The Defense budget—far less than social services

Just when I found the defense percentage of the budget chart, I can't find the liberal web page (Daily Kos, I think)  that totally distorted it. Well, it's between 17-22% of the budget depending on what you count as defense (some include pensions, VA, etc.) Most of the rest is social services like Medicare, Medicaid, WIC, EITC, SNAP, Social Security, Housing, agriculture (nutrition support), 128 programs to move money from citizen A to resident B and of course, interest on the debt. Never trust a liberal chart on the economy; they take our taxes and then say it's never enough.

Hmm.  Looky there.  Federal pensions are more than health care.  Who knew?

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).

Salvation Army is pro-life except when it isn’t

Makes exceptions for disability (over 90% of Down Syndrome babies are aborted); health of the mother; rape or incest. We pulled our check out of the pile today and tore it up.

The position from their website:

The Salvation Army believes all people are created in the image of God and therefore have unique and intrinsic value. Human life is sacred and all people should be treated with dignity and respect. The Salvation Army accepts the moment of fertilisation as the start of human life. We believe that society has a responsibility to care for others, and especially to protect and promote the welfare of vulnerable people, including unborn children.

The Salvation Army believes that life is a gift from God and we are answerable to God for the taking of life. As such, The Salvation Army is concerned about the growing ready acceptance of abortion, which reflects insufficient concern for vulnerable persons including the unborn. We do not believe that genetic abnormalities that are identified in an unborn child who is likely to live longer than a brief period after birth are sufficient to warrant a termination of pregnancy.

The Salvation Army recognizes tragic and perplexing circumstances that require difficult decisions regarding a pregnancy. Decisions should be made only after prayerful and thoughtful consideration, acknowledging the tremendous pressures that occur during an unexpected pregnancy. There is a responsibility on all involved to give the parents of the unborn child, particularly the woman, appropriate pastoral, medical and other counsel. The Salvation Army believes that termination can occur only when

• Carrying the pregnancy further seriously threatens the life of the mother; or

• Reliable diagnostic procedures have identified a foetal abnormality considered incompatible with survival for more than a very brief post natal period.

In addition, rape and incest are brutal acts of dominance violating women physically and emotionally. This situation represents a special case for the consideration of termination as the violation may be compounded by the continuation of the pregnancy.

The Salvation Army affirms and supports professional people engaged in the care of pregnant women who feel on religious, moral or ethical grounds, that they cannot be involved in any way with the procuring or undertaking of an abortion.

Promises, promises—your Social Security

At the outset of the Social Security program (law was passed in 1935), the federal government published an informational pamphlet that stated the following about Social Security taxes: "And finally, beginning in 1949, 12 years from now, you and your employer will each pay 3 cents on each dollar you earn, up to $3,000 a year. That is the most you will ever pay." 

Social Security is a better program for the poor than the middle class. 

"A person who earns $15,000/year will pay $86,000 in payroll taxes (employer and employee combined) over 44 years of work. When he retires, his annual benefit will be $10,128 or 11.8% of his lifetime payroll taxes. But a person who earns $110,000/year will pay $627,000 in payroll taxes over 44 years of work. When he retires, his annual benefit will be $31,260/year or 5.0% of his lifetime payroll taxes."

Most of us today would be thrilled to get almost 12% on our retirement accounts. The down side is you can't pass it along to your survivors like a private account.

This is a very informative site. 

Where does the money go?

In 2010, the federal government spent 61% of its finances on housing and community services, welfare and social services, recreation and culture, health, education, retirement benefits, disability benefits and unemployment benefits. This amounts to 2,124 billion dollars or $19,316/household. "Government Current Expenditures by Function, Table 3.16." U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. Sept. 14, 2011.

http://www.justfacts.com/socialspending.basics.asp

Twiddle dum and Twiddle dee--"spending on things that matter"

Do you remember that phrase after the last election? "Now maybe we can spend money on things that matter," by rejoicing, teary Obama supporters. What a laugh. The welfare state grows no matter who is in office, sometimes more under Republicans, but definitely under the less-than-conservative two Bush presidencies. Once a human services program is in place, who controls the White House or Congress makes little difference in its growth.


"The most significant growth in Human Resources spending is attributable to Medicare and "Health Care Services," an OMB category dominated by Medicaid. Still using constant dollars, these two categories combined to account for 8% of Human Resources outlays under Kennedy and Johnson, 15% under Nixon and Ford, 17% under Carter, 21% under Reagan, 26% under George H.W. Bush, 31% under Clinton, and 34% under George W. Bush. Measure all the Human Services outlays from 1962 (the first year of more detailed OMB historical tables) through 2007 in constant dollars, and it turns out that Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security accounted for just under two-thirds of the total."

More interesting facts about the persistence of poverty and the corresponding growth of the welfare state at "Reforming Big Government."

Core Values and Principles of Free Enterprise

The Cline Center for Democracy at the University of Illinois is named for one of its very successful graduates, Richard G. Cline and his wife, Carole J. Cline. It has four programs, and I was only looking at the objectives of this one, the Program in Democratic Governance and Societal Welfare. The first objective is to conduct a program of research that refines our understanding of (1) the relative benefits of democracy for societal welfare, (2) how democracies can best be structured and supplemented to enhance human well-being, and (3) how best to achieve optimal institutional arrangements in diverse democratic societies.

From there I looked at how The Cline Center scholars see free enterprise and social welfare. We know what Marxists and Socialists and Progressives want (redistribution of all resources which will be under the control of government for all citizens except the party faithful, who get more; see here for definitions and explanations), but what about the rest of us, especially Christians? None of these economic systems are specifically Christian or non-Christian because all are grounded in material, not spiritual matters.

- Free enterprise conceptions of welfare are grounded in materialism, the satisfaction of material wants and needs, and the promotion of material progress. Correspondingly, the acquisition and holding of property is at the heart of this value. Also related to the materialistic foundations of free enterprise is that social welfare is conceived of in terms of improvements in the level of material well-being of individuals. Therefore, when free enterprise proponents gauge its impact on societal welfare, they examine its impact on levels of wealth, as opposed to, for example, the distribution of material wealth. Equality of opportunity is valued, not equality of condition.

A second value is individualism. Thus, a high premium is placed on a core set of individual freedoms and liberties. This core set of values includes the choice of employment; the use of various forms of property as one sees fit; and the unencumbered enjoyment of the benefits that accrue from fruits of one’s labor or utilization of one’s property. The idea of “individualism” also encompasses the value of individual initiative, entrepreneurship, and the importance of the profit motive or the individual pursuit of self-interest. Free enterprise theory maintains that it is through these mechanisms that free enterprise economies provide for societal welfare. However, to achieve these ends free economies must function in an environment of free and fair competition.