The Welfare Elephant in the Room

"I never, with my eyes, saw the mistreatment of any black person. Not once. Where we lived was all farmers. The blacks worked for the farmers. I hoed cotton with them. I’m with the blacks, because we’re white trash. We’re going across the field…. They’re singing and happy. I never heard one of them, one black person, say, ‘I tell you what: These doggone white people’—not a word!… Pre-entitlement, pre-welfare, you say: Were they happy? They were godly; they were happy; no one was singing the blues.”

Phil Robertson (GQ Interview)

This is a quote from the now infamous GQ interview. It has not received much if any attention. I don't know what to think about this quote. I am not black and I have never been poor.  I don't know what it's like to live in a society as the outcast. Other than that time in high school when I said one of my hobbies was playing video games. To that Spanish Class that laughed at me, looks like I was the one leading the societal evolution in that area. Seriously though, I have never lived in a society where laws were made to exclude me. I have also never worked so hard for so little in return. So for me to make a judgment call on this quote would not be appropriate. I would leave that to the people who lived that struggle and continue to fight everyday to create a more equal world in regards to race and class.

However, this quote did make me think about a subject that I have strong yet mixed emotions, welfare. I am not one that thinks evil people came up with the system in order to control the masses. I do think it could be used for that one day.   I believe well intentioned people want to make the world a better place. To fill in the gaps where private charity misses. Now it is the opposite. Private charity fills in the gap that government misses. I also would not want to abolish government assistance. It is needed, whether those of us libertarian minded people want to admit to it or not. What has happened though is that welfare has started running out of control. More and more tax dollars go to more and more things for the poor while not helping the poor with their underlying problem. That is education. We have a society that use to believe it was better to teach a man to fish rather than give him the fish. What we need to be doing is feeding him the fish while we show him how to get the fish and teach his own family to fish. What we have today is a system that gives a fish, medical supplies (which are needed very much so as well), candy, donuts, pizza, a cellphone, a place to live (once again, a needed item) and some spending cash. All in return for nothing. 

We were made to work. From the beginning, we were workers. Whether you believe that to be in a garden or in the wilderness hunting wild game. Every job creates order out of chaos. Whether you are the stoke broker, hair stylist or janitor. While society may look down on some jobs, they are all vital to society. They are part of our reflection of God's image. To take away a person's ability to work is to take away part of their self-worth. That is a true travesty. 

Let's be honest about something else in the current welfare system. It does not hurt the rich and corporations. This has become a great system for them to drum up business. The extra money taken from my paycheck for higher taxes, goes to those corporations because they are willing to "help" the poor by accepting EBT and SNAP. Pizza places now take them. When I go into a store, SNAP signs are next to candy. How does this help the poor? By giving them heart problems and diabetes?  If you're one of those people pissed at the poor for receiving assistance from the government be more pissed at corporate America for taking that money in the name of compassion. 

As for Robertson's quote, I am pretty sure 1950s America was much worse on blacks that 21st century America. Twenty-first century America is much less godly overall in some areas (greed, arrogance and indifference). This is not a black community problem. Americans across the board are more dependent on the government. We are less charitable.  It's an American problem.    

U.S. At War

I always find it interesting that when I read about WWII, our Congress (the good guys) declared war and our president (another of the good guys) ran the war. While Germany and Japan (the bad guys) gave their Führer and Emperor the power to declare and run the war unilaterally.

Fast forward not so many years to 1950 and the Korean "conflict". The Truman administration committed U.S. forces to aid the South Koreans without a deceleration of war from Congress. This was not the first or last time. One can go a far back as Jefferson to find U.S. military forces being sent to fight foreign conflicts without declaring war. The difference is that since WWII, the U.S. has accepted the president making the decision on his own to go to war as status quo. In fact when President Obama went to Congress for approval to take military action in Syria this past year, many looked at him as weak. I say it was a good decision that showed some backbone not to take the easy route.

The Constitution states that Congress has the power to declare war and the President is the commander-in-chief of the military. Many think this means the President can still use military forces even without a declaration of war.  There is even the War Powers Act which states the rules by which the President must follow once he has committed U.S. troops to a conflict. The ability of one person to declare war, I mean commit troops to conflicts, has many consequences. As we have seen over the past 12 1/2 years, giving one person the power to make the unilateral decisions to invade countries costs lots of money. When one person decides where to invade, they are likely to invade as many countries as possible. The conflicts rarely have specific goals and if they do, those goals can be changed at the desecration of the one who authorized the invasion in the first place. When there is a vote, the wars have specified enemies and goals. It's more difficult to change either.  There are also less wars due to a higher standard to either start them or to get involved in the them.

I am not saying having a vote on a war makes the conflict more noble than a conflict that is started by the decision of one person. In fact, many times presidents have had good intentions committing forces to an area without Congress. What I am saying is that we would have less conflicts, shorter conflicts and more reassurance that the war is necessary. 

Like I stated earlier, the Constitution calls for Congress to declare war. Why an amendment? It is to settle the debate if the President needs Congress. Also, there are now nukes, CIA and drones. The amendment needs to state that the President can use military forces in case of invasion by a foreign government but he must seek a deceleration of war immediately. It must also state that Congress must declare war before U.S. forces can be deployed to active combat areas or take any kind of hostile action against a foreign nation that has not already declared war on the U.S. We need an amendment before we find our nation in another decade plus long war. 

Limit the Power

Above are two of the longest serving members of Congress. The top picture is John Dingell who has been in the House of Representatives since 1955. That's two years before my mother was born. The bottom picture is of Patrick Leahy who has been a senator since 1975. That's four years before I was born. 

After FDR was elected president four times; the American people, the states and Congress decided it was time to put term limits on the presidency with the 22nd Amendment. It's time to do the same with Congress.

We need an amendment to the Constitution that states how many terms a person can be elected to each house and a total amount of years they could serve in both houses. Perhaps it should put a limit of two terms for a senator, six terms for a representative and a limit of twelve years to serve total in Congress.

This would get some new blood in these bodies of law making. While you may agree with the politics of these two gentlemen, I think we all agree that someone in a position of power for too long can be corrupted and once an institution becomes full of corrupted people, it will no longer work for the people. Time in positions of power should be measured in years and not generations. 

Representin

This may look like a drawing done by a four year old. It's not. It's the most gerrymandered congressional district in America. For those who do not know, gerrymandering is the drawing of congressional districts in order to effect (or affect, still can never remember which one to use) the result of the election. Not sure if that is the real definition but it's how I would define it. 

There is also the problem in the country of the two major parties sharing almost all of the power. Our government was designed to disperse power. The two parties have consolidated the power and now share it. We were warned of parties and groups gaining too much power in the Federalist Papers. 

One of the ways in which the two parties have created this two party system is by using the single member district system to elect representatives. This means a district is drawn on the map, the people in this district vote for one representative to congress. The districts are drawn by state legislatures. Some states are required to submit their district plans to the Department of Justice due to the fact that that state has not let certain folks vote in the past based on race. This single district approach to voting has made it so the legislatures draw up these districts to ensure a majority of a states' representatives are from the party that is in power in that state. This has led to two things. One, really strange looking districts and two, the two major parties making sure no other party can get into power or to even have a share of power. 

Another issue with single district elections is that people who do not vote for the winner, get no representation in the House of Representatives. Technically they do because the winner still represents them but in reality, they do not represent all in their district. This is one reason why congress approval as a whole hovers around a lofty ten percent and their incumbency rate hovers around a slim rate of 90 percent. As John Oliver once put it, our house is the Time Warner Cable of elected bodies of government. 

There is a simple solution to this problem. We amend the Constitution to end single district elections and to create a system based on proportional representation within each state. Proportional representation could be used for the country as a whole but that would hurt federalism. That would not be a good thing in my humble opinion. 

Proportional representation in a nutshell is people going into the booth and voting for a party. Then the number of representatives assigned to that state would be divided among the parties based on what percentage of the population voted for them. Using Texas as an example, there are 32 representatives in the House. If Republicans won 50 percent of the vote, they would get 16 representatives. If the Democrats received 40 percent of the vote, they would get 13 representatives. If Libertarians received 10 percent of the vote, they would get 3 representatives. While minority parties would not have a huge voice, they would have some. 

This would only apply to the House and not the Senate. Senators would still be elected on a state level. This would also not apply to states that have only one representative in the House. 

This system seems counter-intuitive to democracy for some but if someone looks at the pro and cons of it, they will see that it is a far better way of representing the individual and breaking up the power monopoly in this country. 

Taxes and More Taxes

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. 

Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

I am no tax expert so much of this is stuff that feels right or wrong.  For a quick history of what I do know about taxes in America. Part of our reason for war with Britain was taxation without representation. During the Articles of Confederation, the central government could not collect taxes. Before the 16th Amendment, the current constitution allowed each state to be taxed. In the years before the 16th Amendment many people advocated an income tax as early as 1812. There was an income tax on anyone making about $800 a year during the Civil War. Then in 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified.

Here are my issues with this amendment. While taxes are an important and necessary evil of society, imposing them on what a person earns does not seem fair. I understand the argument that the rich can afford to pay more than the poor.  That argument always assumed that the rich are sitting around doing nothing while watching their money grow on the backs of the hard work of the poor. So what is fair for the hardworking rich guy? Yes Virgina, they do exist. On that same note, what is fair for the sit at home and do nothing poor guy? Yes Virgina, you already knew they exist. I am not saying there aren't plenty of people living off daddy's money. Paris Hilton. I am also not saying there aren't plenty of poor people cutting your grass for near nothing an hour. But let's just admit one thing, an income tax and a progressive income tax such as ours creates this idea that all the rich are lazy and all the poor are busting it all day. We are constantly being told by one side of politics that the rich need to pay a higher percentage in taxes. 

The other thing that I hate about an income tax is that it gives the two major parties a campaign issue every year. D's say the rich need to pay more and the R's claim that the poor don't pay any taxes at all. Both statements are inaccurate.

The final thing that I hate about the income tax is that it does tax many without representation. Follow this just for a second. In the old days, states could choose how they picked Senators. Election by the citizens of a state or selection by the legislators. This created a house of Congress that represented the states. Then in turn the states were taxed by the federal government. This was taxation with representation. Individuals were not taxed directly by the federal government. So if a person could not vote for federal government representatives, it did not matter. The federal government was not taxing them directly. In our current system, the states have no representation. Another argument for another time. The individual citizen is taxed directly by the federal government if they earn income. There are plenty of people that are taxed directly by the federal government that do not get to choose those who represent them in the federal government. Two examples that pop into my head are those under 18 years old and non-citizens. This seems to violate one of our founding principles. 

I have no idea what is the best solution for our tax problems. Many favor a flat tax on income. Some favor a national sales tax. While others favor going back to pre-16th Amendment days.

Freedom and Gun Regulation

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

Amendment II of The United States Constitution

This is one of the most confusing and most highly debated amendments in the Bill of Rights. Those who favor gun rights for individuals point out the amendment states the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those who favor gun control point out the amendment talks about a well regulated militia. It is time to decide as a nation how we keep people free from government tyranny while at the same time keeping them free from fear of their neighbor. 

Americans as a whole seem to love their guns. That transcends race, social status, financial status and even religion (provided your religion allows for shooting people, animals or targets). Americans also see stories about gun violence on the news just about everyday.  It seems one side says the best way to stop the violence is to take away all the guns. The other side says the best way to stop the violence is to arm as many law abiding citizens as possible. 

The first option would lead to a population that cannot defend itself if need be from a government that one day could become tyrannical. The second option would lead to a society full of people will shoot first and ask questions later if the citizenry stops valuing life. 

A new amendment concerning weapons needs to be drafted and passed. While the right to bear arms is a God-given right, there must still be some common sense used. Do citizens need access to small arms? Yes they do. Do they need access to tanks? No they don't. Do individual states need to have their own nuclear arsenal? Not at all. The Federal government will always have the biggest and best weapons. A good check on that power is the people being able to have an armed resistance. Even if that resistance is not proportional to the federal military.

The states need to be the ones that regulate weapons and not the federal government. The original second amendment was put in place to limit the federal government's control on weapons.  It was there for the states and people to resist the government if need be. The only way in which the federal government should be involved in the regulation of weapons is to intervene when two states have a dispute about weapons crossing each other's boundaries. The states need to decide the best way to regulate its citizens and their weapons. This amendment would need to make it clear that incorporation does not apply to the states when regulating arms and militias. Each state would vary in that regulation. Texas would probably have many less regulations than Illinois.  As a Texan, I would want to see those with guns have to pass background checks by the state government, have a registry maintained by the state government and have state mandated training for every gun owner. I would not want to see these powers in the hands of a central government who already has an overwhelming amount of military strength if they need it to maintain their power and order. 

The new amendment would read:

The regulation of weapons and militias will rest entirely in the hands of the states. The Congress, President and Supreme Court will make no laws, orders or regulations concerning small arms other than disputes between states over their transportation across state lines.