When enablers are addicted to feeling superior

I was listening to an advice program on the radio today—a mom called about her addicted, bi-polar son who wanted to move out of the group home to an apartment so he could be independent.  He was receiving SSD but always came to mom or a brother when he needed money (usually spent his check quickly). I don’t think she really wanted help.  She wanted to whine.  And she wanted to be the rescuer, even though she realized it was wrong.  The very kind, patient Christian host told her several times to let him fail, or he would never learn to be on his own.  It was like spitting into the wind. And so it is for so many government programs.

Disabling, enabling programs intended to help have grown as often under Republicans as Democrats. But as far as I know, only the GOP is demonized and lied about for being stingy meanies--like the Obama phone story (it was a Reagan program), or the EITC (Reagan) or when GW Bush gave a tax refund to everyone, and to be fair, even to those who hadn't paid income tax for years, or ever. Until President Obama, no president had grown the social programs like George W. Bush. He was an extravagant spender for domestic issues. There was a huge expansion under Nixon, also.  A smaller government with lower taxes is good for everyone. The best poverty program is a job. Raising minimum wage does not help the unemployed, and may actually hurt them.  A husband/wife household both working at current  minimum wage jobs puts that family above poverty level and outside most welfare type programs, including Medicaid and food stamps.  Obama wants tax increases not to help the poor, but to punish the rich, because based on GWB and JFK eras, tax cuts bring in more money to the government coffers (which again is a problem because they invent more programs).

Should Al Gore be required lose weight?

Should environmentalists lead the way to reducing the impact of obesity on the environment? [Interesting perspective on Gore's career leading to the prize, here.] "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated, albeit roughly, “previously undocumented consequences” of the ongoing obesity epidemic in America. They report that, through the 1990s, the average weight of Americans increased by 10 pounds. This extra weight caused airlines to burn 350 million more gallons of fuel in the year 2000, with represent an expenditure of $275 millions and emissions of 3.8 million tons of carbon dioxide. In other words, obesity is causing increased fuel expenditures and emissions." from Sensors Watch This writer thinks cheap gasoline may actually lead to obesity since it encourages more driving.

Sheldon Jacobson, U. of I., has crunched the numbers (he looks a tad on the thin side) and figures "Americans are now pumping 938 million gallons of fuel more annually than they were in 1960 as a result of extra weight in vehicles. And when gas prices average $3 a gallon, the tab for overweight people in a vehicle amounts to $7.7 million a day, or $2.8 billion a year." (reported in Science Daily)

Forbes.com reports there are other social costs for obesity: "Obese people are less likely to be given jobs, they're waited on more slowly, they're less likely to be given apartments, they're less likely to be sent to college by their parents." Obese people miss more work, costing employers something on the order of $4 billion. Because people are fatter, airlines spend more on jet fuel, and the obese themselves spend more on gas. But these tend to be hidden from consumers themselves. Many researchers believe that it's actually cheaper, in our fast-food society, to eat a high-fat, high-calorie diet than it is to stay slim. Supersizing a meal at McDonald's, Burger King or Kentucky Fried Chicken costs a consumer only 67 cents out of pocket. But after health costs and the price of extra gasoline are factored in, for some people, the price of the meal may have been effectively doubled.

Over at Food System Factoids, the author reports "Food and drink cause 20 to 30% of the various environmental impacts of private consumption, and this increases to more than 50% for eutrophication. This includes the full food production and distribution chain ‘from farm to fork’."

Mike Huckabee, Republican candidate for President, lost 105 lbs. after being diagnosed with type 2 Diabetes. He says it was hard work.