Welfare: Reform, Overhaul, Status-Quo?



What too many people think about when they think welfare!

 Another hot topic during election season is welfare.  I can't recount how many times I have heard or seen the picture on this blog on facebook or other media sites.  As the picture shows, too many people believe that welfare is just a government hand-out to people who don't want to work.  So is that really the case?

The answer is YES, NO and MAYBE SO...

You might be scratch your head and saying, "Huh?" It's politics, there are no clear cut answers. Where do you think the term politically correct came from? Politicians!  There can be a wide debate on welfare, but there are also some hard truths that both conservatives and liberals  need to face.

Are there people on welfare who know how to "work" the system?  Absolutely!  Are there people on welfare who really need assistance?  Most definitely!  Is there a grey area? That's a rhetorical question.  The right question to ask is why is the system that way.  Simple answer...inherent design flaw.  In all reality, the system works best for those who don't help themselves.

You might be asking what do I mean? Well great strides were made to the TANF program (the one that grants money) when recipients were required to work to be able to collect cash benefits.  Supporter or not of welfare, you should see this as a win-win.  So small businesses and charities were able to put unemployed workers in the workforce.  Think of it as a free trial run for the employers.  The goal was for the employers to hire the employees who worked well.  This was suppose to alleviate some of the burden to small business and give valuable work skills to those who need it.  The SNAP, EBT, or Food Stamp program as it is more widely know as does not have the working requirements.  Unfortunately, the new changes are giving the states more leeway in the working requirements like when they can be waived.

Why don't they have a requirement? Simple answer again...people need to eat.  I am not going to talk about people who have cash paying jobs, or illegal activities that subsidize their income.  This will always be a way to "work" the system that can have little governmental oversight.  There are also people who will always find ways around the system.  I know many states are trying to crack down on people who sell their food stamps for cash.  Before you condemn them, think that only food is covered on the program.  So items like toilet paper, toothpaste, soap, feminine products, and diapers are not covered.  I am not saying that this is right, but I could understand why someone does it.  Then there is the flip side where people sell them for cash in exchange for illicit purposes like drugs.

So with all the bad things that can happen, when is this not a case of abuse?  When the system works as many thought of it was originally made to work then we have the proper welfare.  A perfect example would be a single mother who does not have a job or works for minimum wage and needs to make ends meet.  If you think that minimum wage can pay the bills for a small family, I am not sure where you live in the United States, but please let me know.  Some think that this case never happens, but it happens more often then many want to think. One of our largest employers is a good example--Walmart!  This large conglomerate receives tax breaks for creating jobs...jobs for which many of the employees are on public assistance or qualify for it.  Some savings there!  So these individuals are being taxed to pay for their own assistance.

I talked about grey area, which is pretty much every other case.  Take for example a mother working for $16 hour in large expensive area like New York City.  For some $16 an hour may seem like a lot, but not if that is the only money a family of four receives.  So before taxes, the family brings home $640 a week.  The family is no longer eligible for food stamps, TANF, and in many states medical coverage.  In reality, the family will have approximately $467 take home a week.  If you take into account, the family should have medical and dental coverage, you are looking at about at least $80 a week for insurance for a family.  Now the take home is $387.  I believe the calculation is 4.2x the weekly rate which mean the monthly income is $1,625.40.  It would be hard to pay rent in a decent neighborhood with that amount of money.

So hear is where is works best not to help yourself.  If mother did not work, she would receive approximately $800 per month in rental subsidy, $668 per month in food, over $400 a month of cash assistance with free medical.  I didn't mention that her $87 a week medical also has deductibles for everything where as the government is free for children and minor charges for adults.  So her net with aid is over $1,868.  This doesn't include other assistance out there for low-income families.  She may qualify with $16 an hour for some of them since she is still below the poverty line, but not at the same rate as if collecting public aid.  So the system is not designed to help those who try to help themselves!  It actually works against you while you are in this grey zone between cap limits and getting over the poverty line.  But as a mother, wouldn't you do what is best for your child?  Some may argue that it is by leading a better example and scrapping by, but financially it is more sound to do nothing. 

With everything said, does anyone else see the inherent flaw in welfare?  Don't argue about your taxes when many of the people on welfare are paying taxes for their own assistance.  It seems like a good time to go back to the drawing board.  Reform, Overhaul, or Status-quo...you decide.

Roe v Wade Almost 40 Years Later

It's not about what is wrong with today, that would be an entirely different subject.  It's what is wrong with this era.  Now this could take a few blogs.  It's like where do I begin?  More importantly, where does it end? (or for somethings the better question might be where does it end?).  So, I am going to tackle just one topic today.

Too often, we as a society lose sight on what the real issues are.  I am not talking about whether or not Jennifer Aniston got engaged just to show up Angelina Jolie or whether or not, Kim Kardashin and Kanye West's relationship is a media gold mine.  I could care less!  I wish more people did too.  Somehow the real issues in society got lost.  Let's start with Roe vs. Wade.

Yes, I am going back almost 40 years.  It seems like we should have moved on from the topic, but it keeps coming back.  Pro-life or Pro-Choice.  If you know me, you know exactly where I stand.  If you don't know where I stand you will by the end of the blog.  First of all, this is a  very strong topic and I welcome all stances and opinions.  We all know that for the most part the politicians are divided by party lines like Republicans are pro-Life and Democrats are pro-Choice.  This is not always the case, but is primarily true.

What does pro-Life entail?  This is probably the easiest side for me to understand.  It means that life begins a conception.  So from the time that an egg is fertilized by one of those strong swimmers (think Michael Phelps in Beijing) then the fetus is alive.  Many pro-Choice politicians, including Mitt Romney, agree that abortion is ok in the case of rape.  (Let's not talk about Rep. Akin and his stance on "Legitimate Rape" that is another of my blogs.)  It would be hard to argue with this exception, so I won't.  It is also the same party that would like to get rid of welfare that helps lower economic class to support their children.  (Welfare reform is another topic all together.)  So let's take away an option for you to not have a child you can't support...hmmm.

Pro-Choice is the other side of the fence. The woman is the one who gets pregnant, it is her body, it is her choice.  The concept also seems pretty simple to me.  Who give the government the right to tell a woman what she can and can not do with her own body?  Does this mean that a life is being terminated?  In reality, this is a matter of religion and/or personal belief.

So how would I consider myself...a moderate maybe.  I believe that fundamentally the government does not have the right to tell me what to do with my own body.  Maybe I also have a unique perspective with the fact that having another child could literally kill me.  The odds would not be so great considering that I was on a ventilator when my last child came into the world.  My little miracle baby as I call her.

So yes, I am pro-Choice!  I maybe getting a little bit of flack from my pastor father-in-law for openly saying this, but it's my personal belief.  Why Roe v Wade should not be vacated? It's for people like me, people who have been raped, people who should not be having children, people who can't afford more children, people who should just have the right to choose,etc.  I know there a probably a lot of people who would argue with me about people who can't afford it or shouldn't have children so please post a comment if you would like.

Moderate? Yes!  While I do believe in a woman's right to choose, I also believe that there other factors that need to be considered.  Personally, I believe a life begins when the fetus can survive outside of the womb.  Many people don't know when this can actually occur, but I believe it is toward the end of the second trimester.  I viewed in great depth the progress of someone who went to high school with me who had a 23-week child.  A child who was given a 5% chance and in a couple of months will celebrate another birthday.  (I can't tell you how many prayers I said for that little girl and her family and I'm not religious.)

So for me, she was alive and a life.  This is where I draw the line.  In some countries, they allow late-term abortions.  I believe that this is beyond comprehension.  I don't agree with abortions after the first trimester.  I once worked with a European who said that if her amino at 16 weeks showed a baby who was handicapped then she would not carry the baby to full term.  I'm not sure how I feel about that and luckily I have never been put into that situation.  I also don't agree with using abortion as birth control.  Again, that is a personal belief and not one that the government should have a say in.

After almost 40 years, it seems like we would have more to talk about than the right (or wrong) of choice.  Not everyone who supports, pro-Choice agrees with abortion, not everyone who is pro-Life doesn't kill (too many bombed abortion clinics to count)!  Hopefully, we can find more substantial political points to argue about in the future like the economy, international trade relations, and government spending.  As for Roe v Wade, maybe Tupac said it best, "Since a man can't make one [a baby], he has no right to tell a woman when and where to create one."

Where is their American Dream?

Let me start by saying that I am third generation born in the United States.  Not one of my great-grandparents was born in the United States. They all came post-WWI.  Am I proud to be an American?  Shouldn't be a difficult question because it's not.  I am very happy to be born in this wonderful country.  Where I can sit in front of a laptop and type away all my thoughts without fear of what might happen to me.  (Other than some nosey little CIA or FBI poking around.  LOL)  I live in a country where freedoms exists and anyone can make it.  Well almost anyone!

My family came to this country to escape the hardships of their homelands in hope for a better future.  A better future not only for themselves, but also for their children.  It is every parents wish and desire for their children to have a better life than they did.  (At least for every parent I know.)  So it was no wonder that my great-grandparents came here to live the "American Dream."  Who could blame them? 

But not all of my great-grandparents came here as adults.  Some of them came here as children.  Let me remind anyone reading this, that children are innocent, nature and nurture develop them.  They came here with big dreams.  Some of them lived them and some of them at least saw the opportunities bestowed on their children.  Is it any wonder why so many people try to immigrate to this country?  We built up this "American Dream" and offer it on TV, the Internet, heck anywhere we can blast it.  I hear how often that the US is the best place to live in the world.  I hear from Americans daily...proud Americans.

Some of these proud Americans are the same people who don't understand how enticing that dream is to people who not as fortunate.  I am talking about immigration.  I know another political topic during an election year...who would have thought I would go there?  (Insert sarcasm!)  I am bringing this back to the children.  My great-grandparents were not asked to come to this country.  There parents brought them here. When I took my children to Disney World, they didn't have a choice on when, where, or how long we would be there.  Why?  Because they ARE children!!  So why can't some of these immigrant children share the dream!

President Obama, (I just felt the eye rolls from some Anti-Obama readers), has made some changes to the immigration law calling it the "Dream Act".  First I want to point out that this rule applies only to people who came to this country as CHILDREN.  Remember, the ones who had no choice but to come with their parents.  Unless by chance, you would move to another country and leave your kids behind?  Secondly, it does not make the US citizens.  Can it lead to citizenship?  I'm sure it could given the right circumstances, but that is not the topic at hand.  What the new law allows is for illegal immigrants who came to this country to obtain a green card.  But they have to meet certain criteria:

• Had to come to this country as a child (before age 16)
• Must posses a high school diploma or GED
• No criminal convictions
• Been in the country for at least 5 years

 The "Dream Act" creates a special immigration status for these children.

Now here come the opponents.  First of all, why would we not want them to obtain a green card?  Now we can collect taxes?  Now we have at least high school educated, non-criminals in the job force legally?  People who never had a say as to whether or not they should live in the US.  People who live in constant fear of being deported over something that their parents made them do.

Do I support the "Dream Act"?  YES! Triple times YES!! Why? Let's start with the fact that I have a heart.  Continue with the fact that I want these people to be able to live the American Dream too.  When so many of our American born children are dropping out school, why not have a better educated workforce.  Why not provide people with an opportunity that my great-grandparents were given?  Oh, did I also mention that my children are first generation born here from an immigrant father?  So you go around flaunting this American Dream, like a bully waving an ice cream cone in front of a little kid, and then don't give it to them!  I ask the opponents why not?  At what price must freedom come?  Somewhere long ago your ancestors (unless you are native American) came from somewhere else too! 

If you get to live the American Dream, why can't they?

Legitimate Rape

There has been a lot of debate (if you can call it that) about the term "legitimate rape" and the reproductive system of women.  First of all, Rep. Todd Akin, I understand that you have apologized, but apology not accepted.  The term "legitimate rape" has sent the entire civilization back at least a hundred years.  Even more, if you consider how cave-man like the term really is. I want to start by saying that RAPE is RAPE.  There is no way to sugar coat it or water it down.  It's not a subject that everyone wants to hear about, but is on my mind.

I know that there are many terms out there that people associate with rape: date-rape, sexual assault, incest, molestation, etc.  Let me start by saying, not one of those terms could be as possibly offensive as "legitimate rape."  Rape no matter how you term it, it is detrimental to person that is why they are called victims.  So for anyone to say that there is a definition of what can  be considered legitimate rape and what is not then you have never been a victim or known a victim yourself.  (Heck at this point, I would wonder if anyone using this term has a mother, wife, sister, or daughter who they think would have to endure a "legitimate rape".)

Rape is one attack that is FOREVER.  It is widely under reported and more widespread than many people know.  This is primarily because the victim has to prove it.  The entire burden of proof is on the person who has already been assaulted, who must keep reliving and retelling one of their worst memories of their entire life.  The hardest of all to prove is date-rape.  There are still too many people in this world who think that NO can still mean YES.  (NO means NO!!!!)  So just because someone is your boyfriend, friend, or husband (speaking for woman right now, yes men can be raped too!), forces themselves on a woman does not mean she was looking for it.  It does not matter how provactively she dressed or how much she flirted or teased, no permission for the cookies, means NO!!  So Mr. Akin, is date rape not legitimate rape?  And who are you to judge that?

Sexual assault is the term most often heard in the media especially if the victim does not have a lot of bruising.  It is also what most rapist plead down to or get convicted of in the court system.  I guess some people believe that if you didn't have a lot of physical evidence that you really didn't fight back hard enough.  But tell me anyone, if your attacker has a good 100 pounds on you and has you pinned, its a little hard to fight back.  So if your knees are wrist or the only thing bruised, I guess that's not legitimate rape, Mr. Akin and your supporters?  How silly can us women be, next time we should make sure that we sustain some broken bones!!

And worst of all, you believe that women have control over their bodies while being "legitimately raped" and can somehow stop impregnation.  If we had that much control, then why are there so many unplanned pregnancies in this country?  I guess we just didn't have enough control over our bodies when we aren't being savagely attacked.  In addition to suffering this horrendous attack, 31 states in the US have laws giving parental rights to attackers who happen to father children during rapes.  So, you wonder why there aren't many reported cases of impregnated women who report rape because they bargain away their right to justice to keep the creep who attacked them out of their lives!  I read somewhere that 30% of women who conceive a child during rape, give birth to the child.  Not sure I could handle it, but I definitely wouldn't want the creep in my life forever just because he viciously donated unwanted sperm.

So can I ever accept your apology Mr. Akin?  I would have to be an idiot!  And you are still a caveman!

Poltics

It seems that everywhere I turn, I keep seeing a political comment or a political cartoon.  Yes!! It's election season, I understand that.  I would have to be a hermit living under a shell before the invention of television not see that this seems to pre-occupy a lot of people's time (and the wealthy's money.)

First, I'm not saying that politics is bad.  After all, we need someone to govern and make laws so that we don't live in total anarchy.  Although, given the political climate we live in right now, that may not necessarily be a bad option.  In the United States, it seems to boil down to two major parties, Republican or Democrat.  Ahh, you may wonder which I am.  If you are still wondering, then you don't know me very well.

So, given the political nature of the world.  It can't help to explain that money makes the world go round.  (Which some people believe is just a saying, but those of us with enough common sense know it's the truth!)  Money makes politics run.  I personally don't give money to any politician or political party directly.  I would have to first find a candidate that I totally agreed with and could support.  (At this point, I primarily vote for the candidate I think would do a better job than the other one--meaning not exactly always who I want in office.)  I also don't think that anyone necessarily has to provide financial support to a candidate.  But the caveat is, historically the person who raises the most funds, is the one who actually wins the election.  (Back to my point- money makes the world go round!)

So instead of putting your money where your mouth is (political pun most definitely intended), why not put your time into figuring out what the candidates and their political alliances are all about.  DO your homework!  What laws could be changed that you can't live without!  What laws do you think need changing.  Who will keep your interest in the White House, the Senate, any branch of government?  That's who you vote for!  Do or don't vote in this election solely based on what political affiliation you associate yourself with!  But I do stress, IF YOU CAN---VOTE!!