Paychecks Versus Food Stamps

"The lessons of history . . . show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual an moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit". President Franklin Roosevelt, 1935

I tried to think up a catchy title for this post, but decided to stick with the one that came with the video from youtube. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrinch and current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have been involved the last couple of days in what one pundit calls a "food fight". Three days ago, Newt pointed out that the Republican party is the party of paychecks and the Democrat Party is the party of food stamps. Which is fundamentally correct; food stamps were a creation of the Democrats and every increase in them has been implemented by the Democrats. Democrats revile business and commerce as being evil and victimizing society. Republicans respect the fact that the top 10% of earners in America, individual and corporate, provide 75% of tax revenue going into the government coffers; to support all those who live on "entitlements". I need to digress; I'm offended by those Democrats, like Juan Williams a couple of nights ago, who always trot out the suggestion that old people give up Social Security and Medicare when the issue of paring down entitlements comes up. Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits are just that; benefits of paying into the system over the years thru payroll tax deduction or self-employment taxes. Entitlements are what is given to non-producers by taking money (taxes) away from the producers in society.

Right now, corporations are in a state of uncertainty because Congress took off to go campaign instead of dealing with the question of extending the Bush tax cuts. The Democrats want to only extend them to people earning less than $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples; and allow tax rates over those amounts to revert to rates up to 55%. Unfortunately, that will throw many small businesses into a much higher tax bracket than they now have, forcing many of them out of business; and it will prevent larger businesses from being able to afford to expand and hire more people. Here are some statistics on small businesses, from the Small Business Administration website: they are 99.7 of ALL employers, they employ 50% of all private sector workers, they pay 44% of the total U.S. private sector wages, they generate 65% of new jobs (in 2008 the Huffington Post put that at 98%, don't know where they got their figure), account for more than 50% of private sector Gross Domestic Product (GDP), and made up 97.5% of all exporters and produced 31% of export value in Fiscal Year 2008. Could it be that pro-business Republicans are onto something? Why would the Democrats want to penalize small businesses by throwing them into a higher tax bracket come January 2011, and forcing a lot of them to close their doors; instead of extending the Bush tax cuts that will allow them to grow and create more jobs resulting in more paychecks. So, basically, yes the Republican Party IS the party of paychecks; and the Democrat Party IS the party of food stamps.

Back when Pelosi was pushing the Stimulus Bill, the Economic Recovery Plan, she claimed it would be the most effect move in stimulating the economy (CNN Money 1/15/09); she called it "the biggest bang for the buck". Now in answer to Newt's paychecks versus food stamps observation, she is saying the same thing about food stamps; they are a sure-fire way to stimulate the economy (CNN 10/6/10) and said "It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck".  Her reasoning is that for every $1.00 spent in food stamps, $1.79 goes into producing the food and getting it to the consumer. Hmmmm. $1.79 invested to bring in $1.00 spent. Sounds like a deficit to me. We are at an all time record in food stamps recipients. The number of Americans on food stamps reached 41.8 million in July; the White House estimates it will soon reach 43 million. One in seven people in America. Look around yourself; one out of every seven people you see is probably getting food stamps. This year the administration spent $60 billion in food stamp entitlements. How did we get to this point?

In this morning's Townhall, Pat Buchanan tells us how. When President Lyndon Johnson signed the Food Stamp Act into law in 1964, nobody was starving in America; it was just a Democrat Party hand-out. It was originally funded with $75,000,000 ($75 million) going to 350,000 people in only 40 counties and 3 cities. Then it became a monster that there is no stopping. By the time President Richard Nixon took office in 1969, 3,000,000 (3 million) people were getting food stamps, at a cost to the tax-payers of $270,000,000 ($270 million) per year. Then CBS, that paragon of mainstream media, ran a feature showing what it claimed was a starving infant in "rich" America; in reality it was a premature baby that wasn't strong enough to survive. All the liberals got up in arms, and by the time Nixon left office in 1974, there were 16,000,000 (16 million) people on the food stamp dole, costing tax-payers $4 billion (don't know how many zero's) annually. Last year, FY 2009, the cost to us tax-payers had increased in 35 years by 1,400%, to a staggering $56 billion. Of, by, and thru, the Democrat Party. That's how we got to this point.

President Roosevelt feared that dependence on "relief" would lead to spiritual and moral disintegration which would be destructive to the fiber of America. In the 46 years since the Democrats instituted their "Great Society", society has fallen apart. The "red blood cell" of American culture, the nuclear family is an endangered species. Did y'all know that 40% of all children in America are now born to single mothers. Breaking it down further into ethnic groups, it's a rate of 51% for hispanics and 71% for blacks. And the rest of us are supporting those children of all those men who just walk away. It's become easier for the mothers to turn to Uncle Sugar, than to put the burden where it rightfully belongs; on the shoulders of the men who fathered those children. Since we live what we know, those children that grow up under a "nanny state" for the most part, are highly likely to continue to nurse on the government teat. The Democrats grand idea called the "Great Society" has created a segment of society where several generations base their livelihood on being totally taken care of, all their needs met from cradle to grave, by those of us who have spent our lives working and paying taxes; or by those that create businesses, small or large, that provide jobs for others, paying more than their share in corporate taxes. So, yes, it does boil down to a very simple choice. The integrity and self-respect of earning your own paycheck, or the disdain and cynicism of continuing to expect others to pick up your tab. The Republican Party of paychecks, or the Democrat Party of food stamps. America, the choice is yours.