Writings on Welfare

The following statement was written in response to an ignorant chain letter about welfare. Parker Jarnigan eloquently states:

In 1996 Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress passed the welfare reform act which, among other things, made the sum limit for persons to receive any type of federal aid at 5 years. so there aren't any cadillac welfare queens. also, most welfare recipients are children and most women who receive welfare are white. the prevailing idea that most welfare dollars go to lazy minorities is untrue. finally, most people who don't like welfare are against it because they see it as a huge waste of their tax dollars going to finance the lives of millions of lazy people. this isn't true. individual welfare costs less than 1% of the federal budget and less than 2% on average of state budgets. by comparison, the conservative Cato Institute estimated that in 2006 alone, the federal government spent over $92 billion in so-called 'corporate welfare' in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, money grants, and special treatment. the recent episode of $1.1 billion being sent out by the USDA to the estates of dead farmers for subsidies seems much more wasteful than the myth of welfare "free riders."

The government gives everyone tax breaks when they pay for our education and roads and fire stations and cops. Without any of that, we would all be stupid, walking, on fire, and dead.

"Celestial Choirs Will Be Singing"

In any other election, this could be seen as a low blow, but this isn't any other election. Obama has made his vague "change" mantra the focal point of campaign instead of health care, Iraq war, or the economy, while he and his supporters blast Clinton for wanting to focus on issues and not "inspiring." Attacks directed toward his utter reliance on pretty words are fair game.

Conservative Alignment

I feel guilty. I have aligned myself with conservative pundits in this fading primary season. They realize that Obama will most likely be the Democratic nominee and have started their attacks, and I am still not giving up on Clinton. David Brooks of the New York Times wrote a terrific article about "Obama Comedown Syndrome." He offers important points about Obama's actions vs. Obama's rhetoric and explains how that distinction will most likely be ignored by the Obamabots.

Barack or Deval?

I honestly don't think it is a big deal for politicians to use one-liners or themes from fellow politicians, etc. The problem that I see with Obama using Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick's words is that Obama has built his campaign, well movement, on his ability to inspire the masses that will potentially incite change. He doesn't speak about policy specifics in his speeches, so one would think that he would have plenty of time to come up with his own material. His supporters cite his genuine inspirational nature (as opposed to that robot bitch, Hillary) as his major accomplishment / reason that he should be our president. Should his supporters excuse this (which they will), it is hypocritical (an overused term that I HATE to use). I have always credited Obama with his ability to inspire America, so this is a let down for me as well. Maybe we should credit Patrick with America's renewed hope. Just a thought.

Obama's Biggest Weakness

Obama's supporters must get it together and do some, oh I don't know, research on him. It is inevitable that the Republicans will jump all over his inexperience and empty rhetoric in the upcoming months should he become the nominee (which is looking inevitable at the moment). His supporters don't need to give them more ammo than they already have. GET EDUCATED ON YOUR MAN. Please take a few minutes to examine his website. Also, see my previous post about this phenomenon of ignorance among seemingly bright individuals.

The Candidate and His Supporters

The following criticism (which is very fair and necessary) of Obama and his supporters will be published in Centenary's weekly student publication, The Conglomerate, this Friday. Only those familiar with Centenary College of LA will understand the beginning, but just try to go with it. I also would like to thank Parker Jarnigan for inspiring me to come back to the blog.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that President Schwab announced that he intended to depart Centenary College. A new committee formed to assist the Board of Trustees in selecting his replacement (I don’t know if it works like this, but go with it). After months of searching, interviewing and discussing, the committee and board narrowed down their applicants to two. The decision won’t be easy. The incoming president has to address Centenary’s current problems: a poor financial situation, smaller than preferred student body, lower than preferred retention rate, an unpopular student life office, grade inflation, and the loss of political science professor Dr. Phil Barker to Austin College. The incoming president has to act to solve these problems in a timely and competent fashion to prevent the problems from worsening or stop new problems from emerging.

The first applicant is a personable, well-liked individual. He has an optimistic but vague vision for the school. At his previous administrative jobs, which are few, he kept a low profile. Not much was accomplished, but he certainly didn’t do a poor job. The second applicant is also personable, but not to the same degree as the first applicant. Some of her ideas and decisions have faced criticism, but her mistakes pale in comparison to her several years of administrative accomplishments and her dedication cannot be legitimately questioned. Her vision for Centenary is not steeped in flowery rhetoric like applicant #1, but it is filled with heaps of substance. Who would you choose as the replacement?

The purpose of this hypothetical should be clear at this point. Centenary is the U.S., Applicant #1 is Senator Obama, Applicant #2 is Senator Clinton, and President Schwab is President Bush (sorry President Schwab). While analogies are problematic, this one allows me to do three things. First, it allows me to get a jab in at Centenary’s administration. Second, I’m able to send a shout out to Dr. B. Finally, and more importantly, it places the ever contentious Democratic primary in a useful context. For the most part, middle to upper-middle class students who are insulated at a white, private, liberal arts college neither see nor are affected by the explicit effects of a war, a failing health care system and a grossly under funded public education system like other groups in society do. The effects of Centenary’s problems mentioned earlier (which are not hypothetical, by the way) are more evident and have a direct effect on us. It is my feeling that when faced with the choice between the applicants for the Centenary job, most students would prefer the second applicant.

The 2008 presidential election, which is infinitely more important than the status of Centenary, yields a different scenario. As people are dying, hungry, and illiterate in one of the wealthiest nations in the world, college students are flocking to applicant #1, not #2. The same lens used to view Centenary’s problems should be magnified by 100 and focused on the state of our union. College students, however, can afford to let Obama entrance them with his beautiful serenade, but most Americans need progress from day one to curb these social ills. This is reflected in voting trends during the primary season. A majority of college students and higher income Americans give their support to Obama, while the working class stands behind Clinton, which is significant because they will suffer the most if they have to wait for Obama to get his feet wet. It would be possible for me to write for days about Clinton’s résumé, but that usually falls on deaf ears. College students scoff at Clinton’s experience and accomplishments. They label her as the establishment candidate and speak of Obama as if he is a revolutionary storming the Pentagon— the U.S. version of France’s la Bastille. In reality, he is entrenched in the system that he claims to fight against. They think that he will ascend to the executive branch and flip a switch to solve complex problems. “Inspiration” and the prospect of “change” is why he’s their main presidential squeeze. Beyond an imagined “outsider” status, warm fuzzy feelings, and vague rhetoric, there’s not much to their support for him. A friend last week informed me that she had been “converted” to Team Obama. I politely asked her why. She gave the reflex-like response about “change” that is so typical among Obamabots. When pressed to go beyond her one-word explanation, she told me that I put her “on the spot” and that she would have to get back to me via e-mail. She never did. Another friend sent me the lyrics to James Brown’s “Funky President” with the caption, “This song by James Brown describes exactly why Barack Obama needs to be President.” Should Obama become the nominee, I wonder if he will invoke the Godfather of Soul in his debate against 3 term U.S. Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain. The last exchange with an Obama supporter that I’ll mention was more impressive, but still weak. His retort to Obama’s inexperience and lack of substance was an election reform advocated by Obama while he served in the Illinois legislature, better access to the media than other politicians and appeals for bipartisanship. My favorite reason given by my friend is that Obama “isn't fake” because he admitted that he used illegal drugs the right way, unlike Clinton who claims that he “didn’t inhale.” While my Obama experiences with my friends are not representative of all students, my hunch is that discussions with other students wouldn’t deviate from this trend.

Before I go too far, please don’t misunderstand my position in this 2008 election. As a good Democrat and progressive, I will enthusiastically support Obama should be become the candidate: the bumper sticker goes on my car (to the consternation of my father), I register with his campaign as a volunteer and I begin my liberal tirades against the prospect of a McCain presidency. Obama is a smart individual who loves America and wants to help average Joe and Jane. On the flip side, some decisions made or supported by Clinton do not sit well with me, but when someone has been active in public policy for as long as she has, no one will agree with every decision. Clinton and Obama will both enact progressive “change” to counter the destructive policies of W. and the Republican Party, but I am convinced that Clinton will be more effective and swift in these frightening times. I’m also not convinced that she lacks the ability to inspire. Her long history of advocacy on behalf of disadvantaged groups stirs inspiration in many, including me. Obama’s heart-felt appeals to our hopes and dreams are truly beautiful and the ability to inspire a nation is one of the greatest gifts one could possess, but Clinton put it best when she stated that “Speeches don’t put food on the table.”