NBC - "Charity is Bad"

Apparently, to the intellectual vapor-weights at NBC, Government Welfare is good, but private charity is bad.  That is the only take-away I can get from this piece about the West, TX fertilizer plant explosion.  You see, since Texas is a low tax, low spending, low regulation state, most of the victims of the blast are having to *gasp* rely on relatives, friends, and their community to get back on their feet.

Some of them -prepare yourselves, this is shocking- may even receive charitable (that is: "free") health care.

If only there were some way that taxpayers could involuntarily be put on the hook for... these things... that... they're already getting?

Seriously, I don't get what NBC (or the "experts" they sought out) thinks is wrong here.  Why should people in Beaumont or Amarillo be on the hook (involuntarily) for a fertilizer plant explosion in West?  Charitable contributions are pouring in.  Even NBC acknowledges that.  No one is going to the State with their hand out and being turned away- no one is going to the State with their hand out.  By way of example:

“I haven’t had any calls requesting assistance,” said Eva Cruz Hamby, who heads health services for McLennan County.

No.  Calls. For.  Assistance.

And somehow this is bad?

Of course it is.  If the nation heard about this in a positive light- a community, state, and nation coming together without any appreciable government assistance, people might get the idea that the Government shouldn't be in the charity business.  We can't let the Knights of Columbus and the Red Cross take care of everything; people might decide that those taxes that are going to various offices of emergency management, or paying for FEMA might be being wasted or something.  Heaven forbid that the American people be self-reliant and able to take care of their own affairs without Government intervention.

In its breathless reporting that nearly 1/4 of Texans don't have health insurance, it simply glosses over the fact that 100% of them have access to health care.  Every county has a county hospital which will provide care regardless of ability to pay.  Even most private hospitals (not-for-profit or otherwise) will do the same.  For the times when that isn't enough, other charities pay for people, neighbors help neighbors.

But to the idiots at NBC, this is a bad thing.  Because it proves the lie that the Government must be responsible for taking care of you.

Beware Liberals Bearing Newspeak

I normally pay the amount of attention to Cory Booker that one would more readily associate with one's appendix function.  However, when FotB tsrblke sent me this on twitter, I just couldn't help myself.

Time to mock a self-important liberal douche mercilessly.

Let's start where he does:

This morning, I will begin living on a food budget of $30 a week / $4.32 per day.  This is the financial equivalent of the budget provided to people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps, in the State of New Jersey.  I will live only on a SNAP equivalent food budget for the next seven days.

Okay, first off, what part of "supplemental" didn't you understand, Mr. Booker?  The assumption is that SNAP will not be the only way you're paying for your groceries.  The assumption is that you will have some other form of income- a job, disability, or some other form of government assistance.  Proving that you'll have a hard time living on an amount you were never intended to live on proves precisely nothing, you self-important sub-moron.

Next:

A Twitter user tweeted me her opinion that "nutrition is not the responsibility of the government".  This comment caused me to reflect on the families and children in my community who benefit from SNAP assistance and deserve deeper consideration.  In my own quest to better understand the outcomes of SNAP assistance, I suggested to this specific Twitter user that we both live on a SNAP equivalent food budget for a week and document our experience.

So are you saying that nutrition is the responsibility of the government?  You do realize, do you not, that anything that is the government's "responsibility" is also theirs to withhold?  Also, I sincerely doubt that anyone in Cory Booker's "community" relies on SNAP for their groceries.  Whether or not they receive it is a different matter, but I sincerely doubt anyone around him relies on $30/week for their food.

My goals for the #SNAPChallenge are to raise awareness and understanding of food insecurity; reduce the stigma of SNAP participation; elevate innovative local and national food justice initiatives and food policy; and, amplify compassion for individuals and communities in need of assistance.

This just might be his most ignorant quote.  And that's saying something.  First off, "food insecurity" is something dreamt up by the loony left.  The idea of 21+ meals a week is due directly to American affluence.  Most cultures in the world still get by on one or two meals a day.  I don't wish that on anyone, but let's not pretend that starvation is some big problem in America.  It's certainly not a big enough problem that Government needs to get involved.

As for reducing "the stigma of SNAP participation?"  Seriously?  We want to reduce the stigma of living off the government teet?  How about we increase the stigma?  How about people who have to rely on forcing their neighbors to provide their meals have a little bit of shame?  Relying on the benevolence of others should be humbling, at least, and "shaming" is not going too far.

"Food justice initiative?"  Seriously, now he's just throwing random words together.  What the heck is "food justice?"  Is everyone now entitled to a pound of Swish Shard per week?  Is having a rib eye the new desegregation?

As for compassion, hows this?  Give to food banks.  Give to local charities.  Cory Booker is not a poor man.  The Tarrant County Food Bank can feed three people for a dollar.  How about, instead of this stupid "#SNAPChallenge," he uses that $30/week to feed 10 people per week?  How does that sound?  But, of course, it's not about charity and compassion, it's about an ever-growing government, and the need that Liberals have for Government to "take care" of people 24/7/365 from cradle to grave.  Nevermind the resulting loss of Liberty.

We'll end here:

We have much work to do at the local level to address a legacy of structural inequities in the American food system.  As more and more working people and families - many holding down more than one job - face greater and greater challenges to juggle housing, medical, and transportation costs, meeting nutritional needs becomes a serious problem and a social justice issue.

What "legacy of structural inequities?"  Unless he really does mean that everyone should be entitled to their weekly rib eye, I have no idea what he's talking about.  As for those "working people and families" that are "holding down more than one job," don't they, by definition, have more income than just $30/wk to buy groceries?  And before I cry about their challenges to juggle "housing, medical, and transportation costs," I think I want an accounting of where their money goes.  Do they have ipads?  Iphones?  Is Mr. Booker perhaps unaware that health insurance premiums have gone up $2,500 per year for families since the very beginnings of Obamacare, and that they'll be going up any more?  I wonder about Mr. Booker's take on repealing ObamaCare so that those "working people and families" might be able to keep that $2,500/yr for themselves?

Conservatives Propose Good Stewardship. Liberals Cry.

Why is this even a question?  A bill has been pre-filed for the upcoming (next year) Texas Legislative session which would require people applying for TANF to take (and pass) a drug test.  This is hardly an onerous requirement.  If I can be required to pass a drug test to get a job whereby my taxes can be used to pay for TANF, it is not unreasonable to have people applying for it also pass a drug test.

Of course, this is a bridge too far for Liberals for some reason (they're very free with your money).  As far as I can see, there are three lines of argument here.

1- "What about the children!"  This "argument" basically says that people applying for TANF who do drugs might have kids, and we can't possibly harm those kids by not giving their parents direct cash assistance. 

This is what Joe Biden might call "a load of Stuff."

First off, the bill would not affect food-stamps (well, now the LoanStar Card), so we're not exactly taking food out of the children's mouths.  Second, the State should not be responsible for your children, you should be.  If you can't be persuaded not to do drugs, I shouldn't be paying for your kids.  If you want to make them wards of the State, there are ways you can do that.  You don't get to keep custody of them and then demand that I care for them.

2- "They only get $174!"  I think the point of this argument is that each individual receives so little cash assistance that it's not worth controlling.

Again, this is "a load of Stuff."

It is correct that the average payment per case in the TANF Basic program is $174.  What that doesn't tell is how many payments someone receives.  Is that $174 per week?  Per month?  Per year?  All told, in October of 2012 alone, TANF paid $7,302,339.  A rolling 12 month average appears to be in the $7,000,000/mo range for a rough total of $84,000,000.00 in the last year alone.  And that's only for "Basic" cases.

Ask the Texas School System what they could do with an extra $84,000,000.00.  Or, for that matter, tax-payers.

The other thing to remember is that this is "direct cash assistance."  That means this is cash money (well, probably a check, but the point remains).  Once the recipient has that cash in hand, they can do whatever they want with it.  That "whatever they want" includes "buy drugs."  If we don't want them buying drugs with that money, then we need to take steps to make sure we're not funding drug users or drug dealers.

3- "No one else has done it correctly, why do you think we can?" - this argument speaks for itself, and it's the only one really worth rebutting as a serious argument.

It feels really strange to be on this side of the argument.  Normally it is Conservatives pointing to some Liberal tax-and-spend/redistributionist/communist policy and pointing out that it has never worked, with Liberals crying, "Oh, but this time we'll do it right!"  Conservatives roll our eyes and get ready to pick up the pieces.

In this case, they do have a point- the policy, while straight-forward sounding, will not be that straight-forward in implementation.  How are we going to pay for these drug tests?  Will it be required every time someone applies for TANF, or will they be random?  If we're testing everyone who applies for TANF (or even a significant percentage of them) are we really going to save the Texas Tax Payer any money?

Unlike Liberals, who generally explain "shut up," when confronted with these questions about their own policies, I'll answer honestly: I don't know.  I do think it's worth looking at.  I think the goal is noble, but that doesn't make it practical.  I certainly recommend the policy be thoroughly examined for practicality before being put in place.  If we spend $40,000,000.00 to save $30,000,000.00, we were better off without the program.  Just as it is not the State's duty to look after your children, it's not the States job to be your parent, either.

That said, my hunch is that it can be implemented well.  If I were to answer those questions, here would be my answer:
1- How are we going to pay? Use the money from the TANF program itself.  If a $50.00 drug test can prevent one person on drugs from getting assistance, then that one person has paid for two more tests of people who aren't using drugs.  As long as we don't spend more than we are already, we're not any the worse.  I can't justify spending any new money on the program, though.

2- Every person, or random?  Well, I would suggest that the first time someone applies for TANF, they have to get tested, and after that, random tests- just like most employers do.

3- Are we really going to save money?  Well, my suggestions would mean that we would at least not spend any more than we are right now, and, yes, we might save money.  That said, this, to me, is the linchpin argument.  If the number-crunchers look at the program and show that we are not at least breaking even, then the program should not be implemented.

With all of that said, it is important to realize that the argument, however valid it might seem to be, is entirely disingenuous.   Liberals do not care about "well it's never worked before" or they would abandon most of their own positions.  Liberals do not care about "how" it is going to work.  They do not care about how we would pay for it.  Liberals do not care about if it would save, or cost, the taxpayers money.

Liberals care that they can spend your money to bribe people to pay for them.  They want to be seen as "caring" for people.

Who Knew? Working Is Racist

Yet another racist "dog whistle" that apparently only Democrats can hear.

On this morning's Morning Joe (a show I would avoid like the plague even if I got MSNBC), Chris Matthews went at it with GOP Chairman Reince Preibus.  From the MSNBC website, here's the most salient portion:

I have to call you on this Mr. Chairman. You’ve been suggesting that somehow Obama has been running a negative campaign and your guy is running a positive campaign, but that’s not accurate. They’ve both been negative. That cheap shot about 'I don’t have a problem with my birth certificate [from Romney] was awful. It is an embarrassment to your party to play that card. This part about getting rid of the work requirement for welfare is dishonest. You are playing that ethnic card there.
 

You can play your games and giggle about it, but the fact is your side is playing that card. When you start talking about work requirements, you know what game you’re playing, and everybody knows what game you’re playing. It’s the race card. Yeah, if your name is Romney, yeah you were well-born, you went to prep school. Yeah, brag about it. Yeah, this guy [Obama] has an African name and he has to live with it.

Okay... so what I'm getting here is:
1) It's okay for Barack Obama to be negative because Romney has been, too.  Which, I guess, it really is, but it's Obama who has been denying that he's running a negative campaign.  You'll notice Mr. Matthews doesn't even try to defend that stance.

2) A joke which mentions Barack Obama's... nuanced relationship with his birth certificate is somehow racist and evil- as opposed to a one-liner to be dismissed and forgotten.  You'd think the Democrats were a little sensitive about that issue.  I wonder if it's because Obama himself claimed to be a citizen of Indonesia (or was it Kenya?  It's hard to keep straight with the SCOAMT) for something like 14 years.

3) Working is racist.  Apparently, only white people are capable of work, so requiring that welfare recipients work (or prove they're trying to get work) has a "disparate impact" on minorities.  Yes, Blacks and Hispanics, the Democrats believe you're too shiftless, lazy, and inept to be expected to work.  Republicans believe that you are quite capable, and that requiring you to do so is a good way to prevent the "hand up" that welfare is supposed to be from becoming a "hand out" which will only increase your dependency on the Government.

4) Barack Hussein Obama, who has gone by at least two names we know of (his current, and Barry Soetoro) is not capable of changing his name.  So is it his black half that can't change that, or his white half?

As light as I'm making of this imbecilic comment, it's important to understand: the Democrats really believe this.  They really believe that Blacks and Hispanics can only function with government help, that Blacks and Hispanics really are shiftless, lazy, and incompetent.  Republicans believe they're people just like Whites and Asians, and can succeed at anything if they'll put in the time, work, and effort.