Joe Biden Has Exceeded His Authority
Aug 14, 2021 2020 Election, Commentary, Political
Suppose for a moment that the federal government said that they would not allocate federal money (read confiscated citizen’s tax dollars) or provide modern equipment to any police department in any state that turned illegal aliens in to ICE for deportation. Then imagine that the state of Texas said they would provide funding and equipment to any state that ignored the federal government.
Now tell me how much uproar there would be from the feds. They would scream that immigration is an item specifically granted to the federal government and that states should not be interfering. Biden and his minions would be screaming about how a state (in this example Texas) was going beyond what it is allowed and involving itself in a federal matter. The US Attorney General would be making threats and trying to bully Texas into stopping its overreach.
Joe Biden has promised school systems in Florida that ignore the legal mandates of the Florida governor regarding masking of children in school will receive federal dollars to make up for the money Governor DeSantis has threatened to withhold from any system that defies his orders.
The federal government has no authority to interfere in state matters. The Governor of the State runs the state, not the President or any other person in DC. This is a blatant overreach and another example of how Biden has exceeded his authority.
This comes on the heels of Biden stating that it would be UNCONSTITUIONAL for him to extend the eviction moratorium and then doing just that while stating he knows it is illegal but if it buys them time to do as they wish while it winds its way through the court then it is worth it.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is a violation of his oath of office and it is an overreach of his authority. No one can violate the Constitution or ignore laws in order to achieve a political goal no matter how noble it might be. To be clear, I do not think it is noble or legal for the federal (or state) government to say a landlord can’t collect rent and evict people who do not pay it. The people involved have a contract and they should honor that contract. What will happen is the federal government will use our tax dollars to pay these things for some landlords while others will lose their properties. It is wrong and the Supreme Court stated it was wrong and could not be extended. Biden did it anyway to achieve a goal.
It is likely the demented old fool got an earful from the socialists in his party and capitulated.
If Nancy Pelosi and the democrat communists are still looking for a reason to impeach this is it.
This is not a one off or a two off. Biden praised jurisdictions in Texas and Florida that disobeyed the lawful orders of the governors of those states. Biden made these people out to beheroes for ignoring the lawful orders of the governors.
As an aside, keep this in mind when I and many like me ignore anything Biden puts out that we do not want to do. I think most mandates violate my rights (the Constitution is not void during an emergency) so I expect Joe to praise me when I ignore him.
So folks, these are just two examples of Biden exceeding his authority. If you are liberal please ask yourself how you would have reacted had President Trump stated he knew what he was doing was unconstitutional but he did it anyway. Ask yourself how you would act if Trump used federal tax dollars to usurp the authority of the states as Joe Biden has offered to do.
We all know how you would have acted and we know you would be screaming for impeachment. If you are not doing that now then you are a political shill and not a patriot. You statements about Trump or any future Republican president MUST be ignored.
Joe Biden must go. In six months he has ruined our nation. He was an inept Senator. He was a bumbling Vice President and now he is a doddering old fool occupying a seat he is not prepared to be in and a position he is nowhere near qualified to have.
He, in all honesty, is a post turtle.
An old Virginia farmer sat in his doctor’s office when the doc asked him his opinion about Joe Biden and his role as our new president.
The farmer said, “Well, ya know, Biden is a ‘Post Turtle.’”
Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him, “What is a ‘post turtle’?”
The old man said, “When you’re driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.”
The doc looked puzzled, so the farmer explained, “Well, you know he didn’t get up there by himself. He doesn’t belong up there. He doesn’t know what to do while he’s up there. He‘s elevated beyond his ability to function, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there in the first place.”
That my friends, is President Post Turtle Biden. ~ News with Views
Time for this senile man to go.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: biden, illegal, lawless, post turtle
Screw Your Rights
Aug 13, 2021 Commentary
Imagine telling black folks who wanted to ride in the front of the bus in 2021, screw your rights. Imagine telling women who wanted to vote in 2021, screw your rights. Imagine any American telling another American, screw your rights.
Throughout our history Americans have died in battle to preserve, protect and defend the US Constitution and the rights that it protects and it is a certainty that some two bit actor who is not fit to polish the boots of those patriots will not have a say in the issue.
Arnold Schwarzenegger was recently discussing the Covid tyranny and he said you should get the vaccine and wear your masks and “screw your rights.” This alleged Republican was the governor of a US state and he says screw your rights.
It is amazing that an Austrian born man who came to the US and enjoys the rights protected here would say such a thing but it is not surprising he would take such a position. Hitler was Austrian born as well.
So let me make myself clear to Arnold. No half assed second class actor whose claim to fame is bodybuilding is going to force me to do something against my will. In other words, no, not screw my rights, just screw you.
Now you can talk tough Arnie but if you want to have some fun contact me and I will give you my address and you can come try to force me to take the vaccine. Be kind of fun watching you cry.
Arnold is worried about this Corona virus that you have a 98% chance of surviving and he wants you to take all precautions necessary and just, screw your rights.
Well Arnie, the AIDS virus was a huge killer that had a near 100% fatality rate when it was discovered. You did not take precautions. If the stories are correct you were literally screwing everything with two legs and you did not worry.
So do us all a favor and shut up you pipsqueak.
Or in your words, screw you.
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Income Taxes of Individuals and Corporations
Feb 13, 2021 Commentary
Taxes: How to fund non-individual things
As inevitable and inescapable as death, taxes are an integral part of what we earn vs what we bring home, what we net earn on investments, and what we pay for what we buy. Since 1913, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution, personal Income Taxes have been a constant as a funding mechanism for Federal government. A few Federal programs (FICA and Medicare) are funded by separate payroll taxes. In addition, business income taxes on net profits, as well as short- and long-term capital gains taxes on the sale of investments, are Federal funding vehicles. Sales and property taxes, along with State Income Taxes, are generally methods to pay for local, county, and State government. This discussion will be limited to Federal income taxes, both personal and corporate. There is no question that the Federal government needs funding. The LEVEL of funding is a large discussion point! And TONS of questions remain on how to SPEND that money, and what priorities should be, and that is the topic of a separate writing. This article is about the income side (from government’s point of view), and how best to fund whatever programs are deemed necessary.
Personal Income Taxes
This section will focus on Federal personal income taxes. A point to consider: it is an Economic axiom that if you want less of something, tax it; if you want more of something, subsidize it. As taxes increase the cost to the buyer, and subsidies decrease the cost to the buyer, that axiom makes total sense. So, a fun question: does taxing wages and interest income discourage those activities? Back in the 1960s, when the marginal high-end tax rates were in the 70%+ range, dodging taxes via ‘write-offs’ was a common practice—almost no one paid that high marginal rate. Even in the current, relatively lower marginal rates environment, some folks will forgo work to retain income-ceiling-based benefits. Why earn additional wages, if it means losing a housing allowance?
Back in its inception, Federal Income Taxes were levied in any real size only on the very wealthy. The TOP END tax rate was 7%, and that only applied to incomes over $500,000! The overwhelming majority of income earners paid between 1-3%. These rates remained unchanged from 1913 to 1915. The first changes were implemented in 1916, and we have never looked back. Our system is considered ‘Progressive’, in that the marginal tax rates increase for higher incomes. In our current state, for many folks, Federal Income Taxes are their largest expense yearly—more than housing (#2), transportation (#3), insurance (#4), or food and clothing.
Another point: the personal tax code now is a behavior modifier, not just a governmental income generator. Some folks buy houses, rather than rent, specifically due to tax treatment of mortgage interest. Why it should be a tax difference for married vs single, zero children vs several, charity spending vs non, green energy usage vs traditional, etc. is beyond me. Taxing savings interest as regular income certainly discourages saving. Tax fairness may be the ultimate oxymoron. That the top 1% of incomes pay roughly 65% of all personal income taxes collected, while the bottom 47% of income earners have zero net tax liability lays waste to that whole ‘fairness’ thing.
Best-selling books have been written regarding replacing Federal Income Tax with a National Sales Tax. Google ‘Fair Tax’. There are obvious benefits to such a sales tax: the tax collection mechanism is already in place; personal income would no longer be tracked at all (I dig the privacy of that); personal yearly tax filing would disappear; the IRS could focus on sales tax collection only; illicit income currently untaxed or hidden would be taxed upon usage; and so on. Want to decrease taxes paid? Buy less stuff (see the above Economic axiom). Maybe exclude food and medicine from sales tax? That would certainly be worth a look. It’d be nice to turn April 15th of every year into just another Spring day, rather than a pressure-packed filing deadline.
Corporate Income Taxes
This section deals with taxes on business entities. That definition stretches to cover many small businesses.
Corporate Federal Income Taxes are corporate income, less legal deductions, times the prevailing Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate, for each individual company. Many, if not most, small businesses, LLCs, and Subchapter S corporations report their incomes (or losses) as line items on their personal IRS 1040 forms, so the corporate tax rate does not apply to them. While many of the principles in this writing apply to them, I will exclude them from this discussion. This also does not include payroll taxes, which are dependent upon income level of employees, number of employees, etc. Note that payroll taxes (called 941 taxes) are due to the government at least quarterly, and are due to the government even if the company loses money for that period.
I’ll start off with an axiom many do not understand: NO corporations pay income tax outright. NONE. Why? Because income taxes for a business are just a cost of doing business, pure and simple. While most pay a dollar amount at the end of their fiscal year, taxes are just a reduction of profit, like any other expense (although this expense can be massaged a bit, as I’ll cover in a bit). That cost is either passed on to the consumer in higher prices, passed on to the employees in fewer hires, smaller wages, or smaller raises, or passed on to the shareholders as a decrease in share value. It’s easier to understand as an example of a sole proprietorship:
Let’s say Phil wants to start a business, making widgets (what else?). He factors in all of his costs of production, and determines that he can make a profit of $1/widget, with sales of $10/w, and costs of $9/w. But Phil knows, at the end of the year, he will owe the government $.25/w, at the existing corporate tax rate. At $.75 projected net income after taxes per widget, Phil has a big decision to make: is that enough net to start the company at all? Or would he be better served taking his time, effort, and personal investment, and putting those resources into something less risky? $.75/w may be a good number, maybe not, but it is NOT guaranteed—business risk is always a factor. What if sales do not meet projections? What if unforeseen expenses pop up? Such is the life of the business owner. But for this example, let’s assume the projections are solid. Phil can pay that $.25/w a few ways: hire less people (provided he can maintain successful output levels), he can raise the price to $10.25/w (provided his sales don’t suffer due to the higher price), or he can take the hit in his own income. If Phil has investors, he can reduce their payout at year end (provided those investors don’t decide to invest elsewhere for a better return). Note that the LEAST likely of these happening is Phil decreasing his own income.
Massaging expenses. How can Amazon, for example, have $Bs of profit, but owe $0 in corporate income taxes for a given tax year? Current tax law allows for investment spending in certain company assets to be written off over time (depreciation), some even entirely in the current tax year. And the current tax year may take into account portions of several years worth of such spending. If Amazon’s depreciation expense for assets purchased over the last several years is large enough, it can negate profit for the current tax year. In addition, Congress, via the IRS, has encouraged some behaviors of companies with specific deductions, for example: Green energy initiatives. GE used this method to write off the value of an entire year’s profits to zero by tailoring their spending in renewable energy projects. Those deductions are not perpetual, unless the spending is maintained. Note that these deductions are LEGAL, and available to any company that chooses to spend their resources in this fashion. Spend enough, decrease or eliminate their tax bill.
One of the biggest changes to the US economy in the last few years is the change in Federal Corporate Income Tax Rate, from 35 percent to 21 percent. Some say that really shouldn’t make that big of an impact. I completely disagree.
Above, I discussed corporate income taxes, and how they are paid. But that is a scratch on the surface of such things, as corporations are generally owned by…nearly anyone. Stock funds are in nearly every mutual fund, IRA, or 401K account in the US. So, if your retirement or investment account has seen great returns over the last few years, thank the tax changes, in nearly all cases. Fourteen percent of a company’s profits are no longer paid in taxes—they can be reinvested in the company, buy plant assets to increase production, paid out to employees in various forms (bonuses, raises, increase in 401K matches, increased hiring, higher minimum wages, etc.), buybacks of company stock (bringing more of the shares inhouse), or just bump up the share prices of that company due to increased net earnings, encouraging other investors to buy. Remember, buying stocks is just as competitive as pro sports: there is always competition for the investment dollar, both by fund managers and individuals. What to buy for the best, largest, safest, return on investment? At last count, over 500 companies announced they are doing one or many of the options above, for their employees or their companies. The net result: increased spending power or retirement accumulation for those employees, and increased wealth for shareholders. The ripple effect of such improvements cannot be overstated. Maybe a formerly out-of-reach car purchase is now made, enriching both the buyer and the car dealer—who now has more sales commission to pay his folks. Maybe a long-overdue vacation is taken, to the betterment of everyone in those transactions (transportation, resort areas, and the quality of life of the vacationers). And on it goes.
But a difficult to track benefit of reducing the US corporate tax rate: more investors. The truly wealthy can invest ANYWHERE—US, EU, Canada, Australia, etc.—wherever they can get the best returns. Lowering the tax rates increases the returns of US companies, so funds that may have been targeted for investment elsewhere may now be kept in the US. Funds that were in tax havens (Cayman Islands, Switzerland, etc.) may now return back for usage in the US. Production companies that may have been earmarked for countries abroad may now be built in the US, which increases employment here. And so on.
It will be interesting to see if the change in rates encourages more business start-ups. Most new companies do not see a real profit in the first few years of operations. Lowering the bite of taxes just might shorten the time period to profitability for new businesses. And if more businesses get started (yet MORE employment), the net result to the IRS is actually MORE taxes collected than at the higher, former rate.
Note that the above analysis purposely excludes the effects of COVID-19, and the government’s responses to avoid spreading it. The dynamic above is valid pandemic or no. That the economic lockdowns enforced by many State and local governments hurts or closes impacted businesses is a given. And any taxes paid by profits or sales are directly reduced or eliminated entirely by business’s inability to fully operate, if not close entirely. When or if this pandemic reaction is over, it will be interesting to see how it all shakes out: will currently closed firms reopen with the same ownership and staff? Will the assets liquidated by closed establishments be utilized by new (or at least different) users and companies? One thing is certain: whether government collects taxes from the same or different taxpayers, they WILL require taxes to spend. Government spending appetites are nearly as constantly growing as tax collections themselves. That spending never DECREASES.
Tax Breaks and Envy
I’ve seen folks post on the Internet repeatedly complaining about ‘this company got HUGE tax breaks!’, or ‘the tax changes only benefitted the RICH!’. Both of these statements reveal either ignorance or envy on the part of the poster. The first: unless a company lobbied for, and got, a carve-out of tax law that only applies to them or their industry (which I am COMPLETELY against), the company arranged its expenses, spending, and behavior in such a way as to minimize its tax burden–exactly as it should. There is no requirement to pay more than the absolute minimum in taxes, either as an individual or as a company. Government is a notoriously inefficient and poor spender of tax dollars, while the individual or company (who EARNED the funds) is MUCH better suited to spend the funds as they see fit. No exceptions. Folks will complain when Amazon has zero corporate tax bill at year-end, but do not realize the YEARS of infrastructure spending it took for Amazon to be profitable. Those write-offs are available to literally ANYONE choosing to risk their ass(ets) for such a venture! True test: open your own biz, compete with Amazon—that market is not regulated, other than the pure amount of resources needed to succeed. You’ll immediately see the spending required to establish the network of buyers and suppliers, along with shipping, site management, advertising, etc. needed to make that company work. But, when the story comes out that Amazon had zero taxes due on $Bs profit, folks decried the system as a whole as being ‘unfair’!
Next is the impact of the tax rates reduction. Virtually everyone earning wages got a reduction in taxes due. Everyone. The rates were lowered across the board, with the biggest rate reductions at the BOTTOM of the scale! Now, for some in State Tax Hell, they saw little or even negative impact to their returns, as the changes also included removing or capping the amount of State Income Tax paid as a deduction on Federal returns. But the REAL gripe: anyone making more than the complainer got a big tax break! Two things: 1. It required paying taxes to get a reduction. Those who had no wages got no break. 2. The tax rate reductions simply allowed those that EARNED the money to keep more of it. The envy crowd is still in full force, bitching because there are still those making more, sometimes dramatically more, than they do, so the percentage change, applied to a bigger dollar amount, results in a bigger break. My thinking is that the real complaint is on the discrepancy of income, not the taxes paid—notice how they didn’t complain about the size of break of the folks making LESS than them?
A final point about tax reductions: because of our ‘progressive’ tax system, those that earn more get taxed at a higher percentage. And those paying more are the job creators in our system—those that take risks, start companies, or invest in other companies, as well as direct hiring of labor (lawn care, baby sitters, gardeners, whatever). Think of the number of folks whose lives are positively impacted when a wealthy person buys a luxury item, like a yacht: boat designers, builders, sub-contractors, upholsterers, wood workers, dock workers, fuel distributors, and so on. None of the effort to get that item created happened for free—many people got paid to make that work. The same is true for all items, but more so on the luxury side. Yeah, I envy those that make more than I do—but I don’t hate them, or disparage their ability to earn more, I want to BE them! Except now, as an older dude, I just don’t see me putting out the effort necessary to do so 😊.
More Games In The Sham Impeachment
Feb 13, 2021 2020 Election, Commentary, Tyranny
The trial portion of the President Donald Trump impeachment was expected to wrap up today. Congressman Jamie Raskin of Maryland was not expected to call any witnesses. In fact, he indicated previously that he did not want to do so. All of the sudden, there is information that they need to get to the bottom of. There is a new, not new revelation from Congresswoman Jaime Herrera Beutler that Trump was aware of what was going on and refused to help.
The reason that this is not a new revelation is that she indicated this was her reason for voting to impeach Trump. She is one of only ten Republicans who did so.
This is not new. She said this for over a month now. If the Democrats had actually held a proper impeachment hearing they could have called her as a witness and asked her what took place. Instead, they rushed to judgement and now the impeachment managers are left to find evidence at trial. According to Herrera Beutler, Kevin McCarthy called Trump as the mostly peaceful protest was going on and told the President he needed to call his supporters off. When told by Trump that these were Antifa (Antifa involvement is something most news articles describe as discredited), McCarthy told him, no these are your people. It is then that Trump is alleged to have said “Well Kevin, I guess they are more upset about the election than you are.”
It looks like the Kavanaugh hearing debacle all over. Wait until you are ready to wrap up and see if you are losing. If you are, then call in a witness and bring new allegations.
Here are some problems I see.
It is possible this took place as described. Going on TV or sending Tweets would not have stopped any of the mostly peaceful protests. The people inside the building were not watching TV or reading tweets. Besides, when Trump did tweet that day Twitter removed his tweets. He called for calm and those tweets were removed.
Trump is not in charge of the Capitol police or the DC National Guard. Congress is in charge of the police and the DC Mayor is in charge of the guard. President Trump offered extra help in the days leading up to January 6th and was told no extra help was needed. Mayor Bowser said she had it all under control. Trump has a duty to act if the country is being attacked but when this went down it was nothing more than a riot, the same kind of riot that took place against the White House in the summer. The same kind the left refused help for and cried when pepper spray was used. A riot is under the purview of the police (and/or the National Guard).
Herrera Beutler has no first hand knowledge. Since the beginning when she asserted this incident as her reason to vote to impeach she has stated that McCarthy TOLD her what Trump said. She did not hear it for herself and has no idea what was actually said.
It reminds me of a joke where a Texas Ranger was chasing a Mexican bandit who had stolen a lot of money in a robbery. As the Ranger gained on him the bandit threw the money down an abandoned well. The Ranger caught up to him and asked where the money was but the Mexican bandit only spoke Spanish and the Ranger did not. A man was riding by and the Ranger asked him if he spoke Spanish and he indicated he did. He said ask this guy where he put the money. The reply was I am not telling. So the Ranger pulls his pistol and points it at the bandit’s head and says, tell him if he does not tell me, right now, where that money is I am going to blow his brains all over the desert then he cocks the hammer. The man tells him and the Mexican bandit says, in Spanish, tell him not to shoot, please, I have a family, tell him the money is an that abandoned well over there. With that the interpreter looks at the Ranger and says, he said go ahead and shoot he is not telling you.
Without actually hearing what was said (and understanding it) one cannot possibly give a first hand accounting.
They could call McCarthy but he did not vote to impeach and he has not made any statements, that we are aware of, that Trump said what has been reported.
Even if Trump said it that is not an impeachable offense. How could he possibly stop what was going on? I indicated earlier that if he went on TV no one would see it and no one was reading tweets but his were being taken down anyway.
Do we now impeach Obama because he incited Ferguson and did nothing to get them to stop? Do we impeach Harris and a whole slew of Democrats because they incited and encouraged riots all summer and then did nothing to stop them?
We have police officers to maintain law and order. It looks like the Capitol Police failed in doing that. Funny thing is when police departments were told to stand down and when politicians across the country refused to stop riots (and refused help from Trump) these were seen as good things. But let the police stand down in the Capitol and it is quite another.
As for the claim being made by the propaganda media that Antifa was not involved and this has been debunked, well you can add that to the list of other issues they have been gaslighting you on. Free and fair elections, no cheating took place, Joe Biden is not suffering from dementia, etc.
Antifa was there. Antifa started and instigated the riot. The video footage the House Impeachment Managers are showing as evidence was recorded by a member of Antifa and he happens to be one of the first people arrested in connection with it. There are videos of Antifa members changing out of Trump gear, rioting and then changing back into Trump gear. There were certainly supporters of the president in the Capitol. The video I saw of them has them walking around taking pictures like they are on a tour. The Antifa and others I saw were damaging things and causing trouble. That is not to say that some of the folks who were causing trouble were not Trump supporters. It was not ALL them as the left and its media wing would have you believe.
I do wonder though. What happens if the defense attorneys take depositions from people who were arrested that day or who were on film that day and they say that they were incited by [enter name of Democrat here]. Will the focus be changed? Will they go after that person?
After the beating the Impeachment Managers took yesterday, one that had Alan Dershowitz saying the defense had won the case, they had to come up with something. You can always count on them dragging a hooker or a reprobate, or someone less honorable like a member of Congress, from someplace and changing the focus on some invented act. None of that changes the fact that Trump did not cause it and he had no method to stop it. And if it was a riot, as was reported, it was up to the police and/or the National Guard to stop it.
They are trying hard but I doubt this will stop anything. I doubt they will get 17 people to convict when they have already said it was unconstitutional.
As for the four or five Republican Senators who voted to move forward with witnesses, your time will come. We will work hard to remove you from office and replace you with someone who has a spine.
#FAFO
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: communist democrats, impeachment, liars, trump
Incentives and Disincentives
Feb 9, 2021 Commentary, Immigration, Law Enforcement, Opinion, Political
Prior to the New Deal era in the 1930s, the US was a very basic societal arrangement. While there were (and always are) small numbers of the super-rich (for the day), the overwhelming majority of people had very simplistic methodologies to survive. There was no formal ‘social safety net’, so incentives were quite pure: work in some fashion to earn money to buy essentials—food, shelter, etc. Our society has changed quite a bit in the succeeding 90 years. But that coin has two sides. Let’s dig.
From its very inception, even pre-USA, America was the epitome of EARNED. People came from all over the world to participate in a rare combination of political, religious, and economic freedoms, coupled with an untamed wilderness, along with private property ownership. None of those elements could be removed from the equation, as each were essential to the magnetic draw of the US. People felt that their efforts and risk-taking, would result in EARNING a better way of life. It was not an easy thing, and there were zero guarantees—in fact, the wilderness was quite dangerous, even life-threatening. Wild animals, Indians, lack of any type of law enforcement or medical assistance, and an unyielding landscape, all met the settler. Starvation, adverse weather, sickness of many kinds, were all potential outcomes. But even those dangerous prospects were viewed by many as a dramatic improvement over whatever situation they left. The idea that they, not some royalty or military figure, would benefit from their efforts, was enough of an incentive to warrant the dangerous travel to the New World. Many came with little or no money, and only whatever they wore or could carry. The pure guts needed to make that journey, leaving familiarity and family, to go to a completely unknown environment, was considerable. And still they came.
As towns and villages popped up, civilization took small steps to improve. The gathering of people to a similar locality had many advantages. Law enforcement, banks, medical folks, dry goods stores, saloons, butcher shops, even groups of folks (that were not family) to assist in home and barn raising, all were a product of collective people. If you help folks, they may help when needed, in the future. Not a defined ‘social safety net’—no one got paid to do nothing—but a mutual assistance arrangement. Each function matured over the years, especially as populations grew. With enough people, folks could specialize in various trades, with money earned and spent based upon the community value of those trades. It was nearly pure Capitalism: no boundaries to business creation, just the efforts and visions of those attempting new enterprises. Many such endeavors failed, but many succeeded. As more such towns grew to become cities, a nation raised itself from infancy to adulthood.
Fast-forward to the 1930s. Up until this time, assistance for those in need was purely a local affair. Churches usually took the lead, offering soup kitchens for the hungry, sometimes including shelter for the needy. But the Great Depression changed the scope of ‘needy’. Over 25% of the workforce was considered unemployed. The causes and effects of the Depression have been chronicled and debated in the decades since, but the one thing almost everyone agrees upon is that the economy was terrible. The lines for the soup kitchens were long and constant. Other than local farmers that could grow their own food, many people in cities faced possible starvation. The Social Security Act of 1935 was an attempt to alleviate many facets of the misery, from a Federal government standpoint. Included in this legislation was retirement income for the elderly (Title I), unemployment compensation (Title III), aid for children (Title IV), and several other specific areas. For the first time, Welfare programs existed at a Federal level. That is, folks that had no job, or the potential for a job, received a minimal stipend from the Federal government. Additional support came from other legislation: SNAP (food subsidies) is part of the Agriculture Department; rent subsidies are part of Housing and Urban Development, and so on. Pertinent to this article, for the first time, Federal government created programs that required no work incentive to receive benefits. Note that these benefits were not ‘free’, it is just that the taxpayers, as a whole, pick up the tab. The money to fund such programs began back in 1913, with the ratification of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution: Income Tax.
Originally, Welfare benefits were quite meager: food and rent subsidies were the bulk of benefits received. There were disbursements of agricultural products, such as cheese and peanut butter, that not only provided food assistance to those that needed it, but helped maintain the market prices for those items. Direct cash benefits were rare. The incentive was for Welfare recipients to seek and find work, thus removing their need for Welfare. Welfare was intended to be a true ‘safety net’, to catch those that fell through society’s ‘cracks’. Not many were expected remain on Welfare for any long duration—it simply did not provide for much of a lifestyle, just minimal sustenance for those in short-term need.
Over time, Welfare changed, and people changed along with it. Food distribution gave way to check payments. Technology allowed for cash disbursements to checking accounts or ATM cards. Surprisingly or no, some folks became accustomed to the Welfare system. The major motivators of hunger, shelter, and even social stigma, eroded over time. Unfortunately, along with those erosions went the ability to find and maintain a job—or even the desire to do so. Why work a minimum wage job when funds can be had for doing nothing? The incentives to work entry-level jobs for many such people disappeared entirely. We now have multiple generations of Welfare recipients—grandparents, parents, and children of the same family, with none possessing the skills necessary to become productive citizens.
Now we add the last part of this dynamic: immigration. Remember, prior to the early 1900s, the US had no real immigration policy. If you could get here, you were welcome. But, since there was no ‘safety net’, you had to work to survive, since no programs were in place to assist you. For some, that meant nearly slave labor, either in fields or sweat shops, doing hard, menial work that paid little. But little pay was better than no pay, especially when food was involved. The ultimate incentive: work to avoid starvation.
Current day policies collide with each other. Immigration now comes in two flavors: legal and illegal, both with their own problems. The legal system is way too cumbersome, and takes years and thousands of dollars to perform a simple function: make someone from another country a legal US citizen. Unless your goal is to create a cottage industry of immigration lawyers, it is an antiquated, nearly failed system. The illegal immigration system may actually be worse. Those that choose to avoid the legal system can enter the US via thousands of miles of common international border, both with Canada and Mexico. There are also Visa overstays, where students and temporary visitors get ‘lost’ into US society. The risk there is that it simply is not legal—not quite the same stress as our early settlers. Political positions vary greatly—some want the border policed and maintained, others really do not want a border at all. And those that choose to enter illegally stand a reasonable chance that legislators will grant them amnesty—rewarding the illegal by letting them ‘jump the line’ ahead of those in the legal process. Either way, legal or illegal, the immigration system hits the Welfare system head-on: should immigrants, that have not paid taxes into the system, gain taxpayer-funded benefits? Everything from Welfare to retirement benefits fall into this category.
Back to incentives: the US Welfare state is an incredible incentive for immigrants to change countries. As much as a disincentive Welfare is to entry-level workers, it is quite the stimulus to third-world people, sometimes fleeing abject poverty, political strife, and persecution. Some are even criminals, both in their original and new countries. What would the incentives to legislators be to allow this flow to continue? Some want new immigrants for a new voting bloc, as most are perceived to want and vote for more government programs. Some want new illegal immigrants as a near-slave labor pool, where companies can pay sub-minimum wage rates, usually in cash (or, with fake or stolen social security numbers). The unavoidable stress illegal immigration puts on the US education, prison, medical, and ‘safety net’ systems is very real, and very expensive. Once again, the US taxpayer foots the bill for all expenses. And the taxpayer is a captive payor—incentives are not required. Whether the taxpayer can continue to pay for all of the poor, disenfranchised, and persecuted people of North, Central, and South America remains to be seen. That such unfettered immigration, coupled with a taxpayer-funded social safety net, is unsustainable is almost a dead certainty.
Tags: Welfare state