Welfare Issue Is Mostly About What's Not Said

Today I saw another chart online that seemed to so obviously point out one issue or problem, but...to me at least...just raised more questions.

The below chart published by The Weekly Standard purports to show how 100 million people living in the US now in some way rely on Federal "welfare" - broadly defined. And it shows how the numbers have ramped over the past 3.5 years (conveniently since Obama took office).

In parallel with this, one of the current "buzz debate" issues right now in the media is Mitt Romney's charge that Obama lifted requirements for Federal welfare recipients - such that all one needs to do is be poor and let the Federal money roll on in. No effort to find a job needed.

Both of these items center on welfare and the assertion that Obama is turning America into a bunch of people dependent on the government. That's the R message and I believe it's coordinated.

I also think it's total bullshit.

In fact, I think its such bullshit that I won't even argue with the number on the chart. Lets, for the sake of argument, just accept them as fact.

Having said that, there are big issues with what this chart and the underlying assertions made by Romney on Obama and welfare that are either misrepresented or conveniently omitted.

Lets start with the chart. OK, so more people in some way rely on the Federal government for some sort of "welfare." Why? Why would more people over the last four years need that? Is it some super secret plan enacted by a Communist-in-disguise (Obama) who wishes to make people dependent on the government because...????

OR, could it possibly be that since 2008 our economy has been in the royal shitter following 8-20 years of decay brought on by the prevalence of the conservative prescription for the economy (massive deregulation, massive tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, big cuts in education, etc.)? Could that be it? Could it be that those very things caused the economy to crash and stay in the ditch? Outsourcing of jobs, financial sector meltdown, housing market in free fall, companies refusing to innovate to create new jobs in preference for sitting on cash, escalating costs for education...these are the problems created.

And in the aftermath of all that, guess what? People are hurting and need assistance in some way? I'd say yes, that's a MUCH more likely and logical reason for the increase shown in that chart. But it's not brought up.

Also, the nifty little chart does not include "corporate welfare" - the subsidies and tax breaks given to companies. You upset that 1/3 of people have some sort of welfare? How about US corporations who benefit from billions in payments, subsidies and tax breaks. That's right. Our government gives private companies...by some estimates...$2 trillion annually. That's far, far, faaaaaaaaaaaaaar more than it gives out in traditional welfare. Where's the outrage on that?

And finally on the chart...what if there were no welfare programs? How would people be getting along? Sure, there'll always be some element of society who wants to bilk us for a welfare check, but you know...even you conservatives in your hearts...that your average everyday American has too much pride and ambition to do that because they just want to. So, what if there weren't the programs? How would the unemployed, sick, old or disabled express their displeasure? Might not be too pretty.

OK, the other "Obama loves welfare" issue is Mitt Romney's advertisement in which he claims that Obama eliminated for states...such that now all anyone has to do is literally sit around and get a government check. Sounds pretty bad, right? But of course there's more to the story...the part they fail to tell you.

Turns out that states (in particular GOP led Nevada and Utah) asked the Federal government to waive certain Federal requirements if states themselves would implement more aggressive incentives and goals to get people off welfare. Get that? Obama and his team are willing to honor states' request to help them strengthen their ability to get people off welfare. Not exactly what Mitt is saying is it? Story HERE.

Even Newt Gingrich sees that this is all a stretch. And hey, if a guy as right wing and partisan as Newt can see it that plainly, well, you gotta realize Romney has gone far beyond playing fast and loose with the truth into pure fabrication (aka "lying").

This thing is SO Mitt Romney: sseize on some isolated element of something Obama said or did, take it out of context, tease out an angle that's really negative based on that snippet and then blow it up into issue. To some degree that's how political campaigns have operated for some time, but Romney is taking it to its extreme.

In the end, I think...through their desperate manipulation of facts and omission of vital information...these two "welfare" issues are desperate conservative attempt to sway undecided voters - in particular white males - with an issue they think will move them into their favor.

Last thought...I wonder how many people on welfare or assistance vote conservative?

Know Your History: 65th Anniversary of Market Garden

Today is the 65th anniversary of the start of Operation Market-Garden

Don't know what that was? Want to know why you should care?

Well, let me tell you.

To summarize, Market Garden was a massive campaign by the Americans and British to try and end World War II by Christmas 1944. Kicking off on Sept. 17, 1944 the goal was to drop thousands of paratroopers behind German lines in Holland to pave the way for Allied ground forces to advance across that country and directly into Germany. How this operation happened is both a testament to courage, but also has lessons for today.

If you've read the book or seen the movie "A Bridge Too Far" you know this story. Skip the background info immediately below and move on to a couple of my pictures and observations.

If you don't know the story, stick with me for a moment and read the background first as it's relevant to the observations below.

Background
The paratroopers were the "Market" portion of the operation. Their objective was to land behind the lines and capture a series of bridges over rivers and canals so that the "Garden" ground forces could advance across them. At the time the operation was planned, German forces were reeling backwards toward Germany in the aftermath of D-Day in June. Allied leadership felt that this was a perfect time to strike and, despite receiving some information to the contrary, simply assumed that opposition would be light. These were calculations they would regret.

The American 101st Airborne Division landed near the town of Eindhoven and took bridges in that area. The American 82nd Airborne Division landed near the city of Nijmegen (also the city where rock star Eddie Van Halen would later grow up by the way) and took several major bridges there - in particular the Nijmengen Bridge witch they captured in dramatic fashion by crossing the Waal River in little hand paddled boats and under fire. (Above: A picture of the Nijmegen Bridge that I took in 1994)

The British airborne forces dropped near the town of Arnhem, quickly moved into the city and secured the last and final key bridge of the operation there - the one across the Rhine. They were reinforced by Polish paratroops. (Below: A picture of the Arnhem Bridge I took in 1994)

Meanwhile, the British Garden ground forces had advanced over the other bridges secured by the Americans and had nearly reached Arnhem. But, German forces all along the route across Holland, and in particular near Arnhem, were significantly stronger than anticipated and ultimately after nine days of fighting the British had to withdraw from Arnhem. With the failure to capture and hold this last bridge, the overall operation failed in that the Allies couldn't cross the Rhine River and move on into Germany despite having captured a lot of enemy territory. And this is where the title of the book, the movie and the saying, "A Bridge Too Far" comes from. The war went on for another seven months.

Observations
OK, so...why remember this anniversary? Two reasons:

First and foremost, this was a HUGE operation that did help win the war overall despite failing in its own objectives. This success was not gained without loss of life. It is estimated that the Allies suffered 15,000-17,000 casualties in Operation Market Garden. So for those people's sacrifice alone I think it's worth taking a moment to remember the day they set off for their ultimate journey to defend freedom.

Second, I think that lessons of history are hard learned and this anniversary offers a reminder. One of the major reasons that Market Garden didn't fully succeed was faulty assumptions about the enemy and a willingness to look the other way when presented with info that might delay or cancel the operation. Sound familiar? It ought to given how we got into Iraq. So, my point here is that it is worth remembering the anniversary of Market Garden as a cautionary tale about over-excitement to enact military operations...even to the degree of ignoring significant danger signs or dismissing intelligence that suggests other actions would be better.

Victory!

Fake political attack raises disturbing questions

Here is a disturbing story from the campaign trail...

It appears that a McCain campaign worker made up a story about a black man attacking her for simply having a McCain bumper sticker on her car.

Turns out it was all a lie and she made the whole thing up.

Story here.

This is disturbing on two levels:

1) If the person did this on her own volition without encouragement from the campaign, this woman has serious mental health issues.

2) If the person did this upon the encouragement by the McCain campaign (even by some low level yahoo) then it shows how desperate the McCain campaign is. It also strongly suggests there is a racist element in that campaign...or at least one willing to go to the next level of race baiting to make political points.