which one to vote against, the Tea Parties and registered independents will continue to grow in size and influence until both Democrats and Republicans are listed in the encyclopedia next to the Whigs and the Bull Moose Party.
Jim Yardley is a retired financial controller, Vietnam veteran, and libertarian (small "l"). Jim blogs at jimyardley.wordpress.com, or he can be contacted directly at james.v.yardley@gmail.com.
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Obama Needs Your 401(k) to Balance His Budget
Bob Adelmann | Sep 06, 2010 |
The Obama administration is “taking the first steps to confiscate retirement dollars,” according to Dr. Jerome Corsi who predicts that the end result will be retirees with 401(k) plans holding near-worthless government debt “that will be paid off in a devalued currency worth…pennies on the dollar.”
The move to confiscate those retirement dollars for government purposes was best illustrated by Christina Kirchner, President of Argentina, in 2008 when she announced plans to seize her citizens’ private pension funds. Writers at the Heritage Foundation said that while Kirchner claimed such seizure was necessary to protect her citizens’ investment accounts from the global meltdown, “most observers believe[d] her real motive [was] to use the $30 billion in seized assets to ease the massive debt obligations her leftist spendthrift government [had] run up.” The Wall Street Journal agreed, saying that “taking over the…pension fund assets [would] ease the cash crunch faced by [her] government.”
Corsi said he has a letter from the Treasury Department, Bureau of Public Debt, informing U.S. citizens that the federal government is rolling out a new program called “Treasury Direct” that will allow citizens “to purchase, manage, and redeem…savings bonds” electronically, as well as offering an option to purchase such bonds automatically through payroll savings or a personal checking account. This happened to coincide nicely, according to Corsi, with a bill offered by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) to create “Automatic IRAs” that would require all employers and employees to invest in IRAs using that automatic deduction option, “whether they want to do so or not.”
And this happened to coincide also with a program being pushed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) called “Retirement USA” which would create a government-forced retirement program with assets being directed into special Treasury Retirement Bonds, or R-Bonds. “Retirement USA” is promoting the idea that all workers have a “right” to a government retirement account, in addition to Social Security and any private pension plans those workers already have in place. Others behind “Retirement USA” also support more government dependency for workers, including the AFL-CIO, the Economic Policy Institute, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the Pension Rights Center.
All of this is being promoted by the idea that individual citizens aren’t saving enough for their retirement, and that consequently government has to “do something.” Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash., above photo), Chairman of the House Ways and Mean’s Committee’ Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, is confused about whose money is in those 401(k) plans: the individual contributor, or the government. He said that “since the savings rate isn’t going up for the investment [Congress is making] of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax savings], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
The worldview of Rep. McDermott is revealing, and brings clarity to the point of view of many in the Washington establishment that the $4.5 trillion currently invested in 401(k) plans and other private pension plans that enjoy tax breaks actually belong to the government, and that when Congress loses $80 billion that would otherwise flow to Washington due to those tax breaks, it’s an “investment” that must “generate what we say it should”, or else it must be replaced with something else that works better.
The real “story behind the story” was revealed by Joe Wolverton here when he said,
…since the day of his inauguration, Barack Obama and his congressional co-conspirators have consistently and unapologetically set out to systematically nationalize the economy of the United States: first the banks; then the insurance companies; then the auto industry; then healthcare; and now the piece de resistance, the private savings accounts of millions of middle-class Americans.
But, thanks to the SEIU and their program “Retirement USA,” it’s all dressed up to look like a good deal for unsuspecting owners of retirement plans. In “Making the Case for a New System” they take the view that “A secure retirement is part of the American dream. Yet our retirement system is failing many Americans. Social Security is the cornerstone of our system, but as currently structured, is not meant to be our only retirement program. Pensions and savings plans are supposed to fill the gap, but too many workers don’t have plans, and too many plans don’t do the job.” They complain that:
* Private retirement plan coverage is not UNIVERSAL…
* For millions of Americans, private retirement benefits are not SECURE…
* And Private retirement benefits are not ADEQUATE…
And, continues “Retirement USA”’s website, “Social Security must be preserved and strengthened… [and] we must encourage employers to offer and maintain them.”[emphasis added]
Underlying all of this is, of course, the statist presumption that government knows best what’s good for the citizens, and when the citizens’ behavior fails to meet government expectations, then mandates and force must be used to do for those citizens what the government thinks is best.
And the fact that Washington is looking at annual trillion-dollar deficits “for as far as the eye can see,” that $4.5 trillion of private monies is just too tempting to ignore.
This article originally appeared at www.thenewamerican.com and is reposted here with permission.
A publication written by "We the People," The Constitutionalist Today is comprised of articles from a range of writers, journalists, and bloggers. As such, the opinions herein may not reflect the opinions of our staff, management, or editorial board.
The Obama administration is “taking the first steps to confiscate retirement dollars,” according to Dr. Jerome Corsi who predicts that the end result will be retirees with 401(k) plans holding near-worthless government debt “that will be paid off in a devalued currency worth…pennies on the dollar.”
The move to confiscate those retirement dollars for government purposes was best illustrated by Christina Kirchner, President of Argentina, in 2008 when she announced plans to seize her citizens’ private pension funds. Writers at the Heritage Foundation said that while Kirchner claimed such seizure was necessary to protect her citizens’ investment accounts from the global meltdown, “most observers believe[d] her real motive [was] to use the $30 billion in seized assets to ease the massive debt obligations her leftist spendthrift government [had] run up.” The Wall Street Journal agreed, saying that “taking over the…pension fund assets [would] ease the cash crunch faced by [her] government.”
Corsi said he has a letter from the Treasury Department, Bureau of Public Debt, informing U.S. citizens that the federal government is rolling out a new program called “Treasury Direct” that will allow citizens “to purchase, manage, and redeem…savings bonds” electronically, as well as offering an option to purchase such bonds automatically through payroll savings or a personal checking account. This happened to coincide nicely, according to Corsi, with a bill offered by Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) to create “Automatic IRAs” that would require all employers and employees to invest in IRAs using that automatic deduction option, “whether they want to do so or not.”
And this happened to coincide also with a program being pushed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) called “Retirement USA” which would create a government-forced retirement program with assets being directed into special Treasury Retirement Bonds, or R-Bonds. “Retirement USA” is promoting the idea that all workers have a “right” to a government retirement account, in addition to Social Security and any private pension plans those workers already have in place. Others behind “Retirement USA” also support more government dependency for workers, including the AFL-CIO, the Economic Policy Institute, the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare and the Pension Rights Center.
All of this is being promoted by the idea that individual citizens aren’t saving enough for their retirement, and that consequently government has to “do something.” Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash., above photo), Chairman of the House Ways and Mean’s Committee’ Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, is confused about whose money is in those 401(k) plans: the individual contributor, or the government. He said that “since the savings rate isn’t going up for the investment [Congress is making] of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax savings], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should.”
The worldview of Rep. McDermott is revealing, and brings clarity to the point of view of many in the Washington establishment that the $4.5 trillion currently invested in 401(k) plans and other private pension plans that enjoy tax breaks actually belong to the government, and that when Congress loses $80 billion that would otherwise flow to Washington due to those tax breaks, it’s an “investment” that must “generate what we say it should”, or else it must be replaced with something else that works better.
The real “story behind the story” was revealed by Joe Wolverton here when he said,
…since the day of his inauguration, Barack Obama and his congressional co-conspirators have consistently and unapologetically set out to systematically nationalize the economy of the United States: first the banks; then the insurance companies; then the auto industry; then healthcare; and now the piece de resistance, the private savings accounts of millions of middle-class Americans.
But, thanks to the SEIU and their program “Retirement USA,” it’s all dressed up to look like a good deal for unsuspecting owners of retirement plans. In “Making the Case for a New System” they take the view that “A secure retirement is part of the American dream. Yet our retirement system is failing many Americans. Social Security is the cornerstone of our system, but as currently structured, is not meant to be our only retirement program. Pensions and savings plans are supposed to fill the gap, but too many workers don’t have plans, and too many plans don’t do the job.” They complain that:
* Private retirement plan coverage is not UNIVERSAL…
* For millions of Americans, private retirement benefits are not SECURE…
* And Private retirement benefits are not ADEQUATE…
And, continues “Retirement USA”’s website, “Social Security must be preserved and strengthened… [and] we must encourage employers to offer and maintain them.”[emphasis added]
Underlying all of this is, of course, the statist presumption that government knows best what’s good for the citizens, and when the citizens’ behavior fails to meet government expectations, then mandates and force must be used to do for those citizens what the government thinks is best.
And the fact that Washington is looking at annual trillion-dollar deficits “for as far as the eye can see,” that $4.5 trillion of private monies is just too tempting to ignore.
This article originally appeared at www.thenewamerican.com and is reposted here with permission.
A publication written by "We the People," The Constitutionalist Today is comprised of articles from a range of writers, journalists, and bloggers. As such, the opinions herein may not reflect the opinions of our staff, management, or editorial board.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)