Jane Chastain : Politically Direct

Archive for the ‘Welfare’ Category

The Yellow Dog Voter

with one comment

There is a saying that originated in the southeastern portion of the United States that explains why this country is in decline:  “I’d vote for a yellow dog if he (or she) was a Democrat.”  The meaning is simple; no Republican is going to get my vote.  No way.  No how!

As the Democratic Party began moving left, away from the principles that were embraced by religious conservatives in the south, a blue dog coalition of more moderate Democrats was formed.  Although this group of lawmakers has attempted to show independence from its liberal leaders, the blue dogs essentially have been swimming upstream.

Unfortunately, Democrats don’t have a monopoly on the “yellow dog” intractable kind of voter.  If the truth be known, most voters have never read their party’s platform or know the issues that define it.  They blindly adopt the party label of their parents or have accepted a slogan or sound bite as absolute truth. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Jane Chastain

April 23rd, 2014 at 5:30 pm

Arguments for the Welfare State from the Looney Left

with 2 comments

“If a man is not a socialist in his youth, he has no heart. 

If he is not a conservative by the time he is 30, he has no head” 

Georges Clemenceau, Former French Prime Minister and one-time radical.

 

In my last column I made a case for a modern-day equivalent of the “poorhouse,” a place of last resort for my father’s generation.

From the comments on that column and elsewhere it appears we have a lot of immature citizens in this country who will never grow up and use their heads.

Clearly our practice of handing out free money, free food, free housing, free health care and a myriad of other goods and services to people with no accountability isn’t working.   It isn’t helping the poor and it is dragging our nation down into an economic abyss from which, if not corrected, there will be no escape.

Our government is serving as an enabler to those who prefer not to work, or at least not to work until such time that one can find the job of his or her dreams with a salary to go along with it.   Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Jane Chastain

August 21st, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Posted in Welfare

Bring back the Poorhouse

with 5 comments

Some of you are old enough to remember an admonition from your parents to work hard and save a portion of what you earn so that “you don’t wind up in the poorhouse.”   That was a fate worse than death to my father’s generation because it signified abject failure, loss of pride and a complete dependence on welfare, most likely for the remainder of one’s life.

The poorhouse, or more commonly the poor farm, was a place of last resort for those who could not support themselves in the 19th and early 20th century.  Residents were required to work, to the extent they were able, in order to provide for their daily needs.  Accommodations were sparse and pleasures were few.

Most of our parents and grandparents of that era didn’t have big houses or drive fancy cars, but they had good-sized savings accounts.  Why?  When hard times come — and they invariably do — our folks didn’t want to end up in the poorhouse. Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Jane Chastain

August 14th, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Posted in Obama,Welfare

Why We’re Losing Traditional Marriage

with 4 comments

The relevant question in the gay marriage debate largely goes unanswered:  “How does gay marriage harm traditional marriage and children?”

It is frustrating to see so many pro-family advocates and the attorneys representing them in court completely drop the ball when the answer is relatively simple.

There are only two reasons to marry:  1) to make a vow before God and have the union recognized by the church.  2) to have the union recognized by the government.

Since all major religions condemn homosexuality in the strongest terms, reason # 1 is an attempt to “feel good” at best.

So, why does a couple seek to have their union recognized by the government?  Conversely, why do so many heterosexual couples no longer bother? Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Jane Chastain

April 3rd, 2013 at 5:00 pm

with 3 comments

In an undisclosed location in the White House, unnamed Obama Administration advisors huddle to discuss the impending sequestration.  No official transcript exists because (for the record) this meeting NEVER happened.

The mood was grim.  The hot topic was a statement from Emily Holubowich, a lobbyists who represents a coalition of 3,000 nonprofit groups fighting the cuts, who accidentally spoke the truth to aWashington Post reporter:  “The worst case scenario for us is the sequester hits and nothing bad really happens!”

Advisor # 1:  Emily is right.  What if nothing bad happens as a result of the sequester?  The president is going to look like a doofus.  He will be a laughing stock, the brunt of all the jokes on late night TV.

Advisor # 2:  We’ve got to turn up the rhetoric.  Send out Janet Napolitano to say that we will no longer be able to enforce immigration laws.

Advisor # 1:  We already did that, and besides, we’re not enforcing immigration laws now.!

Advisor # 3:  We could not enforce them more.

(Silence)

Advisor # 2:  We can close the Washington Monument and the White House Visitors Center.  That’s never failed in past budget standoffs.

Advisor # 1:  That’s not enough.  The president said there will be real pain and there must be REAL PAIN!  Remember, no pain, no gain for us.

Advisor # 2:  We can tell them TSA agents screening airport passengers will have to be furloughed.  It will mean long lines.

Advisor # 1:  The lines are already long.  Besides, if the agents are forced by time constants to stop groping grannies and toddlers, who is going to complain?

Advisor # 2:  Scare them.  Tell them it means less air traffic controllers.  Airplanes will be flying blind.

Advisor # 1:  Hell, Reagan fired all of them and there was barely a hiccup.

Advisor # 3:  We could limit the number of children who attend Head Start.  When the going gets tough, hide behind poor children.  That always works.

Advisor # 1:  The program is already a disaster.  All the benefits are erased by the third grade.  It might cause further scrutiny of this program and, worse still, it might stir the pot for real education reform and increase the call for vouchers. That will bring the teacher’s union down on us.  No, we’d better drop that.

Advisor # 4:  I know!  Tell the it will cut out school lunches.  Imagine the angst it would create among the nation’s poor parents!

Advisor # 1:  Another boondoggle! We’re spending so much on food stamps and other food assistant programs, folks are wondering why welfare recipients can’t take some of that free food and pack lunches for their kids.  Better not hit that one too hard.

Advisor # 6:  Let’s  stay on the subject of the poor.  We can bring up the weatherization program for low income homes.  Energy Secretary Stephen Chu said it will mean up to 1,000 homes won’t receive free makeovers.  Think of all those people who won’t get new drywall, calking and new appliances.

Advisor # 1:  Yes, but some smart journalist would point out that we could simply  reduce the regulations that are driving up the cost of energy.  Energy costs for the poor (and everyone else) would remain the same and we could save millions by eliminating this program.  Also, that might trigger another discussion about all the money we’ve thrown at failed energy companies like Solyndra.  No, no, that is much too risky.  Let’s not beat that drum.

Advisors # 5:  I know. We can go back to scaring seniors.  They know their Social Security benefits are safe, but if we could tell them there won’t be enough workers to process those checks and they might arrive late . . .

Advisor # 1:  At best we’re only talking about cutting less that one and a half cents on the dollar.  That’s not going to happen unless we order the federal workers who process those checks to go to sleep at their work stations.

Advisors # 2:  Yes, but they already go to sleep at their work stations and it would take an act of Congress to be able to fire even one of them.

Advisor # 4:  An act of Congress, hum.  What if, what if Congress acts in the 11th hour and gives the president “transfer authority”?  You know, gives him the ability to pick and choose where to make those cuts in order to lessen the pain or eliminate it entirely?

Advisor # 1:  That would put the ball squarely in our court.  We’d have to eliminate worthless programs.  We could no longer reward our friends and get away with it. (Cringe) That would be a real disaster!

Advisors 2 – 6:  Agreed!

 

 

Written by Jane Chastain

February 27th, 2013 at 5:00 pm


Psst... My son flys remote controlled helicopters for Cloudgate Aerial Cinematography in Colorado. Check 'em out!