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?

2010: A Bad Year for Rock....Or Was It?

I just read the latest issue of Rolling Stone. The one with Bieber on the cover. No...I did not read the article about "the Bieb." I don't care about him.

But, there were two articles that caught my attention.

The first and most obvious one was the concise, honest and passionate history of my favorite band, the Clash. I know the story well...so nothing new for me except a couple pictures I had not seen. However, two thoughts here. One, if you don't know much of the Clash or their records, read the article. You may find yourself compelled to check them out. Two, the last line of the story says, "The tragedy of the Clash is that we no longer allow the room for their sort of voice."

Which leads me to the other story in the magazine that caught my attention - a story outlining how in the entire history of rock, 2010 was a commercial low. Rock. OK...not dance, country (or what passes for it these days), pop, techno, rap or anything like that. Rock. Rock and roll has hit an all time low in terms of selling music. The article goes on at some length as why this is and that rock bands actually can do well by just touring and/or releasing their music on their own via the Internet. However, it's disconcerting to know that frickin' ROCK AND ROLL is not something the American public wants to hear enough to buy records. That's just depressing. Of course, it may just be the thing the doctor ordered as often when things get stale, boring and predictable...along comes a blast of aggressive great music. See the UK in the late 1970s or the USA in the early 1990s.

Anyway, the article does not mean there were not some really good rock and roll albums out new in 2010. For example, check these sets out if you have not:

• The Gaslight Anthem - American Slang
• Manic Street Preachers - Postcards From A Young Man
• The Courteeners - Falcon
• Sound of Guns - What Came From Fire
• Vampire Weekend - Contra

Throw in new ones in 2011 already by Social Distortion (Hard Times and Nursery Rhymes) and British Sea Power (Valhalla Dancehall) and things are not all that bleak for the last 12-14 months.

Oh, and finally, there were two other really good stories in the same issue: apparently Bevis and Butt Head are coming back as a TV show and Matt Tiaibbi's expose on why key figures on Wall Street are not in jail.

A Little Ammo for Those Pre-Election Conversations

With the election coming up in just under two weeks, many people will be making up their minds how they are going to vote. While most probably are not influencable, there may be some people who are even as late as election day itself.

Look, my feeling is that turning the Federal government back over to the very same people who ran our nation into the ground over the past 10 years - and that's what we're talking about when we ponder a change in leadership in Congress - is exactly the wrong thing to do.

From what I can tell, most Americans have the political attention span of a gnat on speed, so many may not remember that virtually every single one of our economic problems were designed, created, manifested and grew to disaster proportions under leadership of the last administration and under conservative rule of Congress.

If you feel the same way, below are a few tips for conversations you may have between now and election day with people who may be leaning towards voting us back to the stone age, but perhaps haven't put too much thought into it yet.

• Note - if the person you are talking to is firmly convinced, then nothing you say will change his or her mind or make them think any differently than they already do. Ain't gonna happen. You might want to jab a little for fun, but don't expect to change that person's mind.
• Note - if you are a conservative and reading this, I understand if you disagree. You may want to skim this quick (or just ignore it) and then tune into Fox News for your fix.

OK, here are some tips for potential topics that may come up in your political discussions over the next few days...

THEY SAY:
I'm voting for CANDIDATE X from the Tea Party because we just need to clean house in Congress. Throw the bums out. Send a message.

YOU SAY:
Yeah, things are pretty messed up in DC. That's for sure. But you know, just voting for someone to kick others out may not always be the best thing. I mean, you gotta consider who you are voting for as well. Seems like a lot of the Tea Party candidates have some pretty "out there" ideas like getting rid of Social Security and Medicare. And I'm not even going to get into some of the wackier things some of these Tea Party candidates indulge in (dressing up like a Nazi, being homophobic but collecting rent on a gay nightclub). Just saying, but I'd check out the candidates you're voting for more if I were you.

THEY SAY:
Government is too big. We need to reduce it's size and get it off the backs of Americans. That's how I'm voting.

YOU SAY:
If that's how you feel, I can't see how you'd want to vote Republican. The U.S. federal government grew to its largest size ever in terms of spending and number of people employed during the six years when Republicans ran the entire show - President and Congress Do you really want to hand over control of the government back to the people who made it so big?

THEY SAY:
I'm voting for fiscal responsibility. Our budget deficit is going to kill our economy and our childrens' future.

YOU SAY:

Yes, I agree 100 percent. I also agree that getting the budget balanced and back into the black is the right thing to do. I assume then, that you'll be voting Democrat, right? I mean...hey, lets face facts. The record budget deficits we now have are a direct result of Republican leadership over the past decade and longer. Reduced taxes for the wealthy and big business, massive deregulation of markets, free trade policies, along with increased government spending and financing two wars are all key moves made by Republican Congresses and the Bush White House. We're still trying to dig out from that. You want to give them control again? I say no. And hey, guess who led us out of the last debt crisis and into the back - Bill Clinton.

THEY SAY:
I'm voting for the Tea Party because our freedom and liberty are under attack. We need to get those back.
YOU SAY:
I am not sure I understand? The U.S. economy and culture are the freest in the entire world. Just so I know where you're coming from better, what are you now no longer able to do freely that you want back?

THEY SAY:
I'm voting conservative (or Republican or Tea Party) because of (insert moral, religious or "family values" issue here).

YOU SAY:
I can tell you're passionate about this. But, when was the last time a conservative or Republican controlled government actually delivered on your issue - or any moral values issue? Abortion is still legal. We still have firm separation of church and state. Gay marriage is still legal in a number of states and if anything the tide is going towards more of it. Same with assisted suicide. Seems like the Republicans or conservatives use issues like yours to get your vote and then never deliver. You know...they're using you.

NOTE: you are not going to change a person's mind on their moral issue, but you may someone to think twice about voting for the same type of candidates over and over.

THEY SAY:
I am just not seeing the change that I voted for in 2008, so I am not going to vote. It clearly makes no difference.

YOU SAY:
Healthcare reform has been passed, a stimulus to the economy has helped stabilize it and stave off worse unemployment, the auto industry has been saved and we're starting to dial back our presence in Iraq. Sure, there is more to do and no it's not as fast as I'd like either. But, not voting will basically hand the government back over to the very people who wrecked us before. Not a good move in my book.

THEY SAY:
Unemployment is still really high and Obama and Congress have done nothing to fix it.

YOU SAY:
Yeah, I'm disappointed too. But I think it's wrong to blame Obama. I mean, he came into office with high unemployment and an economy just about to go down the tubes. He's done a pretty good job of stabilizing the economy and unemployment rates in under two years.

More important than any of that is the fact that jobs are created by businesses - not the government. To me, it seems like businesses are not innovating to grow - and with it hire people - but rather just finding new ways to lower costs by outsourcing or reducing staff. And, using the recession as an excuse to keep their now lighter employee base small. Maybe it would be good to have a government that encourages domestic innovation and employment.

Whose to blame for the current crisis?

With all the drama this week with the financial crisis and what to do about it, one prominent strain of conversation on TV and in DC is who to blame.

Everybody has their favorite culprit. Bush. De-regulation and those who championed it for years. Fat cats on Wall Street. Bankers. Lobbyists.

I think all those types are partially to blame. But, who gave them position and license to create this mess?

Yes, the American people. And that's primarily who is to blame.

We, the American people, have continually been conned by the false gods that conservatives put out there to entice us to vote for them. Family values. Rugged individualism. Ownership society. Compassionate conservatism. Get government off our backs. Read my lips. Who are you gonna trust? San Francisco. East coast elite. Supply side economics. Tax and spend liberals. Culture of life. There you go again. Government is the problem.

Sound familiar?

These are among the many short-hand "tag lines" conservatives from Reagan to W have used to dupe voters into giving them power. Problem is that once in power these so-called conservatives have not done anything to follow through on their promises except to deregulate many sectors of the economy to enrich their donors and cronies.

Well, that game just came to it's natural and predictable conclusion. Crisis. And we're all going to pay for it.

Congratulations America. You got what you deserve.

The good news is that you, American voter, can change things by voting smart in November. Think about what your issues are, what your problems are and what local and national candidates can really solve...and who has the credibility to do it.

Is it really that conservative talking to you about family values and fiscal restraint? That person who has presided over massive debt while doing nothing on  your values issue? Or, maybe it's the other candidate running in whatever race your looking at. 

Think. Reverse where this country is heading.