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 Dec. 22, 2011

I can’t believe the piece of junk mail I got today. I get plenty of solicitations for credit cards, usually more than one a day. I get junk mail from my mortgage company, my life insurance company, travel agencies, car dealers, lawyers, and the list goes on. Today I got one that insulted my sensibilities.

My employer supplies me with a Blackberry, with which they expect me to use for work communications. I use it heavily for email and telephone calls. Several years ago I got another cell phone, which was a prepaid wireless phone. At the time I was dating a woman who loved to keep in touch by text messaging. Since I only had my work phone, I obtained another phone for personal use. Fortunately that relationship only lasted about three weeks. She was a liberal, non-practicing, Catholic who thought that Hillary Clinton was the greatest candidate for President ever. I am a right wing, conservative Protestant who thinks that Hillary Clinton is just about the Anti-Christ. For four years now I have kept that same prepaid phone going. My right wing, conservative, Protestant wife whom I met just one week after ending the relationship with the Clinton loving liberal carries that phone and has since we were dating.

Having a cell phone is not a constitutional right. I pay for my own Tracfone and have for years. If I want another cell phone, I will have to pay for it out of my own pocket. Most people I know, rich or poor, that have personal cell phones pay for them themselves. That is the way it ought to be. Though a great convenience, cell phones are not something to which anyone in America is entitled. For that matter, neither are automobiles, internet service, personal computers, or gourmet bread and ice cream.

For several years, I have frustratedly watched television commercials for Assurance Wireless. They provide free cell phones to people who are on Medicaid, food stamps, Supplemental Security Income, live in federal public (Section 8) housing, get free school lunch, get home energy assistance, or just plain have a low, qualifying income. The services are paid for by the federal government via the Universal Service Fund program. Make no mistake, you pay for this fund.

In researching the fund, I found “The Universal Service Fund (USF) was created by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1997 to meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated by the Telecommunications Act of 1996...As of the first quarter of 2011, the USF fee, which changes quarterly, equals 15.5 percent of a telecom company's interstate and end-user revenues.” If a telecommunications company pays the fees, you are the ones really paying for it, since fees are passed on to you, the consumer. Telecommunication fees are nothing new and consumers have been paying for them since the 1930’s.

The USF has been broadened to include internet access. Now we are paying to subsidize high speed internet to “under served rural areas” and for low income people. In reading, I found that “the FCC approved a six-year transfer process that would transition money from the Universal Service Fund to a new $4.5 billion a year Connect America Fund that will support the expansion of broadband services to areas that don't have broadband access yet.” So we will be paying for people who choose to live in the boondocks to have fast internet.

When my wife and I go shopping, we count the cost of groceries to make sure that we come within budget. It is infuriating to see a young, unmarried couple that have a toddler with another baby on the way pay for groceries with a food stamp card. We saw one woman get the most expensive bread in the store and a couple of gallons of milk pay for it with a WIC voucher, some of her other groceries with a food stamp card, and the remainder of the groceries with a bank debit card while talking on a cell phone. Here we were counting the costs of our own groceries still skimping on our own cell phone service, and paying full price for everything.

What is just as frustrating is that the companies who provide the free cell phone service make enough profit off from doing so to put on a full marketing campaign on national television and direct mailer solicitations. You and I are paying for it to happen, for people to get free groceries, and for people to have free cell phones. Is it just me, or is this not infuriating? How are people entitled to free cell phone service, which should be considered a luxury item, at our expense? Merry Christmas all year ‘round, I guess.

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 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 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 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.