Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVE
The knees continue to jerk. Rhetoric still fills the air. Emotions run raw.
This is the continued reaction to the tragedy of Newtown, CT. With emotions running so high, some type of gun control will emerge. The controls may be legislative or executive fiat, or both.
Each of the prospects under consideration signals trouble. Whatever results will be an emotional reaction to a catastrophe. There are always unintended consequences to such responses, and none of those responses have been good.
The best example of a catastrophe spawning folly is 9/11. The knee jerk reaction to that terrorism was to create the Department of Homeland Security. The only effect of that move was the creation of a massive new federal bureaucracy with all its attendant expenses.
Members of that department have not done anything that could not have been done as well or better by existing organizations like local police forces, Customs and Border Protection Service, U.S. Marshals, FBI, CIA, and others.
Compounding this costly mistake is Congressional action requiring that home defense funds be spread around the country. Those funds cannot be restricted to potential terrorist targets like the New York financial center and the petrochemical complexes along the coast. They must be evenly dispersed to places like Cross Roads or Tiddlywinks to protect soccer fields.
Before a similar insanity results from the emotional reaction to Newtown, both the gun owners and opponents should sit down, calm down, and read “Your Brain Under Fire” by Amanda Ripley in the Jan 28 issue of Time magazine. This article is neither pro-gun nor pro-control, but just down the middle.
In the words of Joe Friday in the old Dragnet TV series, this article is “Just the Facts, Ma’am.” The opening paragraphs note that a school child is more likely to die from a lightning strike than from a gun shot. Maybe Congress should pass a law restricting lightning strikes to open spaces unoccupied by humans.
Another statistic is that between 1998 and 2006, New York City policemen hit their targets in confrontations only 30% of the time. That is when their target was not firing back. Wen the target was firing back, the percentage of hits fell to 18%.
These are the statistics for men and women who carry weapons every day and periodically practice using those weapons on shooting ranges. What would those statistics be for a second grade teacher who just got his or her concealed carry weapon?
Experts in the field of police performance agree that periodic target practice is not sufficient to train policemen to react appropriately in confronting an armed opponent. As Jim Glennon, a policeman who survived a shoot out and now trains other police officers observes, ”Experts who study human performance in gunfights generally agree that people can train to perform better through highly realistic, dynamic simulation training. But that is expensive, especially compared with traditional target practice, and it doesn’t happen often enough.”
Those eager to have armed personnel on school campuses, whether uniformed and visibly armed personnel or secretly designated teachers and administrator with concealed weapons, argue that realistic training is not necessary. They believe that the simple fact that armed personnel are present will deter attempts to drown a school campus in havoc.
That has not worked in the past. Ripley reports the rarely discussed fact that, “In the case of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting in Colorado … the attacking students were aware that their school had an armed sheriff’s deputy in the school parking lot. (The deputy exchanged fire with one of them but missed.)”
So here’s the perspective.
Newtown, CT, may be the source of two tragedies. The first, of course, is the loss of 26 innocent lives.
The second may be gun control advocates using that loss of life to enshrine their long sought restrictions on rights guaranteed by the 2d Amendment.
The short, hurried up, consideration of such restrictions by Vice President Biden’s committee were for show only. There was no real consideration of the facts, need, or consequences of new rules.
The unintended consequences of any new rules in this area cannot be foretold, because they are what they are--unforeseen or unanticipated consequences.
The only certainty in the rules would be that they would make some feel good in the mistaken belief that they may have protected school children from the least likely danger they face.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
The most Powerful Equation in the World!
E + R = O
This is the most powerful equation in the universe! Used properly and consistently this equation
can completely change your life and the lives of those around you and that is a
fact, not speculation. I would like to
tell you I put this equation together but I read about this many years ago and
I know it works. Appling the equation is
easy and when applied it always works, the hard part
is having the courage to trust the equation.
So here is the equation.
the Event + your Reaction to the event = the Outcome
of the event
You do not have much, if any, control over the Events that happen in your life, but
you always have total control over your Reaction
to the event, and thus you can control the Outcome.
Now you are probably thinking, “Marc, you are crazy!” and you would not be the first person to
claim that about me, but let’s focus on the equation.
It is a fact that Events
do affect our lives, particularly horrific events that happen to you or your
family but how any event affects our life is totally driven by our Reaction to the Event. People simply can’t
make us happy or sad, our bosses can’t put us under pressure, and traffic does not
drive us to outrage. It is our reaction
to all these events that actually cause us stress!
To test this equation, consciously keep track of the events,
your reactions to them and the outcome for week. Then, seriously analyze each event and see if
you don’t agree that you could, and that in fact you did, shape the outcome of the
event had on you by your reaction to the event.
Once you are a believer in the theory you can begin to shape your life
by adjusting your reaction to each event as it occurs. The best outcome will be achieved if you think
before you react!
The adage that you fight fire, with fire, is simply bad
advice. When you do that everyone gets
burned and the situation usually goes from bad to worse. I have found, although I will admit that I
don’t always follow my own advice, that it is much better to fight fire with
water and a great deal of respect, than fire.
Trust me you can make your life different (and hopefully
better) by applying the above equation
constantly. Learn to use what you know
from the equation, chose your reaction to the event carefully to get the
results you want. Do it often enough it
will become a positive habit and one that will give you positive results every
time.
After you master the use of this equation, you will find
that you can in fact “reap what you sow!”
Monday, January 21, 2013
In Perspective - The 2nd Amendment
IN PERSPECTIVE
by Bill Neinast
Homes across America display the spoils of war. Among the exhibits are beautiful rifles and shotguns liberated by American soldiers during WWII.
Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not disarm Germany to consolidate his dictatorship. Private weapons were registered, but not confiscated.
Several studies established that up to 20% of American soldiers do not fire their weapons, even in the midst of extreme combat. Some of them would risk their lives to rescue or aid a fallen comrade, but could not pull the trigger to kill another human. I was acquainted with an author of the report on one of those studies concerning the fighting in Korea.
One of my teenage companions was a braggadocio. He was, in his mind, invincible. He could overcome any danger. He would take on any aggressor and beat him to a pulp.
My cousin and I heard so much of this that we decided to take him down. We arranged with the owners of a fenced water melon patch to “steal” one of their water melons one night. At the appointed time, the three of us climbed the fence and headed for the end of the patch.
Just as we reached over to pick a melon, one of the owners stood up outside the patch, called something like, “Brother, someone’s trying to steal our melons,” and fired a shot gun in the air. Mr. Brave Man beat a hasty retreat for the other end of the patch where another owner was hiding to fire a shot gun at the right time.
This one who would attack any threat head on then took another turn, jumped the fence, and headed for the woods. After about two hours, we found him trying to find his way back home. He confessed fully and contritely upon finding the water melon owners in our car.
These three rambling, seemingly unconnected facts have a point. Together, they prove the fallacy of the argument that Americans have to be armed to prevent the government from becoming dictatorial and taking our freedoms.
The theory of this argument is that our weapons would have to be taken from our dead hands. There would, of course, be a hand full of foolhardy gun toters to resist surrendering their weapons.
What, though, about the bulk of the nation? Consider Germany, infantrymen who do not fire their weapons, and my brave friend for an answer.
When the Gestapo came knocking on the doors of Jews and Gypsies to haul them off to the gas chambers, none of their armed neighbors stood in their doors and said, “Over my dead body!”
Any attempt to remove fire arms from civilian hands would not be a simple, over night operation. Several new laws would be required.
As a minimum, possession of weapons outside military and police units would have to be prohibited. Allowing the confiscation of such weapons in private hands would have to be provided under an imminent domain type condemnation prodecure with fair compensation. Finally, the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the use of the military to enforce civilian law would have to be repealed.
Then an order requiring the surrender of assault weapons in private hands for compensation would go out. When the deadline for the surrender of weapons passes, the sale records of all gun dealers would be compared against the record of turn ins.
When the record check indicates that John Doe has not turned in the weapons he bought, a squad of soldiers in bullet proof uniforms would come knocking on his door with instructions to surrender his weapons. A failure to comply could result in the whole family being hauled off to a concentration camp
Which of the neighbors on either side of John Doe who were hiding their assault rifles would come out of their houses with their weapons blazing? Maybe, just about as many Germans who tried to protect their Jewish neighbors.
So here’s the perspective.
For the record, I believe in the 2d Amendment protection of the right to bear arms. To repeat, I believe that armed civilians are better protection against nut cases with guns than a fictional gun free society.
There are so many sound arguments against curtailing the right to be armed that specious arguments like the one about needing to be armed to protect ourselves from the government should be confined in the waste basket.
Threatening to take on the government with arms is like a trip to the water melon patch.
by Bill Neinast
Homes across America display the spoils of war. Among the exhibits are beautiful rifles and shotguns liberated by American soldiers during WWII.
Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not disarm Germany to consolidate his dictatorship. Private weapons were registered, but not confiscated.
Several studies established that up to 20% of American soldiers do not fire their weapons, even in the midst of extreme combat. Some of them would risk their lives to rescue or aid a fallen comrade, but could not pull the trigger to kill another human. I was acquainted with an author of the report on one of those studies concerning the fighting in Korea.
One of my teenage companions was a braggadocio. He was, in his mind, invincible. He could overcome any danger. He would take on any aggressor and beat him to a pulp.
My cousin and I heard so much of this that we decided to take him down. We arranged with the owners of a fenced water melon patch to “steal” one of their water melons one night. At the appointed time, the three of us climbed the fence and headed for the end of the patch.
Just as we reached over to pick a melon, one of the owners stood up outside the patch, called something like, “Brother, someone’s trying to steal our melons,” and fired a shot gun in the air. Mr. Brave Man beat a hasty retreat for the other end of the patch where another owner was hiding to fire a shot gun at the right time.
This one who would attack any threat head on then took another turn, jumped the fence, and headed for the woods. After about two hours, we found him trying to find his way back home. He confessed fully and contritely upon finding the water melon owners in our car.
These three rambling, seemingly unconnected facts have a point. Together, they prove the fallacy of the argument that Americans have to be armed to prevent the government from becoming dictatorial and taking our freedoms.
The theory of this argument is that our weapons would have to be taken from our dead hands. There would, of course, be a hand full of foolhardy gun toters to resist surrendering their weapons.
What, though, about the bulk of the nation? Consider Germany, infantrymen who do not fire their weapons, and my brave friend for an answer.
When the Gestapo came knocking on the doors of Jews and Gypsies to haul them off to the gas chambers, none of their armed neighbors stood in their doors and said, “Over my dead body!”
Any attempt to remove fire arms from civilian hands would not be a simple, over night operation. Several new laws would be required.
As a minimum, possession of weapons outside military and police units would have to be prohibited. Allowing the confiscation of such weapons in private hands would have to be provided under an imminent domain type condemnation prodecure with fair compensation. Finally, the Posse Comitatus Act that prohibits the use of the military to enforce civilian law would have to be repealed.
Then an order requiring the surrender of assault weapons in private hands for compensation would go out. When the deadline for the surrender of weapons passes, the sale records of all gun dealers would be compared against the record of turn ins.
When the record check indicates that John Doe has not turned in the weapons he bought, a squad of soldiers in bullet proof uniforms would come knocking on his door with instructions to surrender his weapons. A failure to comply could result in the whole family being hauled off to a concentration camp
Which of the neighbors on either side of John Doe who were hiding their assault rifles would come out of their houses with their weapons blazing? Maybe, just about as many Germans who tried to protect their Jewish neighbors.
So here’s the perspective.
For the record, I believe in the 2d Amendment protection of the right to bear arms. To repeat, I believe that armed civilians are better protection against nut cases with guns than a fictional gun free society.
There are so many sound arguments against curtailing the right to be armed that specious arguments like the one about needing to be armed to protect ourselves from the government should be confined in the waste basket.
Threatening to take on the government with arms is like a trip to the water melon patch.
Gives you Something to Think About!
A friend forward this to me today. I believe it sheds a bit of light on why we have a topsy/turvy world.
I am just sayin!
I am just sayin!
How old is Grandma?
(Read this to the end-- quite an eye opener.)
|
Friday, January 18, 2013
When are you going to Retire?
I read a great article today while on the plane from Philadelphia to Houston in the United Hemispheres magazine on James Patterson, the former advertising guy turned prolific writer. While I haven't read any of his work he certainly is an intriguing guy, one quote in the interview stood out, he was asked in the interview when he was going to retire, his response "I don't like it when people ask me when I am going to retire. You don't retire from play, you retire from work. And I don't work."
Thursday, January 17, 2013
And we wonder why there are security leaks from "inside the beltway"?
If you are in the military in this country you must go through a rigorous security clearance process before you can be exposed to, work with, see or handle any classified information that could impact the security of the United States. It takes weeks and sometimes months for security professionals to check your character and background before a security clearance can be granted. Not everyone who is screened is granted a clearance, there are many reasons for denial of a clearance! As I understand the process if you happen to have prior illegal drug use, or perhaps have been engaged with former known terrorists you would be denied a security clearance.
Ironically, if you are elected to the office of President, Vice President, or one of the other 435 seats in Congress and/or Senate or you are appointed to a cabinet position you do not have to undergo a background check or security clearance investigation. Yet these folks have access to all levels of security information and there are more than a few instances where "loose lips" have cost American lives!
Wouldn't it seem reasonable that anyone running for a national office should be required to obtain a security clearance before they could even enter the race for a national office?
I would bet serious money that if this were the law we would see an significant improvement in the quality of applicants and leaders who run this country and a much needed improvement in the security and safety of this great Country!
Just a thought!
Ironically, if you are elected to the office of President, Vice President, or one of the other 435 seats in Congress and/or Senate or you are appointed to a cabinet position you do not have to undergo a background check or security clearance investigation. Yet these folks have access to all levels of security information and there are more than a few instances where "loose lips" have cost American lives!
Wouldn't it seem reasonable that anyone running for a national office should be required to obtain a security clearance before they could even enter the race for a national office?
I would bet serious money that if this were the law we would see an significant improvement in the quality of applicants and leaders who run this country and a much needed improvement in the security and safety of this great Country!
Just a thought!
Wednesday, January 16, 2013
An American Travesty - Killing the Geese who Lay the Golden Eggs
Watching this unfold is one of the most ludicrous of our governments actions over the last four years.
Perhaps some sanity will prevail when the pendulum swings away from Socialism back to the policies that made America great.
David Green, CEO and Founder of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Perhaps some sanity will prevail when the pendulum swings away from Socialism back to the policies that made America great.
HOBBY LOBBY MAY CLOSE ITS DOORS
This could be the begining of a lot of Christian companies saying enough is enough.
"Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil - it has no point."
Hobby Lobby may be forced to abandon founding principles or go out of business--
Letter from Hobby Lobby Stores CEO
By David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
When my family and I started our company 40 years ago, we were
working out of a garage on a $600 bank loan, assembling miniature
picture frames. Our first retail store wasn't much bigger than most
people's living rooms, but we had faith that we would succeed if we lived
and worked according to God's word. From there, Hobby Lobby has become
one of the nation's largest arts and crafts retailers, with more than
500 locations in 41 states. Our children grew up into fine
business leaders, and today we run Hobby Lobby together, as a family.
We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've
always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our
business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more
than money. And that's what we've tried to do. We close early so our
employees can see their families at night. We keep our stores closed on
Sundays, one of the week's biggest shopping days, so that our workers
and their families can enjoy a day of rest. We believe that it is by
God's grace that Hobby Lobby has endured, and he has blessed us and our
employees. We've not only added jobs in a weak economy, we've raised
wages for the past four years in a row. Our full-time employees start
at 80% above minimum wage.
But now, our government threatens to change all of that. A
new government healthcare mandate says that our family business
MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of
our health insurance. Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that
might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover
emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill.
We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of
conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs.
It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since
day one. If we refuse to comply, we could face $1.3 million PER DAY in
government fines.
Our government threatens to fine job creators in a bad economy.
Our government threatens to fine a company that's raised wages four
years running. Our government threatens to fine a family for running its
business according to its beliefs. It's not right. I know people will
say we ought to follow the rules; that it's the
same for everybody. But that's not true. The government has
exempted thousands of companies from this mandate, for reasons of
convenience or cost. But it won't exempt them for reasons of religious
belief.
So, Hobby Lobby and my family are forced to make a choice.
With great reluctance, we filed a lawsuit today, represented by the
Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, asking a federal court to stop this
mandate before it hurts our business. We don't like to go running
into court, but we no longer have a choice. We believe people are
more important than the bottom line and that honoring God is more
important than turning a profit.
My family has lived the American dream. We want to continue growing our
company and providing great jobs for thousands of employees, but the
government is going to make that much more difficult. The
government is forcing us to choose between following our faith
and following the law. I say that's a choice no American and no
American business should have to make.
The government cannot force you to follow laws that go against
your fundamental religious belief. They have exempted thousands of
companies but will not accept Christian organizations including the
Catholic church.
Since you will not see this covered in any of the liberal media,
pass this on to all your contacts.
Sincerely,
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
In Perspective - The Value of an Instilled Work Ethic
Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVEA friend and colleague from Army active duty days and I continue our political discussions via the internet. Bob is way out there in the left field of Florida. So there is little agreement between us.
The current topic is about poverty in Texas, which was discussed in this space last week. The running debate now is about the causes of that property.
We agree on one aspect of this issue. We both believe that government is responsible for so many living under the poverty level. We disagree vehemently, however, on how the government is responsible.
Bob believes the poverty problem could be ameliorated if government got bigger and better at spreading producers’ wealth around. I believe that government is a primary cause of the poverty problem.
In the last 50 years, governments at all levels have become growing “things.” All growing things need continual sustenance. So it is with government politicians and bureaucrats. They need sustenance, i.e., more programs and more taxes to feed those programs.
This need for growth has resulted in a dependent society. There has to be a continuously expanding population expecting support from the government. So let’s create a housing program for the “poor” and not expect single parents to leave their children at home or with a care taker to go to work.
I remember in this regard my Aunt Waga Hueske. Her husband died in the early days of the Great Depression and just two months before their third child was born. She needed help and did get it from the government. That help, however, came in a much different form than it does today.
She had to nurse her newborn son early in morning then leave him and his two sisters with a neighbor while she walked two miles to the WPA sewing room. I do not recall what she and the other needy women sewed, but they were at the sewing machines for eight hours a day.
At noon, the neighbor carried her son to the sewing room for his noon meal. My aunt then trudged the two miles back home at 5:00 p.m. to resume caring for her three children.
That aunt could not read or write. After WWII eliminated the need for programs like the WPA, she began working as a housekeeper or cook for other families. When she died about 40 years ago, she was living the home that she had purchased.
Compare that with the government programs of today. Have a child but no husband, just go to the post office and pick up a government check. Have another child without a husband, just pick up a larger check. We are such a compassionate society that we cannot expect a mother to leave her children with a baby sitter if she does not want to.
Bob would argue that a situation like this is due, in part, to a lack of education. That is reflected in proposals pending in the Texas legislature. At least one of the bills is based on the belief that a poor education or lack of education is the cause of poverty.
I remember in that regard the Vietnamese refugees who moved here several years ago. They opened a restaurant in an old theater building. The parents stayed in the kitchen, the oldest son was the head waiter, and the two younger children bussed the tables and cleaned the floor. If there were no tables to clean, the children sat in a booth and did homework. Big brother helped with the studies when needed.
Can anyone believe that anyone in that family will ever expect or seek government aid?
At the same time, a war was occurring on the Texas coast. The factions were American shrimpers and Vietnamese refugees.
Some Vietnamese refugees moved in, bought junk boats, fixed them up, and began hard competition with the locals. They stayed on the water longer, processed their own catches, and sold their produce directly to the public without the need of middle men. The locals thought these hard working family businesses were unfair competition with their old ways of operating.
Then there was my Dad. He went bankrupt and lost his business, but recovered and started over. He left an estate subject to the estate tax. All this with only a grade school education.
These examples are strong arguments against the belief that if the government just spent more money on education, poverty would be ameliorated. They are, instead, examples that a work ethic, not education, is the path to self sufficiency.
So here’s the perspective.
Bob is going to disagree vehemently with this argument. As all liberals, he will argue that if someone does not want to work, the government should assure that he or she is supported with other worker’s money.
Various government programs have created a culture of dependency. Why bother to work if Big Daddy Government will take care or you.
This is not an argument that education is unimportant. It is an argument that an instilled work ethic can overcome any education deficiency.
IN PERSPECTIVEA friend and colleague from Army active duty days and I continue our political discussions via the internet. Bob is way out there in the left field of Florida. So there is little agreement between us.
The current topic is about poverty in Texas, which was discussed in this space last week. The running debate now is about the causes of that property.
We agree on one aspect of this issue. We both believe that government is responsible for so many living under the poverty level. We disagree vehemently, however, on how the government is responsible.
Bob believes the poverty problem could be ameliorated if government got bigger and better at spreading producers’ wealth around. I believe that government is a primary cause of the poverty problem.
In the last 50 years, governments at all levels have become growing “things.” All growing things need continual sustenance. So it is with government politicians and bureaucrats. They need sustenance, i.e., more programs and more taxes to feed those programs.
This need for growth has resulted in a dependent society. There has to be a continuously expanding population expecting support from the government. So let’s create a housing program for the “poor” and not expect single parents to leave their children at home or with a care taker to go to work.
I remember in this regard my Aunt Waga Hueske. Her husband died in the early days of the Great Depression and just two months before their third child was born. She needed help and did get it from the government. That help, however, came in a much different form than it does today.
She had to nurse her newborn son early in morning then leave him and his two sisters with a neighbor while she walked two miles to the WPA sewing room. I do not recall what she and the other needy women sewed, but they were at the sewing machines for eight hours a day.
At noon, the neighbor carried her son to the sewing room for his noon meal. My aunt then trudged the two miles back home at 5:00 p.m. to resume caring for her three children.
That aunt could not read or write. After WWII eliminated the need for programs like the WPA, she began working as a housekeeper or cook for other families. When she died about 40 years ago, she was living the home that she had purchased.
Compare that with the government programs of today. Have a child but no husband, just go to the post office and pick up a government check. Have another child without a husband, just pick up a larger check. We are such a compassionate society that we cannot expect a mother to leave her children with a baby sitter if she does not want to.
Bob would argue that a situation like this is due, in part, to a lack of education. That is reflected in proposals pending in the Texas legislature. At least one of the bills is based on the belief that a poor education or lack of education is the cause of poverty.
I remember in that regard the Vietnamese refugees who moved here several years ago. They opened a restaurant in an old theater building. The parents stayed in the kitchen, the oldest son was the head waiter, and the two younger children bussed the tables and cleaned the floor. If there were no tables to clean, the children sat in a booth and did homework. Big brother helped with the studies when needed.
Can anyone believe that anyone in that family will ever expect or seek government aid?
At the same time, a war was occurring on the Texas coast. The factions were American shrimpers and Vietnamese refugees.
Some Vietnamese refugees moved in, bought junk boats, fixed them up, and began hard competition with the locals. They stayed on the water longer, processed their own catches, and sold their produce directly to the public without the need of middle men. The locals thought these hard working family businesses were unfair competition with their old ways of operating.
Then there was my Dad. He went bankrupt and lost his business, but recovered and started over. He left an estate subject to the estate tax. All this with only a grade school education.
These examples are strong arguments against the belief that if the government just spent more money on education, poverty would be ameliorated. They are, instead, examples that a work ethic, not education, is the path to self sufficiency.
So here’s the perspective.
Bob is going to disagree vehemently with this argument. As all liberals, he will argue that if someone does not want to work, the government should assure that he or she is supported with other worker’s money.
Various government programs have created a culture of dependency. Why bother to work if Big Daddy Government will take care or you.
This is not an argument that education is unimportant. It is an argument that an instilled work ethic can overcome any education deficiency.
Monday, January 7, 2013
In Perspective - January 7, 2013 by Bill Neinast
IN PERSPECTIVENo guessing required. The wording says it all.
The banner headline in this newspaper on Dec 31 was, “Texas economy allows many to live in poverty.” Nothing more than a glance at those words telegraphs that the article was written from the far left field of the class warrior team.
The first part of the article castigates the cruel, greedy, upper crust Republicans for dumping a large part of the state’s population into poverty and abandoning them there. Consider, for example these two excerpts from the article.
First, the Republican role.“Politicians of all stripes decry the high poverty rate in Texas, but what differs is how to deal with it. Republicans [control every state department and agency]…. Perry’s oft repeated formula for economic growth is low taxes, few regulations and limited lawsuits….[H]e has promised to limit state spending to less than population growth plus inflation. To help the poor and unemployed he has proposed requiring drug testing as a condition for some people to receive welfare benefits to make sure they are employable.”
Next, the class warrior approach. “Democrats are pushing for state government to provide services they believe will help people move out of poverty, including restoring $5.4 billion cut from the public school budget and nearly $1 billion cut from higher education. Democrats also want the state to expand Medicaid to provide 1.5 million Texans with health insurance at a minimal cost to the state through 2020.”
The article emphasizes that Texas’ poverty rate has been rising for three years. 4.6 million Texans now live below the poverty line. “That’s 18.5 percent of the population, 3 percent higher than the nation as a whole.”
McAllen-Edinburg, El Paso, and other areas along the state’s southern border are identified as the areas with the highest rates of poverty. There is no discussion, however, why there are such areas of poverty in a state with one of the most robust, growing economies in the country. The state’s unemployment rate of 6.2% is two percentage points below the national average and is one of the lowest among the 50 states.
There is no discussion about the crying need for employees of all types in the Midland/Odessa area. The Permian Basin is jumping back and forth with North Dakota for having the lowest unemployment rate under 3% in the country.
Our son, Mark, is the North America Sales Manager for ESP, a GE subsidiary, in Midland. He reports that H-E-B has the lowest prices of any food chain in the area, but he hates to shop there because of the long lines at the check out counters. H-E-B’s response to requests to open more stores un the area is that they would consider more locations if they ever get enough employees to fill all the positions they have in their one store.
Also, in Midland, McDonald marquees advertise openings for employees with wages from $8.25 to $14.00 an hour. The local newspaper is full of help wanted ads from both the Permian Basin area and North Dakota.
Mark notes, also, the difficulty in keeping employees. If an employee becomes unhappy, he just quits because he knows there is another job waiting for him or her down the street. Or, after some have worked for a while, and saved a bit for a vacation, they quit, go for a jaunt, come back, and find a job at a competitor.
“But, but, but” the class warriors will sputter, those in poverty live in the Valley and the jobs are a few hundred miles north and west. So? Some of the vilified undocumented or illegal aliens walked hundreds of miles through hostile territory to leave their poverty behind and find employment where the jobs are.
Could it be that waiting for the state to renew the balance in one’s Lone Star card and then walking to the HEB for some choice steaks is easier than walking a hundred miles for a job?
The article under review also notes that “Most Democrats fiercely oppose the drug testing proposal. ‘To automatically assume that a single mother, a recently unemployed veteran, or a teacher who lost his or her job because of Governor Perry’s budget cuts is a drug user is shameful,’ state Rep. Martinez Fisher, D-San Antonio, said.”
In contrast, Mark reports that applicants for employment with his company are required to pass drug tests and, thereafter, are subject to random, unannounced drug tests. Failing a test results in immediate dismissal--zero tolerance.
Every Thursday afternoon, I volunteer at the front desk at Scott and White Hospital, Brenham. Every day when I am at that desk, at least one man or woman comes in for an employment drug test for a local company.
In the eyes of some, therefore, it is OK to require a drug test for employment but “shameful” to ask someone getting a hand out of tax money to do the same.
So here’s the perspective.
The article under review is strong evidence that one of the political parties in the country would be best known as the class warrior or the tax and spend party. That party’s philosophy is that every social problem can best be solved by the government filling the public trough with more tax money.
Thank goodness for the requirement for a balanced budget in the Texas Constitution.
The banner headline in this newspaper on Dec 31 was, “Texas economy allows many to live in poverty.” Nothing more than a glance at those words telegraphs that the article was written from the far left field of the class warrior team.
The first part of the article castigates the cruel, greedy, upper crust Republicans for dumping a large part of the state’s population into poverty and abandoning them there. Consider, for example these two excerpts from the article.
First, the Republican role.“Politicians of all stripes decry the high poverty rate in Texas, but what differs is how to deal with it. Republicans [control every state department and agency]…. Perry’s oft repeated formula for economic growth is low taxes, few regulations and limited lawsuits….[H]e has promised to limit state spending to less than population growth plus inflation. To help the poor and unemployed he has proposed requiring drug testing as a condition for some people to receive welfare benefits to make sure they are employable.”
Next, the class warrior approach. “Democrats are pushing for state government to provide services they believe will help people move out of poverty, including restoring $5.4 billion cut from the public school budget and nearly $1 billion cut from higher education. Democrats also want the state to expand Medicaid to provide 1.5 million Texans with health insurance at a minimal cost to the state through 2020.”
The article emphasizes that Texas’ poverty rate has been rising for three years. 4.6 million Texans now live below the poverty line. “That’s 18.5 percent of the population, 3 percent higher than the nation as a whole.”
McAllen-Edinburg, El Paso, and other areas along the state’s southern border are identified as the areas with the highest rates of poverty. There is no discussion, however, why there are such areas of poverty in a state with one of the most robust, growing economies in the country. The state’s unemployment rate of 6.2% is two percentage points below the national average and is one of the lowest among the 50 states.
There is no discussion about the crying need for employees of all types in the Midland/Odessa area. The Permian Basin is jumping back and forth with North Dakota for having the lowest unemployment rate under 3% in the country.
Our son, Mark, is the North America Sales Manager for ESP, a GE subsidiary, in Midland. He reports that H-E-B has the lowest prices of any food chain in the area, but he hates to shop there because of the long lines at the check out counters. H-E-B’s response to requests to open more stores un the area is that they would consider more locations if they ever get enough employees to fill all the positions they have in their one store.
Also, in Midland, McDonald marquees advertise openings for employees with wages from $8.25 to $14.00 an hour. The local newspaper is full of help wanted ads from both the Permian Basin area and North Dakota.
Mark notes, also, the difficulty in keeping employees. If an employee becomes unhappy, he just quits because he knows there is another job waiting for him or her down the street. Or, after some have worked for a while, and saved a bit for a vacation, they quit, go for a jaunt, come back, and find a job at a competitor.
“But, but, but” the class warriors will sputter, those in poverty live in the Valley and the jobs are a few hundred miles north and west. So? Some of the vilified undocumented or illegal aliens walked hundreds of miles through hostile territory to leave their poverty behind and find employment where the jobs are.
Could it be that waiting for the state to renew the balance in one’s Lone Star card and then walking to the HEB for some choice steaks is easier than walking a hundred miles for a job?
The article under review also notes that “Most Democrats fiercely oppose the drug testing proposal. ‘To automatically assume that a single mother, a recently unemployed veteran, or a teacher who lost his or her job because of Governor Perry’s budget cuts is a drug user is shameful,’ state Rep. Martinez Fisher, D-San Antonio, said.”
In contrast, Mark reports that applicants for employment with his company are required to pass drug tests and, thereafter, are subject to random, unannounced drug tests. Failing a test results in immediate dismissal--zero tolerance.
Every Thursday afternoon, I volunteer at the front desk at Scott and White Hospital, Brenham. Every day when I am at that desk, at least one man or woman comes in for an employment drug test for a local company.
In the eyes of some, therefore, it is OK to require a drug test for employment but “shameful” to ask someone getting a hand out of tax money to do the same.
So here’s the perspective.
The article under review is strong evidence that one of the political parties in the country would be best known as the class warrior or the tax and spend party. That party’s philosophy is that every social problem can best be solved by the government filling the public trough with more tax money.
Thank goodness for the requirement for a balanced budget in the Texas Constitution.
Bill Neinast
A good friend of mine, Bill Neinast, writes a weekly column for a local paper in Central Texas called Perspective. His articles challenge my thinking on a number of issues of the day. With his permission these columns will now appear on Marcus Lockard Online. Bill is a retired Army JAG officer living in Central Texas and is one of the most prolific and thoughtful writers I have ever read. He is also a great Texan and a great person. Enjoy his work!
Marc
Marc
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)