OK, this is where this all started:
This struck me as a peculiar story because:
We had ridden an elephant at a circus ride a couple of years ago.
Both sides made compelling arguments:
Those who were against the change said elephants kept in captivity are bound to be aggressive at some point. While others who support the idea say dangerous incidents like the one in 1994 at the Louisville Zoological Gardens where a man suffered injuries after an elephant picked him up and dropped him several times-rarely happens.
My first thought was, “Hmmm, if it hasn’t happened since 1994, then it must be kinda rare?”. Not so says Carol Buckley:
However animal activists, like Carol Buckley with Elephant Aid International, argue that not all aggressive elephant behavior is tracked.
The reason we don’t hear about people being flung around helplessly by large aggressive elephants in Kentucky is not because it doesn’t happen, it’s because of a CONSPIRACY. When people were getting injured by raging elephants, apparently they were telling hospitals and insurance companies they were playing with much more docile tame animals, like their pet horse or very large passive dog. The injuries would be similar wouldn’t ya think?
In the meantime, this kept happening all over the place:
Even international outfits jumped into the fray:
Personally, I think it would make much more sense, even for the elephant huggers, to educate young children about these animals so that they can feel compelled to protect them. Reading about animals in books just doesn’t have the same impact as touching them. In the meantime, compel Fish and Wildlife to monitor these circuses, zoos, and petting zoos to make sure they are treating these animals in as humane a way as possible. If they simply eliminate all need and exposure to these animals, there will be no emotional bond for the next generations to feel compelled to protect them.
27
Oct
A lot has been made of the video where a woman gets her head stomped on at a Rand Paul/Jack Conway debate.
A lot. Before rushing to judgment, and before making incendiary comments in my presence, take into consideration some facts first.
Her original story was she was simply handing Rand Paul an employee of the month award for a fictional company moveon.org made up. What is that supposed to mean to Rand Paul? Then, it was she was simply wanting to hold a sign. In all her versions, she’s just innocently standing there and gets jumped. That’s Keith Olbermann’s take too. Here’s the same incident from a different angle:
And here’s a slightly different angle too:
So, ya gotta ask yourself, if you could care less about knowing the truth, what a woman from Massachusetts, who works for a group that funds the opposing party against Rand Paul, was doing standing in the middle of a Rand Paul crowd and attacking his car? I mean, last I recall, people in Massachusetts aren’t allowed to vote for Kentucky candidates. So, this paid political activist wearing a wig and a hoodie then attacks Paul’s car and is taken down by two guys, one of whom restrains her with her foot.
She was wanting to create a scene. And she did. And Keith Olbermann was more than ready to feed it to the masses. She’ll now go back to Massachusetts and plot her next political ploy I’m sure.
Doubt me still? After the event Ilyse Hogue informs the media that Valle was in the hospital receiving treatment and wasn’t sure when she would be able to talk to the media. At the same time, Valle is still at the event smiling and giving interviews for the media. Why should anyone care? Ilyse Hogue is moveon.org’s political director. She’s lying too. She’s not from Kentucky either.
All you peeps who immediately condemned the Rand Paul peeps have been lied to and taken for a ride. You have been fooled. That’s what moveon.org does. This ain’t Greenpeace or some environmental activist group, this is Moveon.org., a purely political entity that supports Democrats any way they see fit and have been primarily funded by George Soros, a Hungarian who made his money in Russia and nearly destroyed the British economy.
That’s a whole lot of people that have nothing to do with Kentucky that are making an awful big scene trying to affect who we in Kentucky elect. That’s just not right either.
The rebel in me wants to say that when pushy people come down from the North to try and tell us what to do, they might get their heads stomped on. But, God knows that is so horribly politically incorrect so I probably shouldn’t say it that way.
But……
31
Jan
Barack Obama, when campaigning, promised he’d try international terrorists in civilian courts. Holding up to that promise, he decided it should be downtown New York City. You know, that place with something like 10,000,000 people living within the federal courthouse. To be blunt, that’s just stupid. It was the fact a terrorist was going to be tried in New York City in 1993 that got the World Trade Center bombed. All the security in the world didn’t stop what the terrorists assured they would do. Since a bomb didn’t do the job, Osama Bin Laden finished the job eight years later.
Now, Obama wants a repeat. That’s just stupid. The mayor of New York City then handed the feds a $20,000,000 tab for securing the trial location. Then Obama’s peeps started wavering a little.
I’ll take care of this whole problem. We got a high security federal prison right here. And, we got a new federal courthouse being built right here, right now. Bring it here.
Now, for those not aware, I’m referring to McCreary County Kentucky.
They don’t have terrorists in McCreary County. Terrorists are scared of places like McCreary County, Kentucky. For good reason. An Arab in McCreary County Kentucky is kinda obvious. Now, we do have some Muslims here, but we know who they are. Each and every single one of them. That’s because small communities are tight. We know who the Japanese are. We know who the Chinese are. The Mexicans come and go to some degree, but the ones that have stayed, we know who they are. An Arab strolling down highway 27 with shackles on won’t make it very far. Terrorists coming to blow up downtown Whitley City or Stearns won’t be hiding too well. And, if we do figure out what they’re up to, there’s a mighty big forest real close to here. And, if they do happen to blow up a truck load of fertilizer, they probably won’t do much damage. And, probably would go unnoticed. We like to blow things up a lot down here anyway. Bottom line, we just don’t have any buildings that big.
For $20,000,000, we’ll make sure they’re tried, convicted, sentenced, and hung. Guaranteed. And, you won’t have to worry about a media spectacle. I doubt much media would come. By the time they found the place, the trial would be over.
What say you, Barack? Deal? You’re not going to close Gitmo any time in your presidency at the rate you’re going now just fussing over where to house them until we can convict them now are you? Bring it here. I double-dog dare ya. I guarantee you’re not going to get a better offer than this one.
I work with a program that provides services to indigent elderly in Kentucky. Mostly in rural Kentucky. Now, by nature, indigent elderly are not the healthiest population. As such, we’ve been very prone to being exposed to every infectious disease known to man. You name it, we deal with it. AIDS, flus, TB. If a human can pass it, we’ll get it. Because of that we’ve had to have a pretty strict policy regarding infectious diseases through the years. Right now it goes something like this:
It is the policy of ******** that an employee who has contracted an infectious disease will not provide any client services until they present a doctor’s statement assuring they are no longer contagious.
Pretty strict if you ask me. Well, the state doesn’t think so. They feel we need to update our policy t reflect the impact of H1N1. It’s that important. I’m kinda balking on this for a few reasons.
- For starters, I don’t see how removing someone from the work place can be improved upon in regards to addressing an infectious disease. This does a lot to deter the spread of the disease.
- If they want to work, they have to see a doctor. I don’t see how you can improve on forcing your staff to seek medical attention. This helps deter the spread of the disease.
- There is an expense incurred in re-writing, re-publishing, and re-training staff in regards to addressing the flu when the procedures will be exactly the same. About the only thing we would be doing is telling the staff H1N1 is an infectious disease. I’m gonna bet they already know that. Since we deal with a fixed funding amount, this simply means our clients will get fewer services for absolutely no benefit.
- Our guidelines regarding protecting our staff were adjusted to reflect the impact of AIDS. AIDS is a lot more dangerous.
- And the kicker for me, the policy we use was originally written in the late 80′s due to a rather virulent flu outbreak. Yup, it was a flu. What’s even more annoying is that flu outbreak was the swine flu. Exactly what it is they’re worrying about now.
This folks, is what people who are demanding public health care want. They’re saying it’s not, but it is. Someone at the federal level decided everyone at the state level needed to specifically address H1N1 because it’s so very special. It’s not good enough right now to protect everyone from ALL contagious diseases, it just has to be that one very special strain of the flu. Now, private industry tends to look at things a lot differently. They wouldn’t be at all concerned about H1N1 IF they knew they already had procedures in place to deal with it. The state knows they had procedures in place, but those procedures didn’t pander to the disease of the day, even if it was the disease of 20 years ago.
This is a huge waste of time and waste of money to make people less safe. That’s your public option at work.
I’m dealing with this right now:
Most state agencies could face additional 6 percent budget cuts to help offset a projected $161 million revenue shortfall.
Kerri Richardson, spokeswoman for Gov. Steve Beshear, said the administration is now gathering information on the potential impacts of the budget cuts.
State Budget Director Mary Lassiter sent letters to the heads of most government agencies on Friday alerting them to potential reductions in funding.
Richardson said the Medicaid program would be shielded from any additional cuts. Public schools, state unversities, community colleges, and the teacher retirement system also are among a short list of agencies and programs that would be spared.
Richardson said the administration is being prudent by planning for the potential budget cuts.
Now, the problem here is as Medicaid grows, it squeezes out other programs. However, the requirements for Medicaid are stricter than the state programs it replaces. Net effect, elderly and mentally handicapped lose state funded services. Period. That’s not speculation, that is what is happening in Kentucky and all across the country right now.
What is the guts to Nancy Pelosi’s health care reform? Funny you should ask:
That’s my opinion. But, it was written by The Wall Street Journal. Trust whoever you want, but in the real world, it’s already happening and Pelosi’s version would only make it much much worse, much much quicker. As states run out of money, they’ll have to drop services. Where do you suppose those people will wind up then?
I’m waiting for Associated Press’s fact check on how Pelosi justifies expanding a program that is bankrupt to provide more services to more people.
4
Nov
Rod Blagojevich, among other things, was accused of pay to play with SEIU. He got ran out of the governor’s office.
On September 14, 2009, Pat Quinn released this video:
Quinn immediately signed an executive order allowing collective bargaining for in-home workers. Most of these workers are family who live in the home in the first place. That didn’t matter to Quinn. The order went so far as to allow SEIU to collect fees from people who opted NOT to unionize.
The workers voted it down overwhelmingly.
The SEIU donated heavily to Kentucky’s governor as well. We’re waiting for a Quinn-esque executive order. The state is pondering moving services from agency services to individual consumer directed options programs. Exactly the arrangement SEIU has been targeting.
They’ve donated tens of millions to Obama.
And people wonder why the public option is so important to Obama and Pelosi.
Someone has suggested a RICO investigation into SEIU. Anyone REALLY think Eric Holder would do that? Go ahead, pull the other one.
I get the newsletter from the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. It’s full of all kinds of neat stuff that doesn’t make the news a whole lot. In fact, more often than not I have to just paste the text in here because no media feels like fooling with it. So far, this has been the case with this little piece of information:
Community banks across Kentucky are finding the general economic slowdown and federal regulations their biggest challenges, not foreclosures and other mortgage-related issues, a panel of lawmakers heard today.
The Interim Joint Committee on Banking and Insurance, meeting at Centre College, heard testimony both from industry leaders as well as state regulators on the conditions of banks in the commonwealth.
“Kentucky banks are some of the strongest in the nation,” said Debra Stamper, general counsel to the Kentucky Bankers Association. “Kentucky banks hold firm to a long history of conservative, well-managed banking practices.” The result, she said, is that state banks do not show the headlining results of major banks in other states, both in good times and bad.
Charles Vice, who heads the state’s Department of Financial Institutions, detailed various measures of financial stability for state banks. While Kentucky’s nonperforming assets — generally loans delinquent for 90 days or more — have increased by about three-fourths since the end of 2007, the number across the nation has tripled, he noted.
Both KBA and DFI pointed to the economy rather than irresponsible loan practices as a prime reason for the increase in foreclosures in Kentucky. The nationwide economic meltdown caused in part by Wall Street’s downturn has caused a spike in unemployment, harming otherwise reasonable loans in Kentucky, the Midwest, and other manufacturing-heavy regions.
Rep. Steve Riggs, D-Jeffersontown, asked why subprime mortgages got most of the media attention even though they composed only about 10 percent of all home loans in the state. “What’s being gained by pointing fingers at the wrong group?” he asked. Vice responded that the subprime percentage was higher in some states and that subprime borrowers made convenient scapegoats while noting that subprime borrowers were not necessarily lower-income borrowers, an important distinction that many have failed to note.
The one Kentucky bank failure this year, Vice pointed out, involved an institution that had only moved its headquarters to Louisville this year and was federally chartered and regulated. Of the more than 150 banks the state regulates, he said, about 20 percent are facing some sort of action plan that may be as simple as developing their own program for improvement.
Only 12 Kentucky institutions have received federal TARP funding aimed at troubled banks, with $191 million spread among them — less than the nationwide average for a single bank.
Vice also pointed to a new bank that opened in Kentucky earlier this year, with another group inquiring about opening a new bank despite the increased capital requirements that now are mandated on new banks. “That’s a positive sign,” he said.
Vice, Stamper, and KBA’s Jim Cooper also pointed to increased FDIC requirements as putting a crimp in banks’ profits. Vice noted that the FDIC’s reserves, collected as a fee from member banks and used to cover the assets of banks that go out of business, was down to $10 billion, or 0.22 percent of nationwide assets, because the number of failing banks has sapped the reserve fund. The FDIC minimum is 1.15 percent. As a result, the FDIC has instituted a special supplement that banks must pay along with requiring pre-payment of their insurance premiums through 2012.
“The FDIC assessment is taking 30 or 40 percent of bank profits in some cases,” said Rep. Mike Denham, D-Maysville.
Stamper also railed against federal legislation, not yet passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Such a law would overburden an industry that is largely working well, she said.
Denham and House Majority Caucus Chair Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, said legislation to regulate credit default swaps and other derivatives was a more pressing need. “If we don’t fix this core problem, we’ll have another financial crisis in the future,” Denham said.
Damron said the National Conference of Insurance Legislators, of which he is president-elect, will likely pass model legislation in November to put pressure on Congress in that area.
Pretty heady stuff huh? Gotta read it all before we go on. If you don’t, then what I’m arguing here will make no sense at all. What particularly bothered me was:
“The FDIC assessment is taking 30 or 40 percent of bank profits in some cases,” said Rep. Mike Denham, D-Maysville.
That just ain’t right folks. What you’re seeing is a situation where banks that went the high-risk route and got burned are now being propped up by the banks that stuck with traditional, more conservative business practices.
Now, toss in this part:
Denham and House Majority Caucus Chair Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, said legislation to regulate credit default swaps and other derivatives was a more pressing need. “If we don’t fix this core problem, we’ll have another financial crisis in the future,” Denham said.
Now, what you’ve got is a situation where, for some reason, the Obama administration is worried about some people at financial institutions making any money, while at the same time taking a huge percent of the profits from smaller banks. All the while ignoring the core problems that people who understand all this stuff have complained about for YEARS. Now, the FDIC is compounding and spreading pain as opposed to remedying the problem. That’s just wrong. By taking substantial amounts of cash flow from the areas that should be doing OK, they are risking the smaller economies that otherwise would be propping up the economy right now. You take X amount of capitol from a bank, that reduces their ability to loan by X times a fraction. Now, IMO, rather than punishing banks that did not cause the problem, they should be punishing the hell out of the banks that did. I want to know that every single penny of excess profits at Bank of America and the like are going back to the FDIC before a single penny is taken from a community bank that is otherwise performing in a prudent, profitable manner.
If the FDIC fails, it will be the end of our culture as we know it. I’d like to know one single person in the is country who does not access credit in some form or another.
In a perfect world, the places that caused the problem would be expected to remedy the problem. As such, the burden would fall more like this:
AK 0.05% AL 0.44% AR 3.64% AZ 2.49% CA 26.81% CO 6.42% CT 0.24% DC 0.15% DE 0.02% FL 7.88% GA 24.95% ID 1.14% IL 1.99% IN 0.03% KS 0.23% LA 0.02% MA 0.18% MD 0.51% MI 2.50% MN 0.34% MO 0.77% MS 0.06% MT 0.08% NC 0.98% NE 0.00% NH 0.01% NJ 0.46% NM 0.06% NV 0.46% NY 0.84% OH 0.22% OK 0.04% OR 1.71% PA 0.20% RI 0.03% SC 0.34% TN 0.15% TX 2.95% UT 4.01% VA 1.27% VT 0.34% WA 4.48% WI 0.10% WV 0.09% WY 0.33%
The beauty of this is it spreads the pain where the pain came from. We’ve done a good job in Kentucky, why should we be expected to bail out California again?
Bottom line is once again the only answer the federal government has it to throw more money at a failing concept. The logic behind the FDIC is solid, but the core is the problem. As is noted here, we’ve got a scapegoat, and we’ve got a misdirect. However, even these people can’t pinpoint the overt underlying problem. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 wrecked the concept of shared responsibility. Therefore, the concept of shared risk no longer applies. So, to keep addressing symptoms is just kinda stupid. If the feds are going to compel financial institutions to make loans that make no financial sense, then the FDIC needs to be more of a broker than an insurance entity. They just need to be the federal E-bay. The problem of course, is no one would buy the garbage in the first place. So, they most likely won’t now either.
Disclaimer here, I own bank stock. That’s 30% out of my pocket. I have the right to bitch about it. I also have the right to demand that before I’m forced to give up another penny of my money, the Community Reinvestment Act be ditched or the FDIC dissolved since it no longer serves a legitimate purpose due to the concept of risk management being perverted by said Act. And, of course, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency serves no fundamental purpose either. Drop it.
Oh, BTW, the FDIC is yet another troubled “public insurance option”. Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Those public options are what’s got this public option in such a mess now. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama think health care should be run just like all the other public options.
I read a lot. I work in social services. I also live in the poorest Congressional District in the United States which is in one of the poorest states in the nation. So, needless to say, I’ve seen poverty and deal with it rather regularly. So, I took particular interest when I received this newsletter:
FRANKFORT, Ky. – Members of the Poverty Task Force held the first of their four meetings Monday in an effort to develop comprehensive anti-poverty legislation for the 2010 Regular Session General Assembly.
“The Bible says the poor will always be with us, but we have to try to take care of them,” said House Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, who is chairing the task force alongside Sen. Brandon Smith, R-Hazard.
The initial meeting was staged as an information-gathering exercise, with a presentation by Drs. James P. Ziliak and Richard Fording from the University of Kentucky’s Center for Poverty Research. The two professors introduced some statistics on the commonwealth’s comparative poverty before suggesting possible policy solutions.
One in six Kentuckians lived below the federal poverty line as of 2008, Fording said, the fourth highest rate among all states. “Keep in mind this doesn’t include the bulk of the recession,” he noted, indicating that current rates are likely to be even higher.
Certain demographics fare even worse, Fording said, with minorities, female-headed families, rural families, those with less than a high school education, and children all having higher rates. Ninety-five of the state’s 120 counties had child poverty rates of 20 percent or more as of 2007, and three counties had rates of more than 50 percent.
Sen. Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, noted that he represented two of those counties, and that the federal poverty threshold did not account for local differences in the cost of living. Ziliak acknowledged that there were some shortcomings in federal data, but that it proved useful in tracking trends.
Rep. Addia Wuchner, R-Burlington, pointed out that even in relatively well-to-do counties, there are pockets of poverty, and that effective programs are crucial in every county.
Among the programs tried by other states in reducing poverty are early education and home nurse visits, Ziliak said. “The seeds for dropping out (of high school) are planted earlier,” he remarked, and a high school education or more are crucial in the modern economy. Reaching children before they reach the age of 3 can have a tremendous impact on later achievement, he said.
Several lawmakers also said that additional opportunities for vocational education are essential to keep all students on a path toward personal prosperity. The UK researchers observed that workforce training helped boost the benefits of economic development subsidies to businesses as well.
Modernizing the tax code and establishing a state earned income tax credit could also result in more Kentuckians joining the work force, Ziliak said. Subsidies for child care and incentives for savings accounts could also help people lift themselves out of poverty, he said.
Expansion of broadband capability and other technology was a favorite of several legislators.
“The Internet provides access to information that the folks in the urban areas can get every day,” said Rep. Richard Henderson, D-Jeffersonville. Rep. Leslie Combs, D-Pikeville, remarked that in many poverty-stricken areas of the state, large service providers choose not to expand their service because it’s not cost-effective, and Kentuckians suffer as a result.
Lawmakers throughout the meeting suggested options and programs that have worked or could provide promise. “It’s becoming clear to me that a multi-field approach is critical,” said Rep. Kelly Flood, D-Lexington.
The panel also has meetings scheduled for Oct. 26, Nov. 16, and Dec. 1.
OK, so, we got legislators in one of the poorest states in the country meeting to discuss poverty. Right off the bat I see problems. First of all, the fact that there is poverty in Kentucky is not really something anyone needs to point out. It’s not like it’s been on national news over the last forty years or anything. Whenever Hollywood wants to make a movie with characters that are down on their luck and basically stupid, they were from Kentucky. So, for this group of esteemed lawmakers to suddenly feel a need to address poverty in Kentucky is rather amazing to me.
But it just seems to get worse once they did gather to discuss it. Greg Stumbo, known for not being a terribly righteous person, starts by quoting the Bible. I might add, he gets it wrong:
37“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40“The King will reply, ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’
That’s not implying the poor have to always be with us. It just simply says if you meet a person in need, do for them as you’d have them do for you. Then another legislator points out we need all kinds of social programs to help them. Daycare, welfare, etc. etc. In other words, if a young girl goes out and gets knocked up and drops out of high school, we’ll make sure she’s provided for. That’s BS. That’s enabling. That’s the reason we have entire communities gripped in poverty.
The simple fact is this is the 21st century. This committee has the concept that if you bring internet jobs to a bunch of people who never bothered to learn to read, they will suddenly become good employees. Not one single employer on this planet will take that chance. And for good reason. These people have developed a mentality that it’s fine and dandy living on the backs of others via social programs. Not one kid born in this country sets out to be a pregnant, unwed, drug addicted, teenager. They learn that it’s OK to be that as they grow up. Their parents got by. They can too. Our society has bent over backwards, even going so far now as to fabricate verses from the Bible, to show how sympathetic we are to those in need. Politicians climb over each other in desperate displays of sympathy knowing full well they are enabling the next generation of losers who will simply be fodder for the next generation of politicians. I have seen six young girls in high school get pregnant over the last year. Only one I give a chance of not being on welfare the rest of her life. Their parents for the most part could care less where these girls were so long as they weren’t in their hair. They are cranking out kids about as quickly as they can get laid. They could care less what the consequences are.
So, the situation is we’ve got people making up Bible verses to enable parents abandoning their responsibilities, which allows their kids to not understand what responsibility is, which just passes on the problem to the next generation and starts it all over again.
Some hard realities need to be addressed before this cycle is broken. Jobs are not the answer for those who see no value in working. Harsh, but I know this to be true. Some people just feel justified to mooch off everyone else because of (insert cop-out here). They don’t care if they are considered a failure. Teaching them to fish is a waste of time. They do however, screw around, do drugs, get drunk, do whatever they please whenever they see fit. I don’t get that luxury, I have to work to support my family. So, pardon me if I’m possibly the first person to come and state I’m sick and tired of those that don’t feel compelled to work. There are exceptions of course for those physically unable to work. But, if you can work, you should be.
A little history here. Pre-1960 or so, people went wherever they had to in order to work. There was no welfare. There were no food stamps. In that situation, children were a burden. If things got too bad at home, you went to large cities to get a job. Most of Kentucky went to Michigan and Ohio to work. There just weren’t any jobs. My grandfather came to this area by way of Alabama. He came here to work building bridges and sawmills. His children all left here for the most part to work. Sitting on your ass just wasn’t an option. You starved. People felt pity, but they had their own to feed.
Rule #1 to fight poverty, don’t reward laziness. We’ve gotten ourselves in a jam by doing that for forty years. Let’s not make it that much worse by creating even more programs to reward doing nothing.
Rule #2, don’t reward behaviors detrimental to society. If you’re living off the public, ie, my money, I just don’t think you’ve got what it takes to raise a kid. Sorry, but you’ve obviously not thought much about what you have to offer a kid. If that person wants to continue living off of me, get fixed. And, if they continue to live off me for more than, say, two years, give the kid to someone who doesn’t. There are lots of people desperate to adopt. I’d much rather they adopt our own than import third-world kids. And, I’d love to give that kid an idea that there are better things in this world to pursue than, well, what their mother obviously was pursuing.
Rule #3, if a guy fathers a child and doesn’t feel like supporting it, make him feel like it. Right now things are just too easy if the guy doesn’t want to deal with it. He just basically denies paternity, the mother doesn’t push it, he’s off the hook, and I am put on the hook. Screw that. If a girl cranks out a kid on the public dollar, that kid is automatically DNA’d and fingerprinted. If the couple is not terribly willing to identify that dad, the government will do it for them. When it does, that dad pays, period. If he’s on welfare, he’s docked whatever the benefit for that kid is. No exceptions.
Rule #4, when applying for benefits, when jobs are made available, don’t limit those jobs by location. If they have to move to another place to do the job, so be it. Give them a little extra for moving.
Rule #5, if you don’t pass high school, no drivers license. Period.
Rule #6, if you don’t pass high school or get a GED, no state or federal jobs. Period. Reserve those for those that do try.
Rule #7, LIMIT FOOD STAMPS TO ONLY THOSE FOODS DEEMED NECESSARY. No Coca Cola, only generic. No Twinkies, Ding Dongs, Nutter Butter. Only nature cereals, bread, corn, green beans, things like that. If they want to gorge themselves on sweets, get a job. In this day and age with grocery scanners, this is way too easy to do.
Rule #8, make sure they understand that only one kid will be provided for by us. If they get, say, $500 a month for childcare, that’s for one or ten. It’s very difficult to get young girls to understand the burdens and responsibilities of motherhood before they have kids. It’s a lot easier after the first.
Rule #9, give out condoms, birth control pills, sponges, and any conceivable birth control device to any kid receiving free lunches. Teach them how to have sex without cranking out accidental burdens. I’d go into that detail here, but, I’d enjoy that too much. The assumption unsupervised teens don’t get horny is about as stupid as having kids in high school.
Rule #10, double the tax credits for adopting US born children. It’s a very expensive process for the average person. If they can afford the process, they should be putting the kid in a better environment and most often appreciate that child a lot more than a mother that just had an accident. We should do everything we can to get that kid in a better environment.
Rule #11, do not allow a GED until that person has performed a bona-fide job requirement. These legislators think bringing the internet to these communities will help, but, people have to know how to even use the internet tools to be attractive to employers. Cruising Facebook just won’t do it. Make them compose a web page. Unless they are retarded, every single one of them can do it.
Rule #12, if someone’s receiving public assistance, require random blood screening. Make it hurt too. For a lot of people on assistance, this is their job. Hit their paycheck. Let them worry about the ramifications. I could care less if someone wants to get stoned on their own dime. I have real problems with an entire culture that feels they have the Constitutional Right to get stoned on my money.
Rule #13, penalize those that abandon family. It’s gotten so bad that in Kentucky, the state is pushing a program that rewards kids who abandon their indigent parents. Re-visit the moral implications of Consumer Directed Options, Stumbo. If the state has to provide for an indigent family member, then the state should dock the other family members for that expense. The annoying thing about that is that is already the law, the state just selectively enforces it.
Rule #14, don’t allow politicians to pander the issue unless they have a concrete plan to remove people from poverty. No one program is going to do it all. You see a situation, you address it. One of the biggest hurdles here in poverty stricken Appalachian Bible belt is drug abuse of every sort you can imagine. People are blowing themselves up to make meth. If you want a social program to address poverty, get these people off meth and other drugs. No internet company will ever hire them the way they are. If they don’t want to get off the drugs, cut off assistance. They’re killing themselves just a little more slowly and a lot more expensively if we simply abet and supplement their habit. Do interventions, rehab, drug-replacement programs, you name it, whatever it takes to get them back on their benefits until they can find a job. You lower the drug abuse rate, you lower the poverty rate. Period.
The reason we have the poverty levels we do right now has been vocalized by a lot of non-committees. We reward poverty. When we make it undesirable to live in poverty, poverty will lessen. It really is that simple. If kids become a burden, they will have fewer kids. It’s not that hard to do. It does however, require two things that our society seems to have completely abandoned over the years, sternness and personal responsibility. In most cases of a healthy young person on benefits, it really is their own damn fault.
15
Sep
The concept of a “public option” in this current health care debate is not novel. It’s not new. It’s just taking what has been practiced in social service and medical care provision for decades and applying it to the insurance industry. That’s all. It’s also well-known that I oppose this. Here’s a reason why I do.
The company I work for provides completely non-medical in-home services to the elderly. Many of our clients suffer from Alzheimer’s and other mental illnesses associated with aging. Without going into a lot of math or detail, we charge about $10 for a “unit”. The state has decided they are running out of money. So, in order to provide more services to the elderly with the same budget, they are implementing a program that generally costs about $15 a “unit”. In addition, what the client got for free with no strings attached, they will now have to assign their estate to the state. And, in order to “save” the state even more by paying more for what they are getting now, the “employees” will have no workers compensation or liability insurance. The client will also not have to be concerned about liability insurance either, since the state will “own” their assets. The “upside” to this is that it gives the client an option of simply giving that money directly to their family. This according to the state, will allow family ( read deadbeat kids ) to “work” for four or five hours a week. There is practically no training at all for the “employee” on things such as moving morbidly obese clients or recognizing change of client condition. This endangers both the client and employee. And, since there is no workers compensation, the “employee” will file claims against Medicaid most likely. Anyone wanna guess what one back claim costs? That expense, according to Aging Services, doesn’t apply since they have never had any claims. They never will, Medicaid pays the claims.
The very obvious issues with this program are sending red flags all over the country. California was the first state to implement it to a large degree. They’ve had so much fraud with the program they have pretty much gutted it. Other states that have implemented it to any degree are also re-evaluating it. Based on the California AG’s report of massive fraud in a flawed system in California, Kentucky is now making efforts to implement it to a larger scale.
The “reform” in this case costs more, it provides fewer services, it has no legal protections for the client, it has no medical or legal protections for the employee, it has no checks and balances to assure the elderly are not being abused, it destroys the client’s estate, and it’s been proven to be a very easy target for fraud.
As FUBAR as this situation sounds, there is nothing that can be done to stop it since it is the state implementing it. Only until has been deemed a total catastrophe will the state even ponder going back to what it had before. If this were the private sector, as it is now, the state could oversee the program and contract with whoever they wish in order to get the best services for the budget. No one will be able to oversee this program since it will be overseen by the agency that decided they wanted it. No one will know the true cost of this program since all the major expenses will be shifted to other agencies.
Is that change you can believe in? Does that make sense to you? If I voice a concern about things like this, I am called everything but white. Now racism’s being tossed out there on top of disruptor and astroturfer. Bottom line, I think this program is a threat to the elderly I have been assigned to protect for fifteen years. No one wants to ponder that concept. And, because of the completely unfettered nature of the government providing a service directly that it pays for, there is nothing anyone will be able to do if they see these people are being abused by the program.
And what all of this boils down to is the state will now be giving money directly to the family of these clients as opposed to expecting them to take care of their own family. Self-responsibility is once again being usurped for socialist programs. Is that change you can believe in?
A few people over at my favorite conspiracy board noticed this little line from the most commonly accepted health care reform legislation:
National Medical Device Registry
‘‘(g)(1) The Secretary shall establish a national medical device registry (in this subsection referred to as the ‘registry’) to facilitate analysis of postmarket safety and outcomes data on each device that—
‘‘(ii) a class II device that is implantable, life-supporting, or life-sustaining.
Implantable? That of course led right to implantable chips. This of course is absurd. Everyone who reads that assumes that they are talking about pacemakers and stuff like that. Any logical person would come to that conclusion in a heartbeat if it weren’t for one problem with the wording. “or” is an option, not a requirement. If it were worded “a class II device that is life-supporting, or life-sustaining”, that means one thing. The word “or” means “a class II device that is implantable” stands on its own. That of course, could include microchips. That would make another part of the legislation a lot more meaningful:
Subject to clause (ii), an explanation of orders regarding life sustaining treatment or similar orders, which shall include—
‘‘(I) the reasons why the development of such an order is beneficial to the individual and the individual’s family and the reasons why such an order should be updated periodically as the health of the individual changes;
‘‘(II) the information needed for an individual or legal surrogate to make informed decisions regarding the completion of such an order; and
‘(III) the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes, including requirements regarding the designation of a surrogate decisionmaker (also known as a health care proxy).
Under most circumstances, “life sustaining treatment or similar” is a very broad description, open to interpretation by both the medical community, differing social definitions, and the individual themselves. This process allows for a state to take away your right to make an informed decision, declare your services as “end of life”, and then make a determination as to whether those services would be of any benefit or not. From what I’ve read in the legislation itself ( HR 3200, the most commonly referred to at this point in time ), “end of life” services could include things like heart medicine. They really don’t define what those services are, they just define, in very loose detail, what groups would make that determination for you.
How would they know when “end of life” services would be necessary? Why, a microchip of course 
( heh, heh, heh ) They already know you’re on a life-sustaining device in the first place.
Sounds crazy huh?
Right now states are initiating a program that allows non-trained, non-skilled, non-insured, non-workers’ comp covered people to provide services to the elderly because it’s only 33% more expensive than the current system, has a fraud rate of only 25%, and in order to get those house-keeping services usually provided for free to minimum wage, the state takes your entire estate.
