The Problem in Public Education: Standardizing Profits

The past few posts have been somewhat political in nature, and I admit that I have shown some views that would side with liberals.  I'd like to think this post will be different.

In my academic career, the facts to which I have been exposed have opened my eyes to the true faults of our system of education in the public sector.  No, they don't lie with the teacher unions - though the unions do get targeted a lot.  I did once think that the unions had too much power and say over the course of educational development.  But, alas, those are not the true roots of the problem.  It's not the kids; it's not the parents; it's not even the social dilemma of teaching children one thing at school to have them see the opposite on TV and in video games.  It's the way we measure success in schools, and how we come about showing students as numbers to help us quantify the quality of education.  It's the people trying to find a profit in the education of our students.

Gardner's multiple intelligence theory relates the idea that every student has a different way of learning.  Not everyone can learn through lecture, discussion, or reading.  Most elementary schools in the nation have adapted to include Gardner's theory in their classrooms - several have found new ways to teach using his approach to learners.  New developments have been made in determining the true intelligence of the students teachers educate on an everyday basis.  However, as the age of the student progresses, the differentiation of the education lessens.  As students move into high school, we find less and less in the way of diversity in educational deliberation, and more lectures, readings and tests.  Though the early development of specific intelligence does encourage improved scores on tests, very few high schools, colleges and universities apply the theory to their own work.  Many times, the traditional form of educating a mass of students is upheld, and if one does not conform to the method, one does not often succeed.

To take that notion one step further, the way we measure the success of our students has not changed in the 50+ years in which we've been measuring student performance: The standardized test.  Why?  We have surely found that intelligence is much more complex than the ability to memorize and regurgitate facts - when we can agree on what the facts are.  Is testing so valuable and worthwhile that we just need to do it in order
to feel like we can put a value on the amount of learning that has taken place?

I got a glimpse of why we've kept doing the same thing in my graduate studies, and it started with the IQ test.  When we first learned how to put a number on a person's ability so we could adequately compare one to the other, we began doing so across the nation.  From the IQ test came the SAT, the ACT, and then the state standardized tests.  Since then, we've been using the same formula, expecting different results - Einstein's definition of insanity comes to mind.  We test our kids with new questions, but keep the same format - they sit and read and fill in little tiny bubbles, all of which will be graded by some master computer, and the student will have a number assigned to their ability, which will indicate how the teacher teaches, how the school prepares the student for life, how the student responds to education, and whether or not the schools are effectively doing their job.

So, in spite of the new understanding of intelligence, we use the same old methods of measurement.  Why have we not figured out a new way to understand the potential and understanding our students have of the knowledge we teach?  We continue to blame schools for failing to meet standards when the number of low-income families are on the rise - and the educational studies show that students of low-income families perform worse on standardized tests than those in families with adequate to substantial means.  In this age of personal responsibility and independence, should we not be looking more at the students and their parents than the people attempting to educate them?  We like to show the teacher who gets to sit back for three months out of the year and go on vacation and live the cushy lifestyle, when in all reality, the free time teachers possess is taken up by grading papers, creating lessons, researching new ways to educate the students, or filling out paperwork for special needs students who've been included in the general classroom.

Regardless, we've come to the notion in our society that we spend too much on teachers who don't do enough.  We've started embracing the idea of charter schools in districts that fail to show their progress.  No Child Left Behind did a lot to create this idea of failing schools, in that it required EVERY student to be tested, and that EVERY student - regardless of whether or not the student had special needs - meet or exceed state standards.  What that means is the child on the autism spectrum who cannot read well, or the intellectually low-performing student who doesn't understand abstract concepts, must perform at the same level as the student who correctly answers 80% of the questions on the state standardized test.  That mandate meant that over 80% of our public schools would fail to meet the Annual Yearly Progress demanded by the legislation, and that they would all be defunded in favor of charter schools, private school vouchers, or state controlled districts.  Why would such a law be allowed to pass through Congress?

One word - money.  If one looks at the current Common Core Curriculum that passed through Congress, one can see that a few companies stand to make billions in profits.  Most notably, Pearsons - the company that makes textbooks, standardized tests, and intelligence tests for our schools - as well as Scholastic and Houghton Mifflin, who will possibly make hundreds of millions in the first year of the Common Core's roll-out.  When going back through the educational reforms we've seen in the past forty years, we see that privatizing education has become more and more prevalent throughout the country, as 'failing' schools are overtaken by charter schools run by private companies.  The charter schools hire non-union employees with less certification than public schools, and pay them roughly $20,000 less per year on average.  I fail to see how this creates a more conducive environment for learning.

When I delved into how and why these companies got their way, I found it all went back to politics and lobbying.  Our schools weren't failing, but we had a private company fund a study that said they were, and we stuck by the faulty findings.  It first happened when our institution addressed the idea of school funding with the Coleman Report of 1966, which used murky language and problematic comparisons to argue that money did not matter in schools.  Rather, it was the student population and their community that mattered.  However, studies have shown the opposite - schools that can hire more experienced teachers can bridge the gap between low-income and high-income schools.

The next big faulty study came with "A Nation At Risk" that tried to show our public schools were failing, when really they were on the rise.  The study was funded by private corporations looking to get a piece of the $600 billion the country spent on education, and was supported by Reagan who introduced the idea of school vouchers.  But, the math was flawed.  The first test area used 250 students from each level of income to show their start, then used a higher percentage of low-income students as a test group in the next year to show the dropping scores - they tested only 100 students of high income, 200 students of middle and low, and 500 impoverished students to make the 1000 student number they used.  However, the tests they showed had each sector of student performing better than the previous year - but because the concentration of high performers was lower than that of the low-performers, the average was skewed to show public schools decreasing in performance.  This article from Yes! Magazine shows the math failure.  But the companies needed something to show the schools were failing so they could get in on the action, and thus funded a faulty study.

Moreover, we constantly like to point out that public schools are doing worse than other countries.  But we don't take a good look at the reasons why they show better numbers - we just see that we don't perform as well and see it as the need to change things. For instance, in European countries, such as Finland or Poland, we see they score better because a.) they have less students per class on average, b.) only the high-performing students take standardized tests, and c.) they focus less on school work and more on learning real-life tasks.  Asian countries that show better scores than us typically have a.) less students per family, b.) more focused time on educational needs, and c.) significantly less students in their public education system.  Asian schools also record only the top ten percent of their students when showing their numbers for educational comparison.  When we take our top ten percent against the rest of the world, we find that we are in the top five of math, science and reading.

But again, we test every single student, regardless of their disability, income, or ability.  We also educate every student in every subject up through high school.  When we see the bigger picture, we find that our schools are NOT failing us. When we compare public schools to the vaunted charter schools, we see that levels of performance are nearly the same.  Private schools can show higher numbers in some cases, but most of those cases show the private school refusing special needs students because they "do not have adequate facilities" to accommodate the special needs.  When tested, of course the private schools will perform higher because the public schools have to test each capable student - including the ones with special needs.  So, when we look at the numbers, we take the facial image without seeing why the schools are different.  Of course, there are those areas where the public schools do end up out-performing their charter counterpart, only leading to prove the claims wrong.      

Yet, we continue to believe public schools are failing because private companies - with significantly more advertising money than public schools, and greater ability to lobby politicians and the American populace with faulty reports - convince us of such.  They lob attacks against teachers for being overpaid and under-worked - they attack the unions for being corrupt lobbyists trying to take the taxpayer's dollars.  But who are the people gaining the most out of the push for privatization?  Who stands to gain the most out of privatization - the student or the company running the charter school?

We have not always been a country that valued profits and money over doing the right thing - but I am afraid of what the culture of the wealthy is doing to our schools, and how they will affect the way student success is measured.  We know how the wealthy and most of our American society measures success - money.  They determined it would be best to measure the success of schools on standardized testing outcomes - to make each person a single number.  Some schools have rebelled against it - and I fear if more do not, the public school system will truly fail.  Not because it will fail our students, but because we, as a society, will fail the students.  It's time for us to begin measuring school success differently so we can find a way to truly educate our students, instead of giving away our students' futures to people who want to make a buck.      

Benghazi and the Right

I keep hearing about this Benghazi incident when I speak with my friends of the conservative right.  It seems to me like it has become the talking point for those against Obama's foreign affairs.  I find it strange that, despite several stories from news sources, such as NPR, CNN and the BBC, the right feels that there has not been enough coverage of the intelligence failure, or cover-up of the Benghazi incident, despite continued violence there and elsewhere in the Middle East.  

If you don't know what I'm talking about, and blinked your eyes during September 2012, there's a good chance you missed the stories.  So, to summarize, I will relate the story.  Late on the evening of September 11th, 2012 - amid the presidential election - an attack on a US Consulate in Libya occurred, killing four Americans, including the ambassador.  The car bomb strike was, at first, claimed to be part of a riot taking place over a video made by a right wing extremist about the "truth" of Mohammed, the prophet of Islam.  The video made such a mockery of the religious leader, it sparked outrage and violence across the Islamic world. At first, people on the right raced to defend the man's free speech - but then, some other reports began coming out of the White House.  The CIA now informed the president that it was, in fact, an attack by a terrorist or insurgent group specifically targeting the US Consulate.  Hillary Clinton resigned as Secretary of State, Obama said it was a mistake on the side of Intelligence because lots of things were happening at the same time, and several news outlets had to retract stories when the new evidence came out.

Here's the timeline of the actual events, from factcheck.org.  As evidence shows, the White House knew more than they let on.  Awesome.  So, of course, they say things to make it seem okay without apologizing, as every politician does.  As the information came to them, clearly in a controlled stream meant to trickle out so it would seem less of an impact on the presidential race, they began to clarify exactly what took place.

Great, so now we know what happened and now we can start going after the people in Libya who planned and coordinated the attack - right?  No, now we spend two years in a committee talking about what really happened and what the White House knew.  We create several sub-committees, and then a special panel on the attack, all over what's being called an intelligence failure.  Why?  Oh, yeah, politics.

Politics.  It's why we never truly got the whole story from 9/11/01.  Hundreds of witnesses refute the evidence posted by the White House, who was clearly warned of the attack prior to the event.  The White House said the planes incinerated the infrastructure of the Twin Towers buildings - something everyone has heard a hundred times over by now.  But the steel beams showed evidence of melting into molten metal, and steel does not do that until it reaches 1200 degrees F.  Jet fuel reaches a maximum of 990 degrees F.  There must have been people inside the building who planted bombs - whether US citizens or otherwise.  There was no debris from any plane at the Pentagon crash site.  What did the administration claim?  Vaporized.  Really?  A plane was just vaporized into nothing?  With all those cameras around the Pentagon, we only have one video of a plane crashing into the side of the building?  I find that hard to believe - there must have been a cover up.  But where was Fox News and the conservative right during that time?  They were worried about pointing the finger at Osama Bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.

And what about those weapons of mass destruction?  What about the 'definitive proof' that Hussein had chemical and nuclear weapons, regardless of the IAEA's countless reports that Hussein was impotent in that area of influence?

John Stewart explained the situation very well in these two clips from his Daily Show      

I just think it's very hypocritical, to mirror Stewart's sentiment, that the right wing would be so outraged over the deaths of four individuals, when they worked so hard to cover up and forgive the mistakes of a previous administration, and the thousands of human lives, both counted and ignored, that were laid at the feet of the people who made those mistakes.  How can they compare Benghazi to 9/11, or Afghanistan, or Iraq?  How can they compare Obama's mistake to the myriad of Bush's?  Oh, yeah, politics... money... people who want power.

Benghazi is a classic case of the person with the plank in their eye trying to point out the splinter in the other person's.  They make themselves look like a fool to people who know the whole story - but that's just it isn't it?  They're counting on people forgetting.  The party of Watergate, the Iran Contra, Desert Storm, 9/11, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Patriot Act, and the bail out of Wall Street (because remember that Obama did not take power until 2009) rides on the fact that people will forget about all their past mistakes and focus on the here and now - Benghazi, Obama's mistake.  Do democrats make mistakes?  Yes - in fact Gore probably lost the 2000 election because he wanted to distance himself from the legacy of Clinton, who had the Monica Lewinsky catastrophe, Whitewater, and Somalia.  Carter had the Iran hostage situation that ended when he left office.  LBJ had the Gulf of Tonkin.  But no one has had as many mistakes in office that got covered up and forgiven by high ranking officials than George W. Bush.  To call for the same outrage on Obama over Benghazi the way people got outraged at Bush over his misdeeds is ludicrous.

Obama v. Republicans and the Conservative Right

When people at Fox News keep talking about what a poor job Obama has done on the recovery, then praise the Republicans who have held stimulus package after stimulus package back (after the first one succeeded), I wonder - where do they get their numbers?  The conservative right complains more that he violates rights (laws unanimously passed by Republicans - NDAA and USA PATRIOT), uses drones to target enemy combatants (Americans considered terrorists who are considered as such because of a law Republicans passed under the Bush administration legally allowing the president to do so - regardless of party), wants to take away people's guns (he's supported ONE gun regulation bill that was soundly defeated after the NRA went haywire when the nation decided it was time to reconsider gun rights), and is trying to make us look like balls (because pussies are much more durable than balls) across the world by NOT acting unilaterally against Russia, Libya, the people who hit us in Benghazi, Egypt, Syria and Iran.

Meanwhile, Republicans have - at home - attempted to slash funding to education, snap assistance, DCFS, veterans' relief, unemployment, and held the government hostage to eliminate a law that has helped millions of people acquire healthcare at an affordable rate (and even quit jobs they hated because of insurance's new affordability).  They've also seen to efforts to help increase the amount of pull the very wealthy have within our political system via the Citizens' United decision as well as the more recent McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission decision ending the limit on total campaign contributions, while also supporting the end to voters' rights laws without first going through the federal government's Justice Department.

This paints a very serious picture, in my mind.  It shows a continued trend towards the conservative right's alignment to very wealthy individuals while also promoting the trend Republicans have shown to restrict voting through voter ID laws aimed at minorities and poverty to low-income individuals, as well as the rights of individuals.  What is being shown here is the increase in the rights of the wealthy few with a decrease in the rights of the low-income majority now present in the United States.  What does this say?

To me, this says that the more valuable voice in the United States is the one with money to donate to some representative's or senator's campaign.  This means that our elected officials are no longer answerable to the many they represent, but rather the few who donate massive amounts of money to their campaign, promoting the notion that elected officials now play a larger role in the government as fundraisers for the party, rather than representatives of the people's will.

My personal politics have been considered left-leaning or centrist views.  I do not believe in a complete government nanny state any more than I believe in a completely free market.  I like regulations- I like everyone on the playing field to have to follow the same rules.  I don't like the fact that rules have been swayed towards the very wealthy while the poor masses are left to fend for themselves.  What if this were to happen in sports?  What if we said to athletes - "Rules are different if you make X amount of dollars.  You can only play in the play-offs if you make X dollars per game" - or - "We won't call your fouls if you make sure you pay the referees a little more from your pocket so they look the other way when you commit them"?  The people watching and paying those players' salaries through tickets, jerseys, and memorabilia would be in an uproar.  So why don't we get enraged when one political party does that for people making millions or more per year?

You may ask - well, how have they changed the playing field?  Besides the voting rights act, the Citizens'United decision, and the McCutcheon decision, how has the conservative right made it harder for the average American to get ahead?  Well, outside of fighting for tax breaks on wealthy individuals and profitable corporations during a time of severe recession, while arguing for tax hikes on the middle class and low-income people, they have continually blocked stimulus packages proposed by Obama to aid the working class by creating jobs, continuing unemployment benefits and supporting the poor and wealthy alike by allowing those who have little to spare to afford necessities - like food.  Yet, while Republicans do this in the legislative branch of the federal government, they blame the executive branch for not doing more to ensure that jobs continue their growth.  In essence, Republicans and the conservative right have created an unfair scenario, and have blamed Democrats for allowing them to do so.

However, even while this struggle has been going on, the economy has risen.  How?  Why?  Well, in my opinion, as people continue to see manufacturing and labor jobs decrease due to job exporting and robotic development, they have begun to go into business for themselves.  Thanks to SNAP assistance - which Republicans lash out against - and federal and state programs giving funds to unemployed people - which Republicans claim make people lazy - we have seen a growth in self-employed individuals finding ways to make money with their own talents.  Whether making money through pyramid schemes - like independent power companies, Pampered Chef-esque companies, Am-Way-esque companies, Mary Kay-esque companies - or by making money through talent - like self-publication, artistic endeavors, or service related fields - the average American is making it work on the little they have.  With more people embracing the notion of multi-generational homes, costs of living have in turn gone down, while new home purchasing has dropped.

So, despite the political problems Obama has with Republicans, the American people continue on.  What does this mean, and how are politics responsible for any of it?  Well, while Republicans and the conservative right have blasted Obama for a slow recovery, in spite of blocking all attempts at a speedy one, and Obama has blasted Republicans for blocking attempts to ensure the progress of American jobs, enough legislation has gone through to allow people a floor from which they can start building.  In essence, the American people have become tired of the arguments, and have started taking it upon themselves to recover.  Does this benefit the Republican idea of personal responsibility, or the Democratic notion that we are all part of the same American mosaic?  I think it has shown us both - that we are all part of the same tapestry, and that only by doing for ourselves can we really start doing for others.  It has emboldened the American people to not only stop relying on the federal government for hand-outs, but has also allowed us to create a more stable economy from which we can begin building the new century.  It has shown us that the previous century's tactics will not work, and that we need to create a new, more stable infrastructure from which to begin.

In general, had it not been for Obama's measures that DID in fact pass, our country would not be where we are today. Conservatives want to downplay it, or remove the proverbial rug from underneath us, so they can achieve electoral victories and stick it to the centrist/left-leaning group arguing for more government support in the middle class and less corporate welfare.  If it were not for Obama's positions on student loan debt, educational funding, SNAP assistance, unemployment benefits, healthcare coverage or job creation, most of our social advances would not be taking place.  However, the conservatives continue to lash out against Obama for not doing enough, while hand-cuffing him when he tries to do more.

I will not say ALL conservatives have been against Obama, but the loudest speaking conservatives have argued against him despite the numbers saying he has done a pretty decent job.  Even though he has fought hard against a party trying, in any way they can, to unseat him from office, or corrupt his two-term presidency with made-up scandals or conservative-policy-created problems, he has helped us recover in a way no one expected.

In this way, the art of this struggle lies in the little guy, who in spite of the people trying to remove his boots, found the boot straps by which to pick himself up, and used the government's support to do so.  Whether by using disability, unemployment, the ACA, SNAP assistance, or student loans to aid educational development, the people of the United States have grown and become more independent in the terms Obama has been in office than in Reagan's, regardless of Obama's tax policies - which have been lower than Reagan's trickle down policy.  Obama has been quite centrist in his dealings, even though he has supported gay rights, women's rights, and equal rights in the face of republican opposition.

While I am not saying it's all because of Obama, I am saying that Obama's had a pretty good run of things even though he's been opposed since 2010.  Does that mean he's been our best president ever?  Far from it.  I would actually say the arguments have done more to disinterest people in politics than interest them.  More and more people want solutions, not excuses.  Until our government can start cooperating, we will not have solutions outside of the ones we make locally and on our own.  But, Obama has given us the means to which we CAN make those decisions, and the optimism to think we can go beyond our humble beginnings to reach heights we didn't expect.

I'm not calling Obama a miracle worker, or the answer to all of our problems.  I'm just saying, as a figurehead of a country run by the corporate elite, he gives the little guy hope that he can be something more than he is.

        

Sore Losers: Republicans and Obamacare

There's a huge cry in the Republican party of the United States about the Affordable Care Act - or rather Obamacare.  The Tea Party Caucus, the Libertarians and the full fledged Republicans are crying over what they have been referring to as socialized medicine since day one of the argument - not to mention its passing.  Since the ACA passed, it has been repealed by the House of Representatives (Tea Party controlled) 41 times, and now the government is being held hostage by the same people who look to de-fund what the health care act is.  Whether for or against Obamacare, the first thing one should know about this is that it does not socialize medicine across the board - it socializes treatment for people making less than $30,000/year, or families making less than $75k.

Here is the main summary of the Bill according to wikipedia - just in case you haven't actually looked at what the Republicans are calling socialized medicine.  As you can see, the bill only sets guidelines and regulations for the market - as the government has done in nearly every other market in the country - and sets up an exchange for the insurance companies to use for competition purposes.  They will put their quote on the exchange and the people will choose which one they can afford.  If they use the exchange - they will receive a tax credit.  If they do not use the exchange and have insurance, nothing happens.  They have insurance - there's no tax.  If they have low income and make less than 133% of poverty income - as I said somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000 - they will be eligible for a tax credit which they can either take in advance or the following year.  This tax credit pays for the insurance - which is set at a premium rate of 4-5% of the person's income.  The companies agreeing with this will be subsidized by government funds, but will not be run by the government outside of the regulations the government dictates.

If you are at 133% of poverty or lower, then you will be eligible for medicaid - and the federal government will give increased funds to the state providing the medicaid insurance.  Medicaid is a state run institution and paid for with medicare and social security taxes - which many people receive in a lump sum at the end of the year during what's known as tax season through what's called a tax refund.  So, if one is poor enough to receive this portion of taxes back, then one will actually receive less than what they normally get, as they will be paying with those tax refunds.  In essence, those people crying about having to pay for someone else's insurance do not have ground upon which to stand, unless they're complaining about making insurance cheaper for grandma and grandpa.

Yet, for some reason, the Republicans and conservative 'intellectuals' argue that Obamacare will destroy health insurance.  How, when all parts of the law allow more choice, better prices, and tax breaks, could it destroy health insurance as a whole?  One would think that everyone having health insurance would be a good thing for health insurance companies since more people would be included in the pool, and health insurance companies could charge more people with premiums.  However, this is not what Republicans see.  What they see is something entirely different: Change.

Many of them are scared of change - they have seen the previous medicare (which they have gutted in the past) as well as medicaid (which they also gutted) become ineffective (because they were both gutted) and many doctors deny people using medicaid and medicare (since reimbursements for healthcare costs are slowed now that they have both been gutted).  However, if one does some research, one can easily find a great resource that shows where and who supplies care for medicaid or medicare treatment (I found my link by googling medicaid and medicare doctors - as simple as that).  So, while it may not be the same one you wanted, it will be a doctor.  If you already have insurance - the doctor will remain the one you already have.  So, that argument is pretty flat.

The other argument is jobs - it's a job killer.  Despite the fact that Health careers have sky-rocketed since the passing of the law and its eventual implementation, and insurance jobs within the health sphere have increased drastically, Republicans argue that full-time work in other fields will drop drastically, and we'll see the advent of the two-job part-time workers.  However, based on the results of the first Obamacare
 incarnation - Romneycare - the proof just isn't there.  Maybe people like Wal-Mart, MacDonald's or others will do so, but we already know that they have been unethical for quite some time, and we expect such a thing from their corporations.

The last thing is the real argument - meaning the only one that holds up: premiums will rise.  This was explained to us by Obama during the voting, and the election, saying that initial costs will rise.  Why?  Taxes to the insurance companies for specific things for which they typically charge the patient - medical devices.  They will garner about 47 billion dollars to help provide the subsidies to insurance companies on the exchange to promote cheaper health costs.  However, the costs do not go up unless you choose not to use the insurance exchange.  If you use the insurance exchange - which they don't mention in article - you receive a tax credit and a break - and get a specially reduced cost if you are a low income person or family.  Yes, if you go off on your own and buy insurance from a company directly, you will be paying more.  However, if you sign up for the exchange - which can be done by googling it, or clicking on this link - you can end up saving money because of the exchange's government funding.

Bipartisan?  Hardly

Yet, even though the Republicans have been proven wrong time and time again, they continue to rail.  Why?  Why do the Republicans take every answer given by liberals - who seem to be the only ones trying to solve problems with the marketplace - and squash it like a bug?  They seem only to complain about what's there, and the only answers they have are tax cuts for the wealthy, subsidies for big oil/coal/gas, and cuts to social programs.

Now, as the government shutdown becomes imminent, politicians are quick to point fingers at each other. Republicans blame Democrats for not budging on the de-funding of healthcare, and the removal of mandatory over-time pay.  Democrats blame Republicans for being bull-headed.  I would side with the Democrats on this one - only because I believe I know why the Republicans do not want Obamacare to be implemented.

In my humble opinion, based on the past five years of turmoil and conservative backlash to having a black president, there has been a Republican elephant sitting in the room.  This elephant is the Republican/conservative idea that black people are the only people/majority of people who benefit from social programs such as SNAP assistance and social security welfare programs - outside of grandma and grandpa.  This is flawed - while it once might have been, the numbers have evened out and are now weighted towards poor white people in communities where jobs have disappeared.  I hate to think this, but I have to wonder if it's true.  Why else have these Republicans been so staunchly opposed to a man doing what needs to be done to save the majority of the country?  Why else would people throw such hatred against a man who has done nothing more than what his predecessors have done?

It is my belief that these politicians, funded by old school racist money-holders who still cling to Southern Strategy doctrine, are working so hard against Obama - like no other president has been subject to - because Obama represents the forward progression of social reform and equal rights.  Obama also represents what the big money guys fear the most: wealth redistribution.  So, what do they do?  They pour money into elections throughout the country for Republican candidates and work tirelessly to pass laws that will help them keep their money, give them corporate subsidies, and break the ability of the workers to rise up against them.

I think that is the main reason why people have been arguing something that is just not true, or something that already exists in a private forum.  They argue that Obama is going to take your money to pay for someone else's insurance.  But, even if you keep your own private insurance, or choose not to have insurance, you are paying for someone else's insurance, or someone else is paying for your treatment.  It's already happening - Obama is just making sure that everyone pays for everyone else, instead of having the many pay for the unfortunate few.  Would you rather have your premiums go up because Stan - the broke carpenter - can't find a job doing what he does and can't afford insurance, and goes to the emergency for care for which he won't pay... Or would you rather have your premiums go up for one year, then steadily drop because everyone's chipping in to the larger pool - including broke ass Stan?

Another fear they voice is the idea of death panels - which is ridiculous.  Death panels, in Obamacare's incarnation, already exist within each insurance company currently running.  If you need treatment, there is a panel already choosing whether or not the treatment is something you need or something you should just pay for yourself.  The reason Obama has placed them in the ACA is because they already exist in the private forum, and the government will use it as a final check to either enforce the insurance company's existing decision, or reverse it to force them into giving you coverage.  In essence, they act as market regulators.  But Republicans - or rather their wealthy supporters - don't want regulators, and therefore argue incessantly against them.

Then there is the fear upon which they play that talks about how the government is going to insert itself into the medical field and force unnecessary tests and procedures upon you.  The Koch brothers made a few ads that try to instill that fear within the young.  Of course, the fear is only trying to get young people to engage in civil disobedience by not getting healthcare through the exchange.  If they don't go through the exchange, they won't get the tax credit, and the premiums will be expensive.  If they just don't get healthcare, they get taxed anyway, and end up paying what they would have - if note more - had they used the exchange in the first place.  After a few more ads from those brothers, a doctor debunked the fears with this video.

These arguments are just indicative of the Republican strategy of fear.  It has been used for the last 13 years to such a great extent - in security (fear the terrorist and give up your rights), military (fear foreign powers and let us go in there and bomb people), social welfare (fear the poor people trying to get your money) and taxes (fear the government trying to take your stuff).  It really makes me sad that the only real strategy Republicans have left is fear, and that conservatives are responding.

As the Republicans work to shutdown the government - using fear to bolster their reason - I wonder why they really don't want the Affordable Care Act to succeed.  Why would Ted Cruz - whose home state of Texas would actually benefit greatly through the ACA's implementation - want to fight so hard against it when, in the long run, doesn't make a huge impact on the nation's spending due to the revenue increase the taxes create (according to the CBO)?  Well, if I were a political party who has been classically against social programs (fear communism), and I saw a bill that might work, and knew, based on Massachusetts's own success with Romneycare, that such success would make whichever party implemented the law very popular with the people, I would try to stop it from being law.  Not being able to stop the law, I would probably try to sabotage the law.  Hence the attempt to de-fund, followed by the subsequent delay in the mandate and the tax on medical supplies.  The Republicans are trying with all their might to destroy a possibly popular program because they don't want to lose power.  In essence, the only reason the Republicans are trying to de-fund Obamacare is because they know it will work.  If it works, the Republicans - who have been staunchly against it from the get go - will look like idiots and lose their House majority.  So, instead of trying to fix it and claim credit for mending a broken machine, they try to sabotage it with ridiculous arguments.

It shames me and saddens me to a huge extent that government programs and jobs are going to suffer because a political party wants to win - whether Democratic or Republican.  It's the only reason I can see all this hoopla as viable anymore.  Republicans have asked for a stall in the mandate so they can win the Senate in 2014 and then repeal the law.  They want to remove the tax so the exchange cannot give the subsidies to the people like the law demands.  It's all part of a scheme to keep their power base solidified, and the more they try to de-fund/repeal the law, the more they lose, the more they reveal their true intentions to the people.

They've stripped social security, the rights of unions, medicare, disability, and SNAP assistance at the federal level.  At the state level, they have implemented the Right to Work laws - which remove people's ability to hold their employer accountable for poor working conditions, poor treatment, and accountability - implemented moral legislation (adopting unconstitutional state religions, promoting vaginal ultrasound procedures for abortions) and have removed voting rights for minorities and poor voters.

Yet, what do they support?  Oil, oil, and more oil - plus removing EPA regulation on business, and supporting more tax cuts for big corporations.  So, how does one pick oneself up by one's bootstraps when the party telling one to do so removes one's ability to do so?  It's just indicative of a failed and flawed reasoning, and a product of the idea that an individual is more important than a community.  Our social organism has long been separated by the idea that the individual counts more than the community.  The reasoning is that if one cares for one's own needs, then the community can prosper because the individual doesn't have to count on or depend on anyone.  It's a belief that's espoused by people of wealth, who do not understand that they are just as dependent on people buying their product - whether abstract or concrete - as the people are for the jobs those wealthy people can create if given the opportunity.  It's a belief that the people of wealth built their own intellect and wealth, and did not have any support or help along the way.

I say it is flawed because no one is a product of themselves alone.  Everyone, no matter how great or small, receives aid from someone else - whether it's rich mammy and pappy, the professor giving a strong lecture, the teacher showing the student how to reason and think critically, the bus driver taking the child to school, the police officer putting social order in place, the fire-fighter keeping one's house safe, the church-goer giving the needy family a Christmas present, or the consumer supporting the big corporation making the necessary item - the social organism is entirely connected.  To say it is not is a fallacy and a skewed logic.  To promote the idea of individuality while removing the individual's ability to get ahead is a lie and a way to steal one's power in order to give it to another.  Who do the Republicans support?  Who supports the Republicans?  Answer the second, and you'll answer the first.  Based on the laws they implement, the Republicans support big business, big oil, gun manufacturers, and fossil fuel burners, which, in turn, means those they support return the support.

It's time to give the power back to the people.  In my personal opinion, the single most devastating thing that could happen to our country is if the Republicans are given more power, or returned to their seat of power.  The only thing one could do to hurt the country more than electing a Republican to office would be not voting, and letting someone else have your voice.  I recommend voting for anyone other than a Republican during the next election.

Where is the art in this whole debacle?  I could say blind ignorance, I could say willfully sleeping.  What I will say, however, is that the art resides in the image of the person suited in power, smoking the cigar and puffing the smoke all over the people upon whom that person stands.  The Republicans are taking advantage of the people who vote for them - do yourself a favor and elect someone else.  Independents or Democrats - as long as they aren't Republicans.

Last thing:  We need to make a law that removes Representative and Senate pay altogether as a FIRST option if the government either defaults, shuts down, or grind to halt for any other reason.  These guys work for us, we do not work for them.  It's time to remind them of that fact.  

  

Raising the Minimum Wage - the Fight For and Against

Ah, the minimum wage.  How the arguments get heated from both the right and the left.  I was having a conversation with a friend the other day about the minimum wage.  I asked why it would be such a problem for people to have a few extra dollars per hour.  He rattled off a laundry list of conservative arguments: Companies wouldn't want to hire any more people; inflation would raise more; the economy would get weaker; we need to let the free market decide on the wages.

When I was debating the pros and cons with this friend, I noted that the minimum wage hasn't risen since 2009.  Back then, food costs were lower, gas prices were lower, and energy costs were half of what they are today.  He told me it would behoove us more to lower the cost of living as opposed to raising the standard wage.  

This argument perplexed me.  The cost of living is something based on supply and demand.  The more one demands the supply, the higher the cost of the supply becomes.  When one has a city, like New York, where people are competing with tens of millions of other people to get that one thing they need, or the energy they must have to power their AC/heat/computer/lights/etc., the cost cannot artificially go down unless the government spends money, or the company producing the product lowers their price.  If a company's sole design is to make profits, why would it drop the price of a scarce commodity when it's in demand?  That would be opposed to the logic of the free market.  If a company is making money on the supply they have, and they raise the prices to increase profits - yet do not increase the wages paid to employees making the supply - then the employees have a harder time buying the supply demanded.  They then have to cut out other things in their lives to afford the necessary supply.  If the company's product is unnecessary, then chances are even their own employees will stop buying their product because of the high cost and low wage.

Case in point: MacDonald's in 2006 charged between 4.99 and 5.99 for value meals.  The costs now are between 5.29 and 7.29 on average.  Yet, the wages of the employees have not changed, despite the fact that average MacDonald's employees are in their 20's - 30's and have been working there at least 9 months (where the company once set the first raise benchmark).  In order to make money, the company - rather than pay its employees more - reduced the cost of production by purchasing cheaper, less healthy food.  They kept the wages the same, and have increased profits by more than 3 times what they once were.

MacDonald's is only one example of how a company gets around raising their employee wages to make more money by spending less.  But the fact remains that the minimum wage is 30% lower than what it should be if it were doing as it should and adjusting for inflation.  I have my own theories on why people refuse to increase the minimum wage - but I think the flood of misinformation helps.  Here are some facts from a site dedicated to restoring the minimum wage.  It's pretty biased towards the raise, but it makes some good arguments.

The fact of the matter is, with more people able to afford their daily necessities, more companies would be making more money.  If gas prices are on the rise because of inflation, and we can grudgingly accept paying $3.59-$4.29 per gallon of gasoline so big oil can keep making big money, why can we not accept the idea of federally enforcing a minimum wage standard that makes those companies pay enough to help the workers afford the gasoline they need to get to work?

The big businesses would not suffer, but they are the ones making the largest of arguments.  It would be the small business that suffers from a raise in the minimum wage.  An NPR report looked at both the pros and cons of raising the minimum wage, and found that most of the companies negatively affected were small businesses.  These businesses would have long-term employees demanding more, which would mean the people running the business would have to take a pay cut to afford such employee benefits.  This is a good argument against the minimum wage - but only because it shows factual evidence as opposed to ideology.

Another flawed argument is the idea that it would cause inflation to raise.  However, inflation and the value of the dollar - being relatively opposed - are not affected by how much people make of the already created dollar, but by how much people borrow, or loan, from the banks.  In a fractal reserve system, money is first lent to from the central bank to the commercial banks.  The commercial banks then hold a fraction of the original deposit and loan out the rest - when the other banks deposit the loan in the commercial bank, the commercial bank treats it as a new deposit, not the same money they lent out.  This practice is followed by the other banks who loan money out to consumers. So, in essence, as new mortgages are bought by consumers, and sold by banks, and new loans are given to businesses so they can pay their bills and suppliers, deposits are made and inflation increases.  This is done so in a Fibonacci sequence coil that continues to spiral endlessly with the relatively small amount of money it originally took from the central bank.  In the end, because we can't pay for what we want when we want, and we get loans to buy those things we want (or convince ourselves we need), whether through credit cards or banking industries, inflation occurs regardless of how much we get paid.  It would be sound reasoning to think we could stem the tide of inflation by increasing the pay of workers so they could afford more without borrowing, and so businesses could earn more so they wouldn't have to borrow to pay bills.  Increasing the minimum wage will not increase inflation as much as banks, credit card companies, or retail businesses and restaurants already do.  The amount of money they'd receive would be a drop in the bucket compared to the flood waters of inflation pouring over us.    

Even a majority of Republican voters demand better minimum wage (62%).  In a Huffington Post aggregate story, there was proof showing that less people, if the minimum wage were increased, would require the need of SNAP assistance because they would end up making enough to cover their food costs.

It frustrates me to see so many people quietly comply to pay higher prices for necessities such as food, water, gas, and energy, yet argue so fervently against higher wages for the people working for the suppliers of those necessities.  The most remarkable thing is that most of the people arguing against it are doing so because they do not believe people deserve a 'raise' simply because it's the legal standard.  They believe that the people should go out and get a better job, or earn it through hard-work; that minimum wage jobs are there to spur people to get better jobs.  I'm sure they would if there were better jobs available.

However, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics, the jobs that pay well are on the decline, while Retail (which includes restaurants) continues to show increased employment.  This is because the jobs that would normally have under-educated or less education requirements are on the decline.  Manufacturing jobs are no longer as plentiful because they are being outsourced to China.  This leaves retail, fast food, service and restaurant industries taking up the slack.  If those jobs only pay minimum wage, and make sure to keep the employee under full-time hours, then the employee receives no benefits, a low wage, and will have to remain on SNAP assistance and continue to be seen a 'burden' for society.

Another factor going into the inability to find a 'better' job is that most of the people working those underpaid positions do not have the resources to find better jobs.  Unless they receive hand-outs from friends or family, they can not afford a computer and the Internet with all the other services for which they have to pay.  They pay for rent, they pay for utilities, food, gas, and what their kids might need if they have them.  Most of the times, they are only able to afford just enough to keep going to their low-wage job, and pray day in and day out for the one break they need to find a better position in life - so they can join the median income yearly wage earners(I linked the wage in 2011). It's either that, or they become drug dealers/gang members/criminals in their poverty income neighborhood, self-employed and offering services to others at a discounted rate to do good business, or get discovered by some random talent agent from American Idol when/if their minimum wage job gives them time off.

I think it's funny the people who have found their 'better' job feel they keep their positions because of their hard work - when a majority of Americans are only working hard enough to not get fired.  I think it's a bit hypocritical that people who understand the struggle of finding a good job argue that people who are complaining about minimum wage should just be quiet and find a better job.  It reflects the notion that poor people are not poor because of their circumstances, but because they are lazy.  If they were truly lazy, they would be living off of someone's couch, arguing that they should not have to clean up after themselves, should not have to find a job, or should not have to contribute to their household for whatever reason they can find.  I know lazy people - some of them work, some of them don't.  But the real indicator is that they are really too lazy to care about this argument.  If people arguing for a minimum wage increase were truly just too lazy to find another job, we would not be hearing from them.

Sometimes, the people arguing have been looking for better jobs for years, and have not been able to find them or gain interviews because of their lack of experience or education in the field.  Many can not get the education because the job that pays their bills will not allow them to gain it - or give them the time or extra gas money to attend classes. Yet, the argument goes - if you don't like the wage, get off your ass and find a better job.  People argue that minimum wage should not be increased, but rather people should start doing their jobs and earning their higher wages.  Yet, wages have been stagnating across the board while profits and productivity increase.  So, if people can't get better wages through earning a raise, why should they care about doing a good a job?

I think the real problem here is that a few people have had a few bad experiences at places where people get paid minimum wage, then rail and rail about why minimum wage should not be raised because those people weren't doing their job.  I propose a question to those people: If you were in the middle of trying to find a better job, had a position at a retail store/restaurant/hotel/fast-food chain, how serious would you take your job if everyone treated you like you were just a lazy person who didn't want to find something better?  How would you treat the people who treated you with disrespect?  How would you respond to the people who decided to get angry because they thought you weren't being patient enough to answer their 36 questions (many of them the same questions) about a single product only to change their minds and decide on something else? What response would you have when someone threw a temper tantrum because they didn't get what they wanted when they wanted it?  What kind of action would you take when someone complained about your customer service skills despite your every attempt to please them, and you got written up?  Would you appreciate the customers more or less?

   

The 'Miley Cyrus' Dilemma

I didn't watch the MTV Video Music Awards.  I'm not a big fan of MTV.  I don't like the idea that music has become an issue of appearance rather than sound.  We have people shoved in front of us with no talent, other than their voices, who have been tailored to look a specific way that someone at the top wants us think is attractive.  Despite the fact that MTV now plays very little in the way of music videos, they had a huge hand in the sexual revolution of 90's that took us to a whole new level of bodily objectification.

Pop Music now is performed by people who look the part, but can't write a single word or note of their own music.  Songwriters, many of whom do not fit the mold for sales, get shoved back into rooms and work tirelessly with the hope that one day their song will be picked up by some attractive singer's manager.  Rap was one of the last bastions of musical originality until people began doing the same.  Now, they (record producers) find a guy who can speak in appropriate rhythm, dress him up in gold and give him a gold 'grill', and then sic him on the masses.  It's become such a production that many of the artists who originally put their word out through the genre of music find it revolting.

I have noticed something happening in our culture, through pop stars, actors and actresses, and through the art in which they take part.  Now that singers have to be a certain image, more and more songwriters are being shoved into those rooms and forced to make music for people who have sex appeal.  This is done to create sales - because music sells much better when some sexy guy or girl sings it rather than the person who wrote it.  I recently saw a meme about people who actually made their own music.  I thought they were funny, but now I see why they're so poignant.


The most recent issue I've had with the image of pop singers comes with the Miley Cyrus fiasco on the MTV VMA's.  Like I said, I didn't watch them, but I sure as hell heard about them.  I figured I'd check it out, to see what all the hub-bub was about.   Well, there was a lot there to talk about.  Unfortunately, it was not the good kind of thing about which to speak.

So, the performance starts with Miley Cyrus coming out of an over-sized teddy bear with her tongue stretched out and around her mouth.  She continued the motif through most of the first verse and chorus of her song.  I was wondering if she thought sticking her tongue out like that made her seem attractive.  I wondered if she even knew what she was singing, or cared about the lyrics.  In my own opinion, it made me wonder what she was thinking.  I read a few articles that were enraged about her performance.  The only one that seemed relevant - as most were accusing her of being slutty for the whole twerking incident - was the one that said she ripped off the image from Rihanna, another female pop star who made her claim to fame by singing sexually explicit and suggestive songs - like Rude Boy.

This made me wonder a few more things.  I wasn't enraged nor attracted to what Miley Cyrus did.  I'm not enraged nor attracted to what Rihanna does.  In fact, while not being offended, I pitied the women who chose those images over themselves.  It was clear that Miley Cyrus was not being herself - but rather being what she thought she should be.  From the reports, she wanted to show an image of maturity and sexual desire - meaning she wanted to put herself out there as a sex object to show the world 'Hey, Miley Cyrus isn't a kid anymore.'  Others have done so in the past as well.  Janet Jackson did so with her album Janet - going from child star to sex symbol with one album.  Since then, female pop-stars that begin as girls and travel to the realm of adulthood in the spotlight have been trying to reproduce it.  However, because they do not write their own songs, do not produce their own music, and try to force the image of adulthood through sexual explicitness, their attempts fail to hit the same message Janet achieved.  Instead, they turn into the 'slutty' image and show young girls, who may look up to them, that in order to become adult, they have wear skimpy clothes, show off their bodies, and start having sex.

Now, I'm all for sexual independence.  I feel that girls and women know when they are ready for it.  But having sex does not make an adult out of a girl, and does not reinforce adulthood in a woman.  Sex is an expression of pleasure, lust, and love.  It can be done in one or all three of the aspects.  Some do it for the simple pleasure of experiencing the single most uniquely human act.  Some do it to attain the woman or man they have pined over for so long.  Some do it to express their love for their companion.  Some do it for all three.  While it is an adult act, it does not make a girl more of a woman outside of the physical reality that the girl's body is getting ready for adult activities.

The bigger question here, for me, is what does it say about our society?  Does it say that the true measure of a woman is in her sexual prowess?  Does it say that to become an adult she must become sexually active or sexually desirable?  I understand that many women have the dilemma of growing out of their childhood.  Many feel that by dressing as adults, they can be taken as adults.  By partaking in adult activities, they can be seen as adult.  But that is only an image, not a truth.  In my opinion, the truest proof of womanhood is not with how many men she's been with, or in how well she performs sexual acts, but in how well she maintains her own self image despite her surroundings, and how strong she proves herself against the adversity life brings.  The truth of a woman is much more than what she appears, how she looks, or whether or not she's good in bed.  The same can be said for men - but the social aspect is much more present in the female gender.

A girl can remain a girl throughout her life, if she does not accept the trials and difficulties life brings.  A girl, in my mind, does not become a woman until she understands the realities of life.  In the spotlight of stardom, such a thing is hard to accomplish.  People will give in and enable so much that a girl growing up as a celebrity has it even more difficult than a girl growing up in hometown USA.  Instead of being exposed to realities of life, the girl is pampered and given anything she wants - so much so that the girl celebrity thinks the only way she can throw off her childish coil is by making herself a sex object, or turning to drugs - as most adults do for escape.  Instead of staying true to herself, she makes a huge display of herself in front of the world.  See Britney Spears, Jessica Simpson, Rihanna, Madonna, and now, Miley Cyrus.

Back to the twerking incident - I feel sorry for Miley Cyrus because she felt she had to do something like that to get her image to change from good girl (as presented in Robin Thicke's portion of the medley) to 'bad girl' so she could be seen as developing into an adult.  She wore skimpy clothes, displayed herself in a very sexually explicit manner (using the foam finger as a humping toy), and twerked all over Robin Thicke - a clearly adult oriented male pop star.  Nevermind the idea that Robin Thicke's song was about turning good girl's into bad girls - another message I tend to loathe (the idea that a man could go in and use a good girl for sex and then dump her like a bad habit once he was through - thus turning her into a 'bad girl' who becomes 'slutty').  This image does not promote her adulthood to me - what it appeared to me as was a confused girl who was trying to be something she wasn't.

Afterwards, the memes came in droves.  They ranged from making fun of Miley Cyrus twerking - like this one - to making fun of Miley Cyrus' body - like this one.  This also disappointed me.  Yes, it looked like Miley Cyrus should have worn something different if she was trying to make herself a sex object.  However, this also shows how our society is unforgiving of a woman's body.  Women's bodies vary from one to the other.  Women go through child-birth and many other changes through their lives to where their bodies do not hold up - the same can be said for men, sans child-birth, of course.  Granted, Miley Cyrus has not had a child - from what I know - but the fact that we have people making fun of her for her body reinforces the idea that women should be seen as such.  At least celebrity women.

If you look at society since the dawning of pictures, magazines and film, women have been under more pressure by men to maintain a certain body type to be desirable.  While women are reversing the trend by placing the same standards on men, it says a lot about our culture that we place more importance on what a person looks like than who a person is.  Our measure of successful aging is remaining fit and youthful in appearance, not in learning life lessons or staying healthy despite all the temptations otherwise - but by maintaining a sexy image.  This has caused a lot of girls to become anorexic, bulimic, bipolar, or simply unhealthy because they are concerned about gaining weight and aren't willing to eat what they need to eat to remain healthy.  This practice leads to obesity and poor self-image, as well as mental instability - One's mind is not focused when one is hungry and malnourished.  Yet, instead of addressing this issue, we, as a society, encourage women to resort to these measures simply by accepting what is presented by a small group of men and women who edit and control what is put on a magazine, film or video.  Just because one man likes it doesn't mean all men do.  But that's the implied value when it's put in our face and we are told it's attractive.

Healthy is different in all men and women.  Attractive is different for each man and woman.  There is no one image for it.  Beauty comes in many different forms - and most are too abstract to be noticed through image.


Likewise, adulthood is not given in concrete image, either.  It's assumed when one decides to say no despite the desire to say yes; it's making the hard decision to be responsible rather than making the easy choice of giving in to social pressure; it's choosing, and understanding what the choice will bring; it's accepting the consequences of actions taken and living with them as best as one can; it's becoming independent in thought, and not driven by what other people want; It's becoming truly oneself without repressing ideals for someone else.

I will say this again in closing - Miley Cyrus twerking on stage did not outrage me, did not titillate me, did not amuse me.  It made me feel sorry for our society, and hope that in the future, we can do better than assume adulthood and beauty can both be attained by becoming an image someone else wants.         

The Common Misconceptions on SNAP

The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program - or SNAP - has come under fire recently.  The conservatives argue that it is a program being abused by the masses, and that Obama prefers a country dependent on the program.  Other conservatives argue against paying taxes to put food on other people's table when they have a hard enough time putting food on their own.  I have listened to ranters complaining that they see people using SNAP to purchase food that they - the working class - cannot afford themselves (i.e. steaks, choice cuts of chicken and pork, etc.).  But there is an inherent problem within their argument.

The Heritage Foundation - a conservative think tank - complain that people are taking advantage of loopholes.  People who have recently become unemployed and receive unemployment money, are applying for SNAP without the need.  The Heritage Foundation argues that the system does not take into account savings, saying that people who have worked hard to save are taking advantage of a government run system.  I would argue that those same people have paid their taxes to the system, and should be able to receive their benefits since they were once working a job that allowed them the expendable income to save in the first place.  The people arguing this point are the same people suggesting that the working poor simply save their money and be frugal to survive the economic turmoil.  These are the same people arguing that Social Security be ended.  If someone who has been employed with a good job and has saved a small amount for retirement, how can they expect to get ahead if at the first sign of disturbance they dip into retirement savings?  The SNAP program is there to aid the populace during times of struggle - and many of the struggling people need the extra assistance since the cost of food is on the rise.  This study also says nothing about the retired - living on Social Security - the single mothers only able to work part-time so they can care for their children, nor the working poor who do not attain positions of full-time employment (or those who DO work full-time, but receive minimum wage).

Another common misconception is that most of the people benefiting from SNAP should just go out and get a job.  Sean Hannity argues that it would be better for America if the people on SNAP simply went out and got jobs so they could leave the assistance program.  However, John Stoehr presented numbers that would suggest most of the people receiving food stamps were either ineligible to work, or were already working.  This is yet another misconception from the conservative wing of the political sphere.

I did some research there because I knew people who were working who still received SNAP funds.  I looked at Feeding America's website, which told me that 83% of the people receiving SNAP funds had incomes.  The average income for those households - which had children, elderly, or disabled as well as the working income earners - was $744 per month.  In addition, I found that unemployed people were only allowed three months of benefits before the program ousted them - unless they found a job.  This means that most of the people receiving SNAP do have jobs.  Hannity was clearly mistaken with his question.  Even the Heritage Foundation's research stated as much.  

I decided I would take a look at some facts about food stamps, myself, since both sides seem to be arguing about it.  While Hannity and the right seem to be arguing philosophy over facts - and twisting facts to their philosophical stance, the left sounded like it was doing the same.  I figured it would be best to find something at which I could look so I could end the inner debate going through my own head.

Here is a link to the government website to help determine eligibility and the amount received for each household.  I note that the monthly income is calculated based on the amount within the household.  I figured that if one person received more then $2,000 per month, they were ineligible.  I also figured that if a family of four received $2,500 or more, they were ineligible.  On the site listed, it also states that they DO count bank accounts, but they do not count Social Security Income (whether retirement or disability), nor do they count TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds.  So the problem with Heritage Foundation's assessment of the program is this: a person with $20,000 in savings, stretched out for the year, does not equal $2,000 per month.  The same person, who is receiving TANF will not count those funds.  In addition, most have to re-apply after 3 months of assistance from SNAP.  What the Heritage Foundation does not take into consideration is that the person COULD get a job during that 3 month period, and then earn out of the SNAP funds - meaning their monthly income plus savings would exceed the amount for a single person.  However, if they do not earn enough income plus savings to equal the cap for a family of four, they would receive SNAP, though get less due to their income.

Another thing I decided to research was how much of our GDP SNAP consumed - to combat the people who remark that SNAP assistance is contributing to our fiscal budget issues.  What I found was the amount we - as a country - spend on SNAP is currently less than 1% of our GDP.  Less than 1%.  So, in fact, most of our taxes are not going to feed the people who can't afford to put food on their own tables.  In fact, we spend more on healthcare for government employees than we do for SNAP.  However, the amount we spend has been shown to be on the rise, nonetheless.  This is due to the slow growth in our economy, and the lack of willingness for major corporations or 'job creators' to actually create more jobs that pay a wage to get the people on SNAP transitioned out of the program.

Here is another link from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) that gives a more basic look at SNAP, and the guidelines for eligibility as well as what SNAP aims to accomplish.  One can see, with simple research, that someone got something wrong when looking at the numbers from the conservative right.  I wonder why they decide to make SNAP the enemy when they claim our nation is Christian: Wouldn't a Christian nation wish to feed the poor with a modicum of their paycheck?

I recall a time in the last presidential election where Romney said something about not worrying about the 47% of the country whose taxes were not kept by the government.  He said that Republicans shouldn't look at the message of tax cuts for those people, because they don't matter when it comes to cutting taxes - they don't pay.  That 47% gets all of their taxes back at the end of the year.  What's funny is that most of the people I've spoken to who argue that they don't want to pay to put food on lazy people's tables are members of the 47% who get all their money back.  In essence, they already don't.  For those that actually do - it means they make more than $40,000 a year, and the government keeps their income taxes.  These people who make $40,000 or more per year end up paying roughly 30% of their income to taxes - which still, at the lowest level, allows for $2,300 per month of net income.  Depending on where you live, it's either right at poverty, or well over poverty.  For the people arguing against SNAP - most being rural America - that's well over the poverty line.

While the numbers prove one thing, the philosophy continues to be espoused despite the facts.  Why?  In my opinion, this is partly due to the Southern Strategy - a discreet form of politically capitalizing on racial polarization - becoming more abstract.  The GOP (Republicans) use it now to attack social programs (TANF, social security, SNAP, Medicaid and Medicare, WIC, education) that benefit the poor - who are primarily minorities - in an effort to gain campaign funds and wealthy supporters.  So, now, instead of being the party of the white people, they are the party of rich white people - a shrinking minority.  They talk on states' rights, cutting taxes, and cutting spending for social programs so the poor (primarily minorities) will pay more and the rich will keep more of their earnings.

However, there is one flaw in all of their stratagems.  Without the poor buying their product, the rich will not gain money.  In a world where the wealthy are becoming more wealthy than in any other era of history, I find it difficult to believe that jobs that can help people get off SNAP are becoming less and less available.  Wouldn't it behoove the people who create products to employ and pay people in order to create a consumer base to buy said product?  Wouldn't it help the economy if poor people could continue to buy food, so farmers can continue to feed them, and businesses can continue to buy from the farmers to make their products, and farmers could continue to buy stuff from the product makers to help farming become easier?

The one flaw this political strategy has is that the right refuses to see the economic situation as a cycle.  It's  not a ladder, where one person walks up the rung and attains mass wealth on his own.  It's an economic cycle, a ladder where the people below the wealthy man holds him up so he can reach the top fruit and hand it down to the people below - that was the essence of trickle down economics.  In our current condition, that idea sees the one man on top picking the top fruit and eating it while telling everyone else to find food from the middle and bottom branches of the tree.  The man at the top does not realize that if he does not send the food down, the human ladder to the top crumbles.  We created a system to keep the cycle in place, to force
the man on top to send some food down, or help those below him get to the top branches so they could pick the fruit themselves.  However, the conservatives again gained control, and removed the person put in place to kick the top man down if he didn't follow the rules.  Now, we look at the system in place, where the man at the top has so much fruit he can feed himself for three lifetimes, and he complains that the fruit he has to give to the people at the bottom rung is straining his ability to feed himself.

To make this more concrete: The wealthy are not providing enough jobs that pay enough to keep people off government assistance.  The Republicans insist that giving the top earners tax credits will trickle down and create more private sector jobs - but what have we seen?  A rise in retail, restaurant and consumer service jobs that pay less than poverty, or are not full-time positions.  It's time to stop pointing the finger at poor people who are only doing what they need to do to get by - or the tiny percentage of people who abuse the system - and start pointing the finger at the people who are benefiting the most from our current condition.  I'm not saying punish the wealthy - I'm saying it's time to end the loopholes they use to get out of paying taxes, it's time to stop giving them outright cuts, and it's time to stop blaming the poor for the country's economic hardships.