Column for May 3, 2012

It is not all that unusual for me to be stuck in a hotel room instead of being with my family at night.  I occasionally have to travel for my job, and thankfully it is not an every week thing.  Though I would much rather be at home with my toddler saying “Hold me, Daddy!” because he is a bit jealous of the new baby and enjoying a home cooked meal with my family, this is a small sacrifice that I have to occasionally make in order to keep and properly execute my position of employment.  How is all of this relevant?  Well, it relates to the frustration my wife and I experienced this past weekend.

We were shopping for some household essentials, and we were not sure how we were going to pay for all that we put into our shopping cart.  I understand being on a tight budget.  I have gone through periods of lean times.  I have gone through periods of abundance, as well.  My wife has not been working for three years now, and we are minus an entire paycheck each and every pay period.  However, we decided that we would suffer through anything we had to in order to allow her to stay at home and raise our children rather than her work to have just enough to pay some day care center employees do it for us.  Add to that the high utility bills in Selma, a mortgage, car payments, and now a monthly payment for an expensive new air conditioning system, and we have a tighter than desired monthly budget.

Ahead of us in line at the checkout was a couple with at least one infant (that is all I saw at the time) paying for their groceries with three separate transactions.  The first was a WIC voucher, the second was paid for with a food stamp card and a little bit of cash, and the third was yet another WIC voucher.  My wife and I just looked at each other in wonder.  We had three children with us and a full grocery cart.  We had to come up with a method of paying for our own groceries and there we were helping pay for the groceries that were purchased in front of us as well.

Add to that the frustration that the couple were definitely “English as a Second Language” class candidates of most likely questionable legal status, and we were all the more frustrated.  According to the Center for Immigration Studies (as long ago as 2004), the costs of food stamp, WIC and free school lunch programs to "illegal alien households" costs approximately $1.9 billion per year.  I almost wanted to follow Julio and Maria home and let them serve us supper.  After all, we helped pay for it.  As we were leaving the checkout lane, what did we see behind us?  Another couple with a food stamp card in hand to tender payment for the cart load of groceries.  I am reminded of a quote I read recently from one of our Founding Fathers.

"The government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects.  It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general.  Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

~ James Madison, Speech, House of Representatives, during the debate "On the Memorial of the Relief Committee of Baltimore, for the Relief of St. Domingo Refugees" (January 10, 1794)

My wife and I attend a church congregation in Garner.  It is a bit far to go for worship services, but we chose that group of believers out of relationship and preference.  We have been overwhelmed with the graciousness of our church family yet again, who love to bless people in that congregation with meals whenever someone is sick or has a newborn baby.  Others have been blessed as well, going through the loss of a family member.  That is what the Body of Christ is supposed to do to minister to one another.  Locally, there is a church right down the street from my house that gives away groceries every Thursday to people in need.  I just wish I didn’t see some of the same cars and people there week after week, still in need.

As James Madison realized, it is the job of the Church to provide such charity, not necessarily that of the government.  As I am away from my family as a result of being willing to work some long hours and make some small sacrifices in order to feed my family, I am also reminded of the Bible verse in 2 Thessalonians3:10 “... if any would not work, neither should he eat.”  Nonetheless, I am still frustrated in seeing others eat at the expense of others every time I go to the grocery store.

Column for September 22, 2011

As I write this week’s column, I am sitting in a hotel room along the North Carolina coast. I finally took a break from working on a project for my employer. I am a technician for a large multi-media and entertainment company. Sometimes I put in long hours, sometimes I travel, and sometimes during my travels, I have to stay the occasional overnight (or several nights).

It is part of my job to work long hours when needed. More than that, it is part of my ethic to do so. There are limits, though. I will have a life outside of my job and I will have extra-curricular activities. For instance, I volunteer with a local Cub Scout pack in Smithfield. There was a feeble attempt to start a new pack in Selma a few years ago, for which I offered to become involved in any needed capacity. Since that work never materialized, I became involved along with my eight-year-old son in the existing organization. I am sure that I will have to go through it all over again in four or five years with my toddler when he is old enough to get involved in Scouting. Then, when the “bun in the oven” is born and is old enough, he or she may well get involved in Scouting and Dear Old Dad will probably be involved then, as well.

Last week I had a weekend off from work. I got a phone call from a co-worker asking about a technical problem he was having. The technician on call had already been on the road that day and I was one of the few people who knew about the technology in question. So, I got drafted into working on a Sunday afternoon. In so doing, I had to blow off my commitment that day with Cub Scouts. That was the “season opener”, so to speak, for this year’s Cub Scout activities. I was not at all happy about it, but it was something that had to be done. After all, my employer supplies me with the job and salary that pays my bills.

On the way home, after working on my day off and missing my beloved Scouts, I had to stop by the friendly, local grocery store and pick up a few items. I took my less than twelve items to the express checkout lane, which was misnamed at this point. The young man behind the counter was obviously new. He had to constantly get help from other checkout staff no less than four times on one transaction. I don’t blame him for the problem and long wait. I do blame the company for putting such an untrained newbie at the register. I also blame something else.

As I was waiting in line for the incredibly long transaction, I could not help but notice that the couple getting the small amount of groceries and tendered the payment that caused the debacle most likely did not speak English as their native language and were probably from a land south of our nation’s border. They were using a WIC voucher as payment. It was the voucher processing that gave the young cashier such a problem, only because it was new to him. As I looked over at the next register, I saw a middle aged man paying for his cart full of groceries with a government issued food stamp debit card. I was less than thrilled to know that I was paying for their grocery purchases as well as my own.

In this present economy, I understand that a lot of people may be out of work. It is frustrating, however, to work as hard as I do and see my tax dollars supporting so many others who are not. I know people who have never worked in their lives but are collecting food stamps, Social Security benefits, disability benefits, or other forms of government subsidy. For those who do want to work, the government created the high unemployment situation with their own policies, and many just can’t keep up with the cost of living life with no job.

To make it worse, President Barack Obama is trying to push through yet another stimulus spending package and tax hike under the guise of a jobs bill. As I was explaining to a friend of mine the other day, this bill follows a pattern. I said to him, “Step one: institute plans that will financially injure the country and cause job loss. Step two: create a so-called solution to the problem just created with more of the same strategy that caused the problem to begin with. Step three: take an increasing amount of control over the population in the name of remedying the now increasing problem caused the solution to the problem originally created.”

I realize that this so-called jobs bill probably won’t pass through Congress, but I have a feeling that things are still going to get worse before they get better and I am going to see a lot more WIC vouchers and food stamps at my neighborhood grocery store. Maybe at least the nice but inexperienced grocery clerk will get better at what he does.

Column for May 12, 2011

In a time when governments are running a deficit and having to make budget cuts, I am amazed at the mentality of many people who are on the government dole. The elections of last November were supposed to send a message to the state and federal governments that we have had enough of reckless spending. To stop spending means just that. It means that we have to cease spending in some areas. The whole “not in my program”, “but it’s for the children”, and “leave my entitlements alone” stuff just ticks me off.

I have in front of me three different news stories about whining people who decry spending cuts for their own benefit or that of pet projects. Make no mistake that most all opposition to budget cuts is not about the “overall good”. It is almost always about personal gain.

About a week ago, thousands of teachers gathered in Raleigh to protest possible budget cuts. The funny thing is that some of these public school employees were not smart enough to realize that states don’t fund the military. Some were carrying signs whining that we should fund public services, not wars. Why would one protest state government spending cuts by whining about federal military spending? And these people are educating our children?

What were thousands of “educators” doing at a protest rally instead of teaching our children, anyway? If they were really about the children rather than their own personal benefit, they would have been in the classroom instead of chanting while carrying signs on sticks. Of course the rallying cry, “It’s for our pockets” is not as effective as “It’s for the children”. I don’t buy the claims of catastrophe and dire consequences for cutting spending in education along with all other areas.

Education funding is not the only controversial subject of potential cuts. The North Carolina health fund is a program that is under scrutiny. It is a trust fund that finances anti-tobacco and obesity programs for children and teenagers. The argument against cutting that program is that the prevention efforts will be cheaper than the cost of health care later.

Call me crazy, but I figure that the responsibility of raising children is that of a parent and not the government. It is not the job of the state to keep teenagers from smoking or dipping snuff. It is not the job of the state to keep kids from putting on a few extra pounds. That is the job of a parent. As to the idea of health care later, is it not also the job of a parent to take care of a child’s health needs and not that of every other taxpayer in the state? I have two children under the age of nine. One of them has a birth defect and I do not expect the government to pay for his treatment. That is up to me as his parent and not everyone else reading this newspaper. By the same token, any other parent bears their own responsibility for their children’s health care. And truth be told, the effects of the use of tobacco products or obesity in children will probably not be felt until the children reach the age of an adult. Then it is their own responsibility, not that of the taxpayer.

I read another article about some very selfish people. In November, America overwhelmingly elected conservative legislators in the federal and state governments. Recently, Congressional Republicans went home on break and many of them held town hall style meetings to meet their constituents. Some Congressmen were booed, shouted at, and jeered by older citizens whining about any possible cuts to their Medicare, food stamps, and Social Security benefits.

I have sympathy for them, I really do. But I have said it before and I will say it again. If your plan in life was to rely upon the government to take care of you and you made no provision for your own retirement, then that is your own fault. If you bought the lie that was handed to you that you can coast in life when you reach a certain age at the expense of the taxpayer, then you have used poor judgment in life. It is not my responsibility as a taxpayer and citizen to take care of you or anyone else outside of my family. We as a people simply can no longer afford to keep doling out the cash.

In 1753, Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday will soon cease to be holidays. 'Six days shalt thou labor,' though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.” It is as true today as it was 258 years ago. To demand or expect otherwise is selfishness.

Column for March 17, 2011

While writing this column, I have been thinking a lot about life and death. I have three family members who’ve had cancer scares this week alone. I am writing this on a Friday afternoon. After I finish writing, we will be packing to head to Florida for the funeral of my cousin’s husband, who died of cancer last week. On top of that, the big news lately has been the earthquake in Japan that has killed hundreds of people and sent a tsunami that has also killed hundreds thus far.

After writing the column I did last week about proposed legislation on abortion and miscarriage, the wife and I have been talking about life, about family, and about where we would like to go with both. I do hold life sacred, and lament its loss. I will be doing so with my cousin within 24 hours of my typing this and I am heavy hearted for the Japanese people killed in a huge earthquake. I lament the loss of so many babies to abortion and natural causes, which believe it or not, did not sit well with some people.

People from all over the country and sometimes the world read my columns, since I also publish them on the internet, but only after they have been published in print here, first. I have gotten some hate mail from internet readers already about last week’s column. I was informed that it is hypocritical of me to be supportive of “making abortion illegal but then offering little to no aid to mothers who have need to financial aid/public aid...people who are pro-life and want children to be born regardless of circumstance should be pro-welfare, too.”

My retort is “that it is not the purpose of government to provide your food, your housing, or your health care. A government that can provide your means can and should therefore be able to dictate your procreation activity limitations. It is in no way incongruous to say you are not allowed to kill a baby but then not supply you the means by which to raise a baby. There are plenty of adoptive parents waiting in line to have a baby (the discussion of adopting has just recently been ongoing in our own home). Why is it the responsibility of the populace to provide financial aid to a woman who did not exercise proper judgment, restraint, or birth control methods? Her decision as to whether or not to accept the responsibility of parenthood was taken the moment she opened her legs to a man. It is not hypocrisy to tell an individual to accept personal responsibility for their actions and procreative activity. Nor is it hypocrisy to tell a woman that either she takes care of her own offspring or allow someone else to love, care for, and raise that child.”

While Governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura was confronted by a single mother. She screamed at him about how she was left with children and bills by a man who decided he no longer wanted to support her or her children. She demanded to know what he was going to do for her in terms of college tuition so that she could get a college degree at taxpayer expense and a new job. I sympathize with her, I truly do. I have family members who have had the same situation, whether because of disability, divorce, or death. I am going to visit one such relative this weekend, as stated. Ventura’s answer to this woman was blunt and honest. I am probably slightly paraphrasing here, since I have searched extensively on the internet and have found neither the video nor the transcript of the exchange in question, but I remember watching it several years ago. Jesse said, “Why is it the government’s responsibility to take care of you and your children because you married a loser?” That seems harsh, but it is entirely correct.

Is life fair? Of course not. If it was, people who want to have babies would not have sterility issues or miscarriages while crack heads and high school girls still wouldn’t get pregnant or at least would not be able to slaughter their young. If life was fair, people wealthy enough to support dozens of children would not be sterile by either nature or choice, and the poverty stricken that don’t desire children would bear sterility, instead. Nevertheless, we have a God given responsibility to embrace life and provide for those under our charge.

Column for Nov. 4, 2010

“Y’all are going to vote November 2nd, aren’t you?” we were asked while waiting in line at Wal-Mart. “Oh, yeah,” replied my lovely bride.

One of the frustrating things about writing this column is that I have a deadline for publication prior to knowing what Tuesday’s election results were. As I am writing this, we finally put one seven-year-old to bed and my wife is sitting in my living room trying to rock the baby to sleep so we can have the evening to ourselves. I just finished watching the New England Patriots win another football game and my wife finished handing out big handfuls of candy to the little beggars that come to our door every year.

I don’t mind giving out candy to children on Halloween, but I personally am not into participating in its celebration. Giving out candy at least gives me the opportunity to show good will and if I am so inclined, to slip in literature such as gospel tracts, campaign literature, fliers, etc. This year we did not give out an sort of literature, but we did give out the most candy we ever have previously. What October 31st really means to me personally is that it is the anniversary of the day on which I closed on my modest home here in the booming metropolis of Selma.

Each year we give handouts. Some people I know hate Halloween, some do not mind. Some have religious issues against the observance, some don’t care. Personally, I often liken it to government handouts. If your porch light is on during Trick or Treat time, you are in effect advertising that you have something to give away free. All one has to do is knock on the door to get free candy. We as a nation do that same thing each and every day of the year.

So what does that have to do with my opening paragraph? On the way home from our regular Christian religious observance gathering today, we stopped by the Wal-Mart in Clayton. We filled our shopping cart with groceries, a few low priced DVDs, and a few other desired items. We then proceeded to find the best open check out lane we could. We got in line behind a middle aged lady who did not have too many items on the conveyor belt. Ahead of her was a woman of questionable legal status who had a child with her who was about kindergarten age and what appeared to be twins in a double baby carriage.

This woman tied up the check out lane for quite some time. She had four different transactions. Her first three transactions were all paid for with WIC (Women’s, Infants, and Children’s federal assistance program) vouchers. Contrary to the WIC official web page, WIC is essentially an entitlement program. If free money is being given to people who did not earn it, then it is, as far as I am concerned, an entitlement program. Immigrants are especially considered for WIC because (reading from the WIC web site), “migrancy is considered a nutritional risk factor”.

We waited a good ten minutes just for this one woman’s purchases to be processed. Just when it looked like the order was complete, another was transacted with another voucher. Finally, she payed for the last bit of groceries with cash. She already had toys that were paid for in the shopping cart. She pulled out a cell phone while were were all waiting for her to be checked out, and the baby stroller was certainly not an inexpensive one.

The woman in front of us looked at us, and we looked at her. All of us were a growing a wee bit impatient. I said to the woman in front of us, “At least we are paying for hers in addition to our own groceries.” She assented to the sentiment and a moment or two later, after she grew increasingly frustrated, she asked us if we were going to vote. We knew exactly why she asked that question. Like us, she is tired of the handouts.

We grew even more impatient when we watched our check out girl leave the register in between WIC transactions and run into the bathroom. When she returned, she resumed checking out the English as a Second Language Class candidate. When the woman finally “paid” for all of her groceries, she attempted to apologize for taking up so much time. I wanted to tell her, “When you start paying for your own groceries, then you can truly apologize. Until then, I don’t buy that concept.” Of course I chose to remain silent, instead, and not cause a scene. It would not have accomplished anything at the time.

I believe in Christian charity. I do not believe in government forcibly taking money away from people who will work and giving it to people who do not or may be lower on the income scale. That is what family, charities, and the Church are for. I have never failed to help people who truly have been in need or were hungry.

I don’t know what the November 2nd election results will be as of this writing, but I do hope that we can turn the proverbial porch light out. We, as a nation, have run out of candy a long time ago and can not afford to keep giving it away.

Column for June 24, 2010

I look at the birdbath and bird feeder as a microcosm of American society. I wrote at the begging of May how I've had more birds and squirrels at my feeder this year than ever before. It is amazing that the birds and cute, gray, bushy tailed rats can empty the feeder in less than a day. I fill it up almost daily now. I have spent more on birdseed so far this year than I have spent on most previous years combined.

There are a few observations I have made over the past few months. Even if the feeder is empty, birds and squirrels still come by the feeder to check to see if there is anything to eat. When the birds see me coming, they will actually fly away, perch on a wire or tree limb, and as soon as I leave the freshly filled feeder, flock to it. I have actually had birds angrily scream at me when the feeder is empty until I finish filling it again for them.

I see more squirrels on my little quarter acre of land than I have ever seen before. I am pretty sure that some of these squirrels do not live in the old pecan tree behind my house. Instead, they seem to sneak across the property border and plunder the feed. Birdseed is not even meant for squirrels, but they don't seem to mind. When I have bags of birdseed set out under my carport, squirrels will invade my carport and tear into the bags of seed.

When I put the seed bags into an old trash can that I am using as storage, the gray, illegal alien squirrels actually ate through part of the plastic garbage can to gain access to it and plunder what was never meant for them in the first place. They leave seed hulls all over my carport.

The one good thing the squirrels do is to rake out seed from the feeder and spread it on the ground. When they do that, many birds and other squirrels do actually benefit from their labor. Apparently the birds let the squirrels do jobs that they, in theory, are not willing to do themselves. I doubt that is truly the case, since when no squirrels have been handy, I have watched an ambitious bird actually shoveling out seed from the feeder to the ground with its beak. There is an obvious parallel to society here.

It is all part of my birdie stimulus spending plan. Birds and squirrels have come from all over the neighborhood to my feeder. Why they come to my feeder in particular is a mystery to me. Perhaps they are looking for a better life than they can find where their own nests are located. Maybe the food supply is just scarce on the other side of the neighborhood. Either way, the birds flock to my feeder more than that of my neighbors and more than any other year since I have been living in this house.

The seed is meant to supplement the animals' own ability to find food, not be their entire source of substance. I would hope that these now dependent birds and squirrels are also searching for worms, insects, berries, nuts and whatever else birds and squirrels consume. The handouts I provide are not meant to replace their own food chain. It seems that some take advantage of the free food more than others.

I get birds of all colors. Gray ones, black ones, red ones, blue ones, and a variety of color mixtures all flock to my feeder. Some are more common than others. Both birds and squirrels seem to take to the water supply in my birdbath. I have to rinse out the birdbath and refill it just about every day. Some days it takes less than an afternoon and it will be bone dry.

Regardless of whom the bird feeder and birdbath are meant for, the common factor is that when I put out an abundant supply of free food, I have an abundant supply of consumers wanting the handout. When I don't put out the food, the birds and squirrels find another way to get their sustenance. America could learn a lesson from that.

I almost feel like the federal government, giving out more in handouts than at any other time in my living here. The big difference seems to be that I can afford the birdseed. I guess if I charged the bird food to my credit card to pay it off years later with a huge amount of accrued interest, I would be more like the federal government.

Column for Feb. 25, 2010

I have thought of my grandmother a lot today. Grammy LaPlante was born in 1908 in New Hampshire to a French Canadian immigrant family from the Province of Quebec. She was the descendant of both a King's Daughter and a Soldier of the Carignan Regiment, which I never knew (or heard of) until recently. For years I never knew much of my heritage past my paternal grandparents until I started investigating a bit. It turns out that being a descendant as well, I am eligible for membership in some elite genealogical society, "La Societe des Filles du roi et soldats du Carignan". OK, who knew?

Beatrice (Grammy) helped raise five children during the Great Depression. She was a frugal lady who grew her own blueberries, raspberries, a few fruit trees, and a huge garden. She did a tremendous amount of baking, canning, and cooking. I spent my childhood working in the garden, mowing the huge lawn at my grandparents' home, playing in their barn, and the like. They also had various farm animals on their land from time to time.

One of the things I remember about my grandparents was that they worked hard. My grandfather was in construction and even built the house I remember so fondly. Grammy worked the mornings at home taking care of five children then worked as a seamstress in a textile factory during the day. I heard stories of neighbors seeing her up until very late hours at night ironing clothing so that her children would look presentable. She even ironed underwear I am told though I never understood the point. The bottom line is that she worked harder than anyone I knew. My grandparents made a living during the greatest depression our country had known.

I learned a few values from my grandparents. I will admit that some of them have sustained and some not so much. The concept of reliance upon self and family has stuck. This is a core value that made America great. That concept is out the window, so to speak, with a huge number of people today.

Just today some unemployed, obtuse brute ran across one of my old columns on the internet. He took pride in the fact that he is making a good living sitting at home, playing video games, and living off the government monthly checks he gets rather than being forced to find a job. He literally thought himself entitled to do so, citing that he had five years work experience and paid taxes those five years, thus allowing others to sponge off the system. Since he did his part, he claims that he deserves the benefit of having others pay their taxes for him to live for a while.

Five years work experience? I have socks and underwear in my drawer more than five years old. I can probably even find some condiments in my pantry more than five years old. The more I discussed self-reliance, Biblical principles such as "if any would not work, neither should he eat", and stressed the poor ethics of the entitlement mentality, the more he employed self-justification and excuses for his slackness. I was even cussed out at the end of the conversation. I was told how evil Republicans are and how I must be one (actually I am not one), and how horrible it is that I can not fathom in hard times some money to someone like him while he bragged about eating twenty dollar steaks while on government welfare.

I must admit that it is more than self-reliance for me, it is reliance on the grace and provision of God in my life. Ever since I decided to live according to grace, my supply has been constant and sufficient. Yet these same principles are not exclusive to Christianity. Billions of people work hard and have their needs met yet do not have faith in Christ. Thus the principle is transcendent to the secular world, as well.

I chose a very different career path than my grandmother or grandfather. Then again, my path has been very different from all my family. However, I am no stranger to hard work. In times past I have taken minimum wage jobs and multiple jobs at a time to not even "make ends meet".

I am thankful for my job, my family, and the heritage passed on to me by my grandmother and parents. I look forward to sharing these values and even genealogy with Troy Junior some day. I still don't know that I will join some elite society for descendants of a famous group of men and women in French Canadian history, though.

Column for April 16, 2009

It is unethical to pay for someone else's irresponsibility

As a parent, I shudder at the thought of someone other than myself teaching my children about sex. I have a boy who is just now asking questions about babies, how his mother is going to get the baby out of her tummy, and wondering how the baby came to be. For those with a Judeo-Christian or even Muslim world-view, there are ethics that go along with the practice of sexual relations. Primarily, I believe that sex education should take place in the home and be received from caring parents and reinforced with the ethics and responsibilities of such.

There are interesting ethical debates surrounding the consequences of sexual activity. Just recently, I have been involved with two in particular. They are not only ethical in nature but also practical civic lessons.

A fellow conservative writer shared a news story on the internet about how an HIV/AIDS prevention program for African nations instituted under President George W. Bush has released data showing that there has been a 10% decrease in the spread of AIDS in those nations since the program began. Sure, a decrease in the spread of any disease is good news. However, I have a serious objection to the program to begin with.

My objection is simply this. I see nowhere in the United States Constitution that empowers our country to simply take money supplied by our tax paying citizens and give it away to other countries, regardless of the "feel good" or even "do good" results. The Constitution's preamble states its purpose; "…to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty…"[sic] That is it. AIDS prevention in Africa does not fall under any of those categories.

It is therefore illegal and thus unethical to take the hard earned tax dollars of Americans and give them to some third world dictatorship in the hopes of disease prevention, as noble as that goal may be. Disease prevention efforts would be more appropriate if they were in our own nation, since that is more closely aligned with the scope of the Constitution. Even then, I am dubious as to its legality thereunder.

My conservative friend would argue that the program did good and thus was a good move. I argued that the disease is spread by behavior and it is inappropriate for us to spend money in another country for behavior modification. The return argument was of course that a large percentage of AIDS victims in Africa are children that got it from their parents. My retort is simple. Sex is a behavior with consequences. If you have AIDS, do not procreate.

The second example is that my wife and I were at her OBGYN recently for a prenatal checkup. While there, we saw a young couple with two children and another on the way. We heard them say that there was one other child who was not with them. Seeing a young couple having a family is a wonderful thing…or is it?

The family present consisted of a woman with a toddler, a baby no more than 6 months old, and the one on the way was 20 weeks along, so we heard. The mother was obviously taking care of the children. The father is disabled, apparently blind. The couple was paying for their visit through Medicaid. Or more appropriately stated, we taxpayers are paying their medical bills.

I am going to go out on a limb here and surmise that the couple is also getting other government assistance in the form of WIC, food stamps, Social Security disability, and who knows what else. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.

For a toddler to have a baby brother or sister so close in age means that the couple procreated soon after the child was born. To have a baby six months old and a 20 week pregnancy means that they procreated yet again shortly after the baby was born. Look…we now know what causes pregnancy. Actually, we have for thousands of years now.

For the taxpayers of this country to pay for a family to live and then to pay for their irresponsible sexual activities is just plain unethical. Birth control would have been a whole lot cheaper than bringing more crumb crunching tricycle motors into this world at public expense.

I am all for helping out others, especially as friends, neighbors, family, and church members. However, when do we draw the line and say that the bad decisions taken by people are not going to be paid for by the general populace? That is a matter of ethics just as much as the moral implications of having sex to begin with.

Column for Aug. 14, 2008

I have heard for almost two years about a possible new large shopping center coming to town at exit 97 and Hwy 70 near JR's. The major story was on the front page of last week's paper about the proposed project. Originally, the rumor was that a Home Depot and maybe a Target store were coming. Recently, I have heard more rumors. As you may have read, the developer has made a presentation to the town council.

The developer mentioned possible tenants such as Target, Bass Pro Shop, Cabellas, JC Penney, and IKEA, along with up-scale restaurants and motels. Keep in mind that these are just suggested possibilities. I am all for such a development, so don't get me wrong. However, keep in mind at this point, the developer is selling the idea and soliciting to get $15 million or so in reimbursements from the town for infrastructure improvements.

Personally, I am dubious over the claim of a Cabella's. I would absolutely love to have a Cabella's nearby. I may want to live in one. However, one already was proposed for Four Oaks and that project crashed and burned. Cabella's announced that they were going to put one in to Richmond, VA and figured that one here would be too close to their other proposed location. I find that claim fallacious, however. One can look at the map of their existing locations on their web site and shoot holes through that philosophy. I am not going to drive three hours to go to a Cabella's if that is indeed their strategy. If they reconsider Johnston County because of a better location, highway access, and other development, then hallelujah. I would be thrilled with a Bass Pro Shops, as well.

Anyway, this development would certainly be good for the town for several reasons. First, the developer wants to be voluntarily annexed. Great. They would bring a lot of revenue for electricity and water, if development and subsequent tenants were to become Selma utility customers. The tax revenue would be wonderful, but there is a problem - the developer wants 60% of the sales tax revenues generated for 15 years plus a refund of the difference in property tax values between the property taxes now versus the value of the developed land. To me, this is the rub.

I have no problem with the concept that if the entire development and the subsequent businesses are going to be Selma utility customers, that the town needs to extend the utilities to the customers who would be using our services. That is no different to me than the idea of having to extend water and sewer to a subdivision that would be annexed by the town or when Cisco went in it present location.

I do not even have an issue with the concept of sharing in the expense of any other infrastructure such as roadway improvements that will mutually benefit both the town and the developer. I do not consider those things to be corporate welfare. I consider them to be mutually beneficial and the cost of doing business to service customers. I may not like the idea that a town is in business to sell products and services such as water and electricity that are available from private industry, but that is another discussion for another day.

I do, however, consider total reimbursement for all related improvements to be a corporate welfare program. Taxpayer dollars should not be spent on woo a development, especially in an area that they find to be enticing even without our monetary support. If the facilities that the developer is going to build and the prime location are so attractive to the businesses that were bantered about, then it should not be a large risk to the developer. Furthermore, it should add to his revenue and not be the burden of the town.


As a town, we can certainly assist with expediency of zoning, utility, and other regulatory issues. However, I do not believe in paying someone to come to our town, especially for fifteen years.

In the interest of fairness, however, there were previously offered incentives for development in town, such as on East Anderson Street. If we offered them to one party, we should extend the same offer to any other development planners that come along. I may not like it, but fair is fair. As I recall, the offer tendered for that proposed development zone was a tax break for five years, and that included property taxes only.

It will certainly be interesting to see what "develops" in this situation. I am all for development of fallow ground and expanding this area. I am dubious as to the claims that "as much as $500 million in sales tax is leaving the county each year to go to Wake, Wayne, Wilson and Nash counties." That sounds like an excessively high estimate. It is part of the sales pitch.

I do agree with this quote, though. "Dougherty added that Selma is unique in the county in that it is ideally situated to host such a regional complex. He cited I-95 and US 70 and major thoroughfares. He said Exit 98 is excellent for such a complex because it has great access. "There’s no other city right on the an interchange like this," said the developer".

Either way, I am looking forward to seeing the addition to the town.

Column for May 29, 2008

I am tired of paying for others to have a place to live

Recently, there was a news story about a robbery in Selma. On May 4th, I saw that an arrest was made in a break-in case at a Selma Housing Authority apartment. The break-in was committed by another resident of the apartment complex, just a few doors down. This is not the thing that amazes me. What does amaze me, however, is that the thief stole over $4800 in jewelry, electronics, and clothes. I got to thinking about just how much stuff that is. Nearly five grand can buy a heap big amount of bling, Circuit City merchandise, and a few trips to The Gap.

My question is first and foremost, what is someone who can afford stuff worth stealing and worth almost five thousand dollars doing in government subsidized housing? Why are we as tax payers shelling out money to pay for cheap housing for someone who can afford to buy lifestyle items? Sure, everyone needs clothes. But if I am having to live at taxpayer expense, I had better be buying my clothes at Cheap Thrills thrift store in uptown Selma rather than at any new store. I had better not have several televisions, a stereo, video game system, cell phone, VCR, DVD player, all the latest movies, and spend money on such if I am willing to suckle off the government in order to have a place to live.

There should be constant means testing for any government assistance. Someone being handicapped and unable to work is one thing. If someone is able to work and does not, that is something else. If this crime victim is working and underemployed, then that is hardly the fault of the taxpayers of this town, county, state, or nation. Therefore, if he or she can afford to spend money on such items while living in housing that we are subsidizing or owned such items before getting into such housing, then there is something wrong with the system.

I was standing in line at a grocery store not long ago. Ahead of me was a woman checking out, paying with WIC (the Women, Infant, and Children government program) vouchers. She was dressed in a business suit. She had a cell phone with Bluetooth wireless headset. She also had just purchased one of the best toasters and cookware sets in the Wal-Mart store. They were already in her basket, paid for. Then she bought the most expensive juices in the store and baby formula with WIC vouchers. I get real tired of paying for others to eat. Sure, I can afford all that I have, and have money to spare. I was buying some stuff I wanted rather than needed, in addition to some stuff I had need of, and I can afford to do so. That is my prerogative. What irritates me is that someone who had on nice clothes, nice jewelry, bought better kitchen appliances than I own, and can afford a cell phone plan with wireless headset is suckling off the government at the expense of the taxpayers. Multiply this by millions of sucklers and we as a nation are being milked for money to pay for the lifestyle choices of others.

Recently in this very column, I dealt with the voting record of Congressman Bob Etheridge. I just read that he has voted in support of "The American Housing Rescue and Foreclosure Prevent Act of 2008". This bill is designed to help prop up home values and keep foreclosures from happening. Basically, those who bought more house than they could afford or were stupid enough to get and keep an adjustable rate mortgage are in danger of losing their homes. Of course some well meaning, pandering liberals want the government to illegally step in and take up the slack at the expense of the general population. People are indeed losing their homes because of economic conditions and their own bad choices in life. However, it is hardly the responsibility of the populace to bail someone out of their problems.

Why should those who can not afford to pay a regular, private mortgage company be given the opportunity to refinance with a government backed loan, instead? Why should a governmental bureaucracy be allowed to bail out those who can not afford to pay a loan with yet another loan at tax payer risk and expense? If people can not afford their homes, then they need to find other homes that they can afford, even if that means renting an apartment or other meager accommodations. I have been there and lived that myself. When I could not afford to either purchase a house or continue paying the high Raleigh rent rates, I rented a broken down, old trailer in the country here in Johnston County for over five years until I could afford to buy.

I have worked hard to afford the things I have now and I am sure that most of you readers have, as well. I have been dirt poor, earning below the poverty level for years. I have had economic hardships in my lifetime, but refused to look to the government for help. Rather, I worked harder to get out of poverty and live comfortably. I wish that more people in this nation had the same resolve and that law makers would require it of those who are allegedly in need before they gladly fork over our tax dollars under the guise of compassion when they are actually enabling the behavior at our expense.

Column for April 24, 2008

Please, Mr. Etheridge, read the US Constitution!

Politicians often make claims and push agendas that will get them either elected or re-elected. Our local Congressman, Bob Etheridge is no exception. I have watched his career for years, starting when he was State Superintendent of Public Instruction. When he ran for Congress the first time, I interviewed him on several occasions for a broadcast outlet where I was employed at the time.

One thing that should be a pre-requisite for running for federal office is to pass a history and civics exam. Each Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential candidate should have a basic, nay, advanced knowledge of United States history and government. I do not know if that knowledge exists a forehand and it is conveniently forgotten upon entering the Beltway around Washington, D.C., or if there is just plain ignorance on the part of those running for elected office.

Don't get me wrong. Pandering has been going on for centuries, and on many different levels. I have seen candidates here in Selma whose messages were simply, "I am going to lower taxes and utility bills" or a promise of health care for our elderly citizens. Regardless of the level of office, it happens.

One thing about Bob Etheridge is that he is known for bringing back federal dollars for North Carolinians, especially for the special interests of agriculture and civil service. For the past several years, old Bob has been active on farm bills at the federal level. He was responsible for helping with the tobacco buyout a few years back. He has recently been appointed to work on the final draft of a farm bill that will set agricultural policy in the United States for the next five years. Congressman Etheridge was quoted as saying, "I am pleased that I have been appointed to have a seat at the table to fight on behalf of North Carolina’s farm families and consumers."

My major question is simply why the federal government is even involved in setting agricultural policy and will interfere with the free market economy? For years, I have decried the concept of quote programs, farm subsidies, and the like. To pay people to not grow crops is a bit insane to me. To tell people how to, how much to, and how to sell a crop is just antithetical to the concept of a free society.

I know that Bob is revered amongst the farming community. He even claims to be a farmer himself. However, owning farmland does not make one a farmer, any more than owning an automobile makes me a mechanic.

Another issue that Congressman Etheridge has been involved with recently is his support for a bill that will guarantee student loans for college students. In his support, Mr. Etheridge said, "With growing uncertainty about the economy, it is appropriate for Congress to take steps to ensure that students and their families continue to be able to access college loans."

Again, I have the same question about the free market economy and government intervention. Since when is it the job of the federal government to ensure that people have full economic access to a higher education? Sure we as a society may all benefit from someone becoming educated. However, education is not a right, much less the access to borrowing money for such. The guarantee of rights is a function of government. The securing of personal choices that not all can afford or require, however, is not a function of government.

Life itself is not fair. It is not an appropriate function of government to ensure that all have an equal opportunity to attend a higher educational facility. It is their function to guarantee equal access, but not the opportunity to avail one's self of the privilege.

Speaking of schools, Bob Etheridge is also a proponent of spending federal money in the form of grants to fire departments, police departments, and school systems in the name of "homeland security". Perhaps that money would best be left in our own pockets or maybe even at the local governmental level to begin with so that it does not need to be sucked out of our pockets, filtered through Washington, DC, then returned to the region in a diminished capacity.

Why we applaud when money is laundered under the guise of taxation, a hefty cut taken out of it for administration, and then sent back to our region in far smaller quantities than what was sent is beyond my comprehension. Most of the programs upon which we spend such dollars are extra-constitutional. If Congress spent money only on those things specifically enumerated by The Constitution, I believe that your tax burden would be cut to a fraction of its current level.

The only thing that I will grant to Mr. Etheridge in his desire to return tax dollars for schools under the guise of "homeland security" is that the preamble to the Constitution does indeed say, "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence". It is a stretch to spend tax money on improving security at individual primary education facilities at the local level, however.

Another part of the preamble to the U.S. Constitution declares the purpose of the document is to "promote the general Welfare". Note that it is the general welfare of the nation and not that of the individual, farmer, student, or teacher.

When voting for a candidate for elected office, look to see if he or she follows the simple guidelines set forth for their office and exhibits the principles embodied in their official capacity. I do believe that you are going to have an extremely hard time finding men or women who do that this coming election in November, or even this primary election next month. I have not seen a keen Constitutional mindset exhibited by any candidate at the national level this time around. Then again, that is nothing new. It just seems that this year is worse than any time in recent history, Mr. Etheridge especially included.

Column for April 17, 2008

Can we PLEASE take up the Friskies bowl?

I used to set out dry cat food under my carport to feed an outdoor cat that I adopted. Since she was a neighborhood stray that wandered over to my house from time to time, I had no idea to whom she used to belong. She came over from a house that had been foreclosed upon, so my thought was that she may have been abandoned when the former property owners left. Since I had no idea of knowing her name or whether she even truly had a home, I figured I would come up with a generic name by which to call her. Considering my sense of ironic humor, I chose "Fluffy" to name this short haired, mixed breed cat.

Fluffy was a great cat, as it turned out. She was cute, affectionate, and loyal. She was also still somewhat feral, however, so she stayed outside for the most part. Occasionally, Fluffy would come inside and snuggle, even eat with my other cats. She got pregnant one time and even gave birth to a kitten in my closet. The kitten only lived about 48 hours, though. After the kitten died, I took Fluffy to get spayed. I kept up with her shots and health care. The one thing that I could not keep her healthy from was the constant traffic in my neighborhood. Fluffy was pretty good about crossing the busy road on which I live. One day, however, Fluffy's luck came to an end and I had to bury a flat cat.

While Fluffy was still alive, there were a couple of other cats that came around my house to enjoy the cat food I put out for Fluffy. Both the Fluff monster and I were agreeable to feeding other neighborhood strays, even if they were not as friendly. As a matter of fact, they never even allowed me to touch them, much less get anywhere near them. They did, however, recognize that this was my place, who I was, and the fact that I was their benefactor. Even after Fluffy died, I kept putting out the cat food and water for the other cats. Since there were two gray tabby cats that came around, I called them both "Tabby".

Hey, I know that the originality is just overwhelming, but all I wanted was some way to which to refer to these cats. I also have three parakeets, one of which was named already by someone else. The other two I call "Birds". As far as I am concerned, that is their collective name. It may not be original, but it works. I also have a dog I named Slime Dog, since when I rescued him, he was tethered outside in the freezing rain on a fifteen foot chain with no shelter. His paws were slimy from the mud, his soaking wet coat, and the piles of dog excrement through which he waded inside that little radius of his existence. He got his paws all over my clothes, and I told him how slimy he was; that he was a "slime dog". He responded to that term, and a name was born. OK, back to the main point now.

Besides the two tabbies, I also had other, uninvited creatures that would visit for the free food. A flock of blackbirds camped out under my carport. They often flew in to raid the cat food bowl. They built nests under the carport. They used the bird bath I have in front of my house. All of that did not bother me so much. I thought the sight of birds eating cat food was rather humorous. The unfortunate part was that the birds had absolutely no respect for the free lunch nor the provider and his property. They left a lot of droppings all over my concrete driveway and carport area. My brick steps and hand rails were constantly covered in bird droppings. All they cared about was the hand out. The longer the free food was available, the more birds showed up. The message spread. More and more birds came and visited my free Meow Mix buffet. Soon there was less and less cat food available for the tabbies, for whom the food was originally intended, since the birds kept eating it faster and faster, along with leaving droppings faster and faster. Since I could not be constantly monitoring the food supply each and every moment of every day, I could no longer keep up with the birds' consumption of food never intended for them to eat.

Eventually, I got disgusted with the mess left by the birds and the bill for the constant food replenishment. I power washed the bird droppings, took up the food dish, and never put out any more cat food. Rapidly, the cat food eating blackbirds all left my carport and have not returned since. My bird bath no longer is over run by a "town council", as I called them, of birds meeting at my bird bath. Now cardinals and robins freely enjoy the bath that was once monopolized by the freeloaders. Once the hand outs were removed, the freeloaders left.

This is a real life parable from which we as Americans can learn. The tabbies still come around from time to time, though seldom, and I always say hello to them. Occasionally, I even try to tempt them with some cat morsels. I feel sorry for them, since the good thing I tried to do for them was ruined by those who took advantage of the system.

This is no different than our welfare system, our food stamp program, and (especially) our policies on illegal immigrants. If we remove the freebies, we as Americans and the source of the buffet, will stop getting covered with droppings by those who seek to do nothing but take advantage of a system never intended for them and have nothing but disrespect for those footing the bill for their freeloading. Those for whom the system was truly intended will continue to get a raw deal, since the supply will be eaten up by freeloaders. Until we as Americans decide to take up the Friskies bowl, we will continue to have freeloaders drain our economy and poop all over our homeland.

Column for March 27, 2008

Santa, and Bunnies, and Fairies! Oh My!

One of the great joys of my life lately has been that I have become the "big brother/adult male role model" type for a five year old. I have been blessed to have been doing this since just before Christmas. So far, I have experienced Christmas, Valentine's Day, and Easter with this tot's family. His grandmother and mother have been very happy to have a man in this little guy's life. His own father abandoned him and his mother a couple of years ago. This family has worked hard to instill values into this little guy. He has been getting a lot of reinforcement from me for over three months, and I hope I have the opportunity to continue in this role for some time to come. He and I have been spending a lot of time playing, teaching, and traveling together.

One thing I am not willing to do is to cross the boundary of teaching something different from what his family teaches him. There will come a day when some things will need to be explained to him with which I may perhaps be able to help. Like I said, I have spent Christmas and Easter already with this tyke. Therefore, I have seen the whole Santa Claus and Easter Bunny thing just recently. Since I have not had children myself as yet, I have not had the ability to exercise the decision to teach about these characters or not in my own family. Since the family to which I refer believes in allowing a child to have these fantasies, I am not about to contradict this practice, since it is not my place, but I do have my personal beliefs about these things.

My parents perpetuated the myths of the Tooth Fairy (with a five year old, we have not yet had to contend with that one), Santa Claus, and the Easter Bunny. I believe that I shall not perpetuate it to the next generation of LaPlantes, should there ever be direct descendants from my branch of the family tree. Personally, I do not want to tell a child about omniscient, omnipresent, mythical beings which I later have to explain do not exist. I have a hard time with the idea that I will have to instill my values into a child, and tell him or her about an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, supreme being and creator who actually does exist after ascribing some of those attributes to a myth. That is my personal conviction, however, and I put it out there for others to consider, without condemnation whatever your choice or belief shall be.

Some day in the distant future, someone will have to explain to this tyke that he will have to pay income taxes to a corrupt governmental system that is far from its original intent and according to laws that do not require him to do so. Someone will have to explain that Social Security will most likely not be available to him when he wants to retire. Someone will have to explain to him that a national debt (now over ten trillion dollars) will be upon his back and the backs of others his age. Someone will have to explain why the best candidates for office do not always get elected. Someone will have to explain to him that there are those who do not have the same values as he has been taught.

His mother and grandmother have worked hard to instill into him the idea of work and reward, even at this young age. There are those who do not believe in that principle. He is going to be angered as I was just last week when I was in the check out line at Wal-Mart. Ahead of me was a woman checking out, paying with WIC (Women, Infants, and Children government hand out) vouchers. Here she was dressed in a work suit. She had a cell phone with a wireless headset, and had just purchased one of the best toasters and best quality cookware in the store. They were already in her basket, paid for. Then she bought the most expensive juices and baby formula in the store with WIC vouchers. This little guy will eventually see that there are those purposely milking this country dry at his expense. Personally, I would like to take an inventory of luxury items such as televisions, cell phones, video game systems, and high end automobiles owned by those who receive government assistance.

I hope to be able to explain these and many other things about growing up to be a man to this tot. Certainly, a five year old can not be taught about economics, welfare, or the unfairness and complexities of life. As much joy as I get from having befriended this tot and his family, I am almost depressed about what his generation faces. There are some hard truths ahead which are perhaps harder to swallow than the fallacy of the Tooth Fairy.

Column for Feb. 14, 2008

I had several topics I wanted to cover, but none would take up a full column, so I decided to go with the "LaPlante's Rants" being plural rather than singular concept. So, here it goes.

I just finished filing my annual federal and state tax returns. Even with a good tax software program that I use every year, it was a real challenge this year. I had to deal with capital gains tax, stock options, medical bills, and more receipts than to which I am accustomed. I could have saved a few hours of my own time, corporations save tons of money, and Americans save plenty of time and money by having a simple tax code. I am a huge supporter of the so-called Fair Tax. We could replace our entire income tax and FICA tax system with a single national consumption tax. This would save so much time and money and none of us would have to fight with a tax code thicker than The Bible. It would also tax us according to our spending rather than the enslavement of our labors, all would pay taxes including illegal aliens and criminals, and we would not have an easily manipulated, punitive tax code.

I am very frustrated with the amount of taxes I have paid that will potentially going to people who do not work as I do, much less file tax returns. I personally know people who have what has been aptly termed a learned helplessness. There are people who frustrate me by leeching off the government, friends, and family. Why in the world do people cry total poverty, yet will run out to Wal-Mart to buy the latest DVD releases, get tattoos, buy cartons of tobacco products, pay for high speed internet, and satellite television? It is all a matter of priorities. I realize that there are truly those who are destitute in this world, but I am so tired of people begging to borrow money from me when they could simply do some planning on their own, exercise some self restraint, and do for themselves. In addition, many people could do much better on their own rather than waiting for the rest of us taxpayers to pay for their paltry monthly handout.

I recently had need to send a certified letter across the state. I paid the extra postage for the certified mail service, which also allowed for status tracking on the internet. I am glad that I could get an online status, since the post office is incredibly inefficient at returning mail such as mine that was refused for delivery. The letter took only one day to arrive for delivery, but after the recipient's refusal, I am still waiting for the return of the letter over two weeks later. Nobody at the post office can tell me where the letter is and why it has not yet been returned, even though there is a tracking bar code affixed to it. If UPS, FedEx, and DHL can track a package along every step of the delivery process, why can not the United States Postal Service do the same? Over five years later, my mother is still waiting for a Mothers' Day gift I sent her. When I got a PO Box, mail was taking six days to be forwarded from my home address in Selma to the PO Box. The mail was routed from Selma to Raleigh and then back to Selma to be placed into my box, just thirty feet from where the mail was placed to be routed through Raleigh. I was told that this was to make the mail process more efficient. If this is modern efficiency, I would prefer old fashioned common sense. Nothing will get better or service levels increase, but our postal rates will.

Speaking of the post office, what is it with these lazy people in Selma who are so lazy and inconsiderate that they will literally park the wrong way on the street in a no parking zone? It is literally scary to see someone cutting across traffic, going the wrong way, and then parking illegally. I see this most every day that I am at the post office. Many times I see that the offenders have handicapped parking placards and yet totally ignore the specific parking spot created just for them. Are people that lazy and selfish?

OK, one last one. My company recognizes Presidents' Day next Monday as a company holiday. I have a good friend who has to work that day where she works. That lack of a work holiday was a result of substituting Martin Luther King Day for Presidents' Day as a recognized holiday. It is bad enough that Presidents' Day was created to not recognize both the individual holidays of Abraham Lincoln's and George Washington's birthdays. There is no way I can possibly equate the celebration of Martin Luther King to the celebration of two truly great leaders of American history. This has nothing to do with race, just accomplishment, history, and importance of effect on this nation. Furthermore, I do have a problem with the idea of creating a holiday to appease a numerical minority.

As much as I would like to expound upon that last one, my space for this week's column has been taken up and my multiple rant packed column is now done for this edition.