While watching with dread as the federal deficit soars, cast an equally somber eye at the number of people now receiving government help.
A record one in six people, according to yesterday's USA Today, a hauntingly high number. Whatever nation holds the record for having the largest percentage of its people on government assistance, I do not know, but one in six is sobering.
So, the federal deficit has sky rocketed as we have sought to save our economy? Even so have our welfare rolls ballooned to all-time highs.
So, you need unemployment insurance, but your benefits have run out? We'll extend them. According to USA Today, nearly 10 million receive unemployment benefits, nearly four times as many as in 2007.
So, you are just flat in need of government welfare? More than 4.4 million are now on the welfare, according to USA Today, The paper says the number has increased 18 percent during the recession. (While "welfare" can apply to any government assistance for the needy, I believe USA Today here is referring just to TANF, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is the program often designated as "welfare.")
Do you have medical needs, but can't afford them? The USA Today story says more than 50 million are on Medicaid. This is believed to be the highest peak the Medicaid has ever had. The numbers are 17 percent higher than at the beginning of the recession in December, 2007.
And, if you'll note, all of the above doesn't mention the free government aid awarded through stimulus money. Much of it could be termed government aid.
This recession, the answer has been, jump on the government's back, and we have, pushing our welfare rolls to historic levels.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Welfare Threatens Nation, So Give Everyone Job
Our way of caring for those who need a little help is to give them a handout. Has been for probably 75 years now, August having marked the 75th anniversary of the Social Security Act.
We must, if you don't mind, change that.
And, what would be a better solution? Give them jobs. Simply give everyone a job.
This is a state issue, to some degree. States dictate the qualifications for Unemployment Insurance. We can, as a state change it and also change some of the other social assistance programs.
Why, pray tell, do we not? Why in a state where many believe in work, do we not require whenever we can that people work? Work benefits our society, and it benefits the individual. With the economy what it is, the national unemployment rate riding steady at about 9.5 percent, what if we were simply to offer everyone a job, every person willing to work?
Reading the USA Today article, about how a record one in six is now on welfare, I cringed. We are not considering the danger we have moved into by having so many people on our welfare rolls. Even as the federal deficit is a threat, so is the rate of people on welfare. As with anything in life, a person is more likely to try something again once he has tried it that initial time.
So, during this recession as record numbers have turned to government assistance, we have raised the threat of our becoming a welfare nation.
I would guess more people have been introduced to government assistance these past three years than at any time in our history. We are taught Unemployment Insurance is rightfully ours, that it is simply an insurance that payments are made into with the understanding we should then draw from it when we lose our jobs.
I, too, believe that. I likely would take UI benefits if I were to lose my job and be unable to immediately find new employment.
Accepting government-funded help? How long have we heard the mantra, "I pay my taxes, so I am not getting something for nothing when I receive this help."
And it is a true statement. Trully, we should take the help if we have been paying in and reach a point where we need a help.
What I fear is that many of us will get a taste of the help and eat from the trough longer than we need, or return quicker than we need. This is not an idle worry. It is the way of humankind.
Our welfare system is an accident waiting to happen, simply because human nature is to get something the easiest way possible, and keep receiving it if it is possible. Many trully do need help, but others might simply justify being on the program. Herd them that way, and they may graze there too long.
I think of my days growing up on a farm, how the cow could not be left alone in a field of alfalfa, or it would eat until it bloated. So it is with us, we cannot be left on the welfare rolls, but must be herded back to the job market.
What are we doing to herd them back to work?
What you practice is what you become. So, instead of giving people something for nothing, we need to provide work for them whenever we give them assistance. Then, they are practicing work.
Developing a work ethic in our people is, indeed, one of the answers to our sour economy that we are not considering.
Let's provide jobs for every single person willing to work. Let's create small companies at every pocket of unemployment. We can create a small company for those panhandling and begging in downtown Salt Lake City. We can create a small company for those on TANF, for those on Unemployment Insurance, and even those on disability (many of them can do some kind of work, if not physical labor). Let's attach small work programs to our homeless shelters.
Sometimes, it might be no more than giving them flowers to sell on street corners. Work is work, though, so that is enough.
Who is going to create these jobs, these companies? I submit to you it would be better use of our tax dollars to create employment than to just giving out money outright, but private enterprise should be able to support our needy.
We already have so many rich philanthropists. Would it be so impossible to ask put a new twist on their giving, instead of just giving, creating the small companies we need?
This avoids the dreaded socialism.
But, however we do it, let's provide work, jobs, for everyone, everyone who is willing to work. Really, there is no reason for not having 100 percent employment, at least of those who are willing to work. Even those who are unable to do most work, can be given something to do: Making phone calls from their bed, even if but for just a short period each day, is better than providing them no work at all.
There are two ways of measuring a bad economy. One is to look at how many people are unemployed, and how many receiving assistance, and how many in need. The other is to look at the GNP, and the stock market, and consumer spending.
The first of those two can be solved easy enough. Just create jobs for everyone. That is not a hard solution. It is something we should do.
We must, if you don't mind, change that.
And, what would be a better solution? Give them jobs. Simply give everyone a job.
This is a state issue, to some degree. States dictate the qualifications for Unemployment Insurance. We can, as a state change it and also change some of the other social assistance programs.
Why, pray tell, do we not? Why in a state where many believe in work, do we not require whenever we can that people work? Work benefits our society, and it benefits the individual. With the economy what it is, the national unemployment rate riding steady at about 9.5 percent, what if we were simply to offer everyone a job, every person willing to work?
Reading the USA Today article, about how a record one in six is now on welfare, I cringed. We are not considering the danger we have moved into by having so many people on our welfare rolls. Even as the federal deficit is a threat, so is the rate of people on welfare. As with anything in life, a person is more likely to try something again once he has tried it that initial time.
So, during this recession as record numbers have turned to government assistance, we have raised the threat of our becoming a welfare nation.
I would guess more people have been introduced to government assistance these past three years than at any time in our history. We are taught Unemployment Insurance is rightfully ours, that it is simply an insurance that payments are made into with the understanding we should then draw from it when we lose our jobs.
I, too, believe that. I likely would take UI benefits if I were to lose my job and be unable to immediately find new employment.
Accepting government-funded help? How long have we heard the mantra, "I pay my taxes, so I am not getting something for nothing when I receive this help."
And it is a true statement. Trully, we should take the help if we have been paying in and reach a point where we need a help.
What I fear is that many of us will get a taste of the help and eat from the trough longer than we need, or return quicker than we need. This is not an idle worry. It is the way of humankind.
Our welfare system is an accident waiting to happen, simply because human nature is to get something the easiest way possible, and keep receiving it if it is possible. Many trully do need help, but others might simply justify being on the program. Herd them that way, and they may graze there too long.
I think of my days growing up on a farm, how the cow could not be left alone in a field of alfalfa, or it would eat until it bloated. So it is with us, we cannot be left on the welfare rolls, but must be herded back to the job market.
What are we doing to herd them back to work?
What you practice is what you become. So, instead of giving people something for nothing, we need to provide work for them whenever we give them assistance. Then, they are practicing work.
Developing a work ethic in our people is, indeed, one of the answers to our sour economy that we are not considering.
Let's provide jobs for every single person willing to work. Let's create small companies at every pocket of unemployment. We can create a small company for those panhandling and begging in downtown Salt Lake City. We can create a small company for those on TANF, for those on Unemployment Insurance, and even those on disability (many of them can do some kind of work, if not physical labor). Let's attach small work programs to our homeless shelters.
Sometimes, it might be no more than giving them flowers to sell on street corners. Work is work, though, so that is enough.
Who is going to create these jobs, these companies? I submit to you it would be better use of our tax dollars to create employment than to just giving out money outright, but private enterprise should be able to support our needy.
We already have so many rich philanthropists. Would it be so impossible to ask put a new twist on their giving, instead of just giving, creating the small companies we need?
This avoids the dreaded socialism.
But, however we do it, let's provide work, jobs, for everyone, everyone who is willing to work. Really, there is no reason for not having 100 percent employment, at least of those who are willing to work. Even those who are unable to do most work, can be given something to do: Making phone calls from their bed, even if but for just a short period each day, is better than providing them no work at all.
There are two ways of measuring a bad economy. One is to look at how many people are unemployed, and how many receiving assistance, and how many in need. The other is to look at the GNP, and the stock market, and consumer spending.
The first of those two can be solved easy enough. Just create jobs for everyone. That is not a hard solution. It is something we should do.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Religion Not in Opposition to Social Duties
Hey, does one of the earliest and key papers used to argue a barrier should exist between church and state actually say religion is quite alright in government?
I believe it does.
The idea of separation of church and state has been traced by some to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, in which he wrote of a "wall of separation between church and State."
I find the letter to be arguing religion should not be removed from government, that there is nothing in the practice of religion that stands in opposition to the public duties.
Public duties include those of public officials, so this would indicate religion should be allowed in the performance of public duties by public officials.
Here's the whole quote, taken from his letter. The part I refer to is at the very end:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their 'legislature' should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Jefferson's letter was written in 1802 to a minority group, the Danbury Baptists, who were concerned about being dominated by the Congregationalist church in Connecticut.
I believe it does.
The idea of separation of church and state has been traced by some to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote, in which he wrote of a "wall of separation between church and State."
I find the letter to be arguing religion should not be removed from government, that there is nothing in the practice of religion that stands in opposition to the public duties.
Public duties include those of public officials, so this would indicate religion should be allowed in the performance of public duties by public officials.
Here's the whole quote, taken from his letter. The part I refer to is at the very end:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their 'legislature' should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
Jefferson's letter was written in 1802 to a minority group, the Danbury Baptists, who were concerned about being dominated by the Congregationalist church in Connecticut.
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Thanks, Glenn Beck
Today's event was an uncommon one, a rally of an estimated 87,000 that focused as much as anything on . . .
Religion?
I have perhaps only once or twice caught snippets from Glenn Beck's talk show, and I didn't tune in for his "Restoring Honor" event, but from the story I read at Fox News, it was a worthy occasion.
"Something that is beyond man is happening," Fox quotes Beck as saying. "America today begins to turn back to God."
Now, Beck is a political commentator. Many in attendance were Tea Partyers. Sarah Palin spoke. Of course politics were not entirely avoided. But, the quotes I read from Beck didn't reflect partisan politics, he even quoted from Barack Obama. And, he had asked attendees to leave their signs at home.
I think it a good thing, the rally. (Apologies, though, did I read somewhere that Beck didn't want it called a rally? -- But it was.)
I think it a neat thing that a national leader threw such a big event to turn our hearts to God.
Religion?
I have perhaps only once or twice caught snippets from Glenn Beck's talk show, and I didn't tune in for his "Restoring Honor" event, but from the story I read at Fox News, it was a worthy occasion.
"Something that is beyond man is happening," Fox quotes Beck as saying. "America today begins to turn back to God."
Now, Beck is a political commentator. Many in attendance were Tea Partyers. Sarah Palin spoke. Of course politics were not entirely avoided. But, the quotes I read from Beck didn't reflect partisan politics, he even quoted from Barack Obama. And, he had asked attendees to leave their signs at home.
I think it a good thing, the rally. (Apologies, though, did I read somewhere that Beck didn't want it called a rally? -- But it was.)
I think it a neat thing that a national leader threw such a big event to turn our hearts to God.
May Ours Be A Christian Nation
So, Glenn Beck called on us to turn to God. What do I think of us being a Christian nation? What do I think of mixing religion and politics?
On the coin, it says, "In God We Trust." In the Pledge of Allegiance, we say, "one nation, under God." When taking an oath of office, the office holder often places a hand on the Bible and says, "So help me God."
These are not mistakes that have crept in. They are not items requiring correction. Oh, if the day comes when the majority wants them removed, it will be right to remove them, but I hope that day never comes.
George Washington, in his inaugural address, said, "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe."
Perhaps, then, when we wrestle with what separation of church and state should be, we shouldn't separate God from state. It is wise to ensure that no one religious faction controls the government, and that no single church is pronounced the official church and that the rights of all denominations -- Christian and non-Christian -- are protected.
I would even say it is right that no elected official should have to place his (or her) hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God."
But, may he forever have that option, and my personal hope is that he chooses to include God in his oath.
May everyone have the right to worship as they see fit. May Muslims and Buddhists and Jews have the same civil rights as Christians. When Muslims, or Buddhists, or Jews, or Wiccians are elected or appointed, let's not require them to observe any Christian oath or observance. If it is a city council's practice to hold a prayer at the beginning of a meeting and if a person is elected who does not believe in God, let him excuse himself from the prayer, or join the group after the prayer, or stand by with his eyes open and arms unfolded -- whatever he will -- and let us not think it wrong or hold ill will toward him.
But, let us not mandate God out of our government. When public officials want to turn to God, they should be allowed to do so. When they want to acknowledge Him, pray to Him, or honor Him, they should be allowed to do so.
Even more, it is my personal hope that they do. I hope ours remains a Christian nation. I hope our leaders are Christians, God fearing and God abiding, and I believe they should have the right to seek God as they carry out their official duties.
That, too, is freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion, to me, includes being able to practice religion in all settings and in all places, including in the public arena. Freedom of religion, to me, means not being forced to check it at the door. It doesn't mean religion is taboo. It means it is allowed. Simply said, freedom of religion is being able to include religion in all you do, rather than having to exclude it in certain settings.
What, then, of the Constitution, the First Amendment, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Well, to me, this only backs what I have already said. The Constitution doesn't mandate that religion leave government. It mandates that government leave religion alone.
On the coin, it says, "In God We Trust." In the Pledge of Allegiance, we say, "one nation, under God." When taking an oath of office, the office holder often places a hand on the Bible and says, "So help me God."
These are not mistakes that have crept in. They are not items requiring correction. Oh, if the day comes when the majority wants them removed, it will be right to remove them, but I hope that day never comes.
George Washington, in his inaugural address, said, "It would be peculiarly improper to omit, in this first official act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe."
Perhaps, then, when we wrestle with what separation of church and state should be, we shouldn't separate God from state. It is wise to ensure that no one religious faction controls the government, and that no single church is pronounced the official church and that the rights of all denominations -- Christian and non-Christian -- are protected.
I would even say it is right that no elected official should have to place his (or her) hand on the Bible and say, "So help me God."
But, may he forever have that option, and my personal hope is that he chooses to include God in his oath.
May everyone have the right to worship as they see fit. May Muslims and Buddhists and Jews have the same civil rights as Christians. When Muslims, or Buddhists, or Jews, or Wiccians are elected or appointed, let's not require them to observe any Christian oath or observance. If it is a city council's practice to hold a prayer at the beginning of a meeting and if a person is elected who does not believe in God, let him excuse himself from the prayer, or join the group after the prayer, or stand by with his eyes open and arms unfolded -- whatever he will -- and let us not think it wrong or hold ill will toward him.
But, let us not mandate God out of our government. When public officials want to turn to God, they should be allowed to do so. When they want to acknowledge Him, pray to Him, or honor Him, they should be allowed to do so.
Even more, it is my personal hope that they do. I hope ours remains a Christian nation. I hope our leaders are Christians, God fearing and God abiding, and I believe they should have the right to seek God as they carry out their official duties.
That, too, is freedom of religion.
Freedom of religion, to me, includes being able to practice religion in all settings and in all places, including in the public arena. Freedom of religion, to me, means not being forced to check it at the door. It doesn't mean religion is taboo. It means it is allowed. Simply said, freedom of religion is being able to include religion in all you do, rather than having to exclude it in certain settings.
What, then, of the Constitution, the First Amendment, which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"? Well, to me, this only backs what I have already said. The Constitution doesn't mandate that religion leave government. It mandates that government leave religion alone.
Just a Day of Thanks, or a Day for God?
Thanksgiving isn't a day to just be thankful in general, without thanking anyone in particular, but rather it is a day to give thanks to, specifically, God.
Even more, it is a day to serve God.
Open up the proclamation, if you will, and see it you don't read that it is to be a day "devoted . . . to the service of that great and glorious Being."
Imagine, a holiday created just to honor God. I've always thought that would be neat, but imagined Christmas was the closest thing.
Well, go ahead and open it up and read what George Washington said in the proclamation way back in 1789:
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us."
Even more, it is a day to serve God.
Open up the proclamation, if you will, and see it you don't read that it is to be a day "devoted . . . to the service of that great and glorious Being."
Imagine, a holiday created just to honor God. I've always thought that would be neat, but imagined Christmas was the closest thing.
Well, go ahead and open it up and read what George Washington said in the proclamation way back in 1789:
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:
"Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us."
Political Contributors Often Want Political Favors
I do not like it that the people who finance our political campaigns are very often the ones wanting political favors once the candidates are elected. Could we put an end to this? Maybe, but not without you, the voter.
I'm running for the legislature the hard way, having vowed to take no monetary political contributions.
That, please note, means no special interest money.
I would hope my stand on special-interest money, alone, might win your vote. But, I will be quick to state my view on other issues, selecting a news story a day, and matching it with an opinion on an issue, posting them on this blog site. While the stories and posts are usually on national issues, you still will be getting a feel for me as a candidate.
Know someone who lives in House District 41? If you want to support my campaign, please share a post with them, or suggest they become my Facebook friend so they can be notified when I post blogs.
District 41 has the Midvale city limits and 8680 North as its northern border, and lies between 1-15 on the west and 700 East on the east. That part of the district stretches down to 11400 South (excluding a little box in the southeast corner).
It also includes the area between the Jordan River on the west and I-15 on the east, between 10600 South and 12300 South.
And, the district takes in the area south of 12300 South between 300 East and about 1300 West, with that part of the district going south to 13800.
And, it includes the area south of Bangerter Highway between I-15 and 4800 West, going to the county line.
I'm running against Todd Kiser.
-- John Jackson, candidate for Utah House District 41.
I'm running for the legislature the hard way, having vowed to take no monetary political contributions.
That, please note, means no special interest money.
I would hope my stand on special-interest money, alone, might win your vote. But, I will be quick to state my view on other issues, selecting a news story a day, and matching it with an opinion on an issue, posting them on this blog site. While the stories and posts are usually on national issues, you still will be getting a feel for me as a candidate.
Know someone who lives in House District 41? If you want to support my campaign, please share a post with them, or suggest they become my Facebook friend so they can be notified when I post blogs.
District 41 has the Midvale city limits and 8680 North as its northern border, and lies between 1-15 on the west and 700 East on the east. That part of the district stretches down to 11400 South (excluding a little box in the southeast corner).
It also includes the area between the Jordan River on the west and I-15 on the east, between 10600 South and 12300 South.
And, the district takes in the area south of 12300 South between 300 East and about 1300 West, with that part of the district going south to 13800.
And, it includes the area south of Bangerter Highway between I-15 and 4800 West, going to the county line.
I'm running against Todd Kiser.
-- John Jackson, candidate for Utah House District 41.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)