Sunday, October 27, 2013

Food Stamp Cliff and Reality

By Rich Kozlovich

Recently Erik Wasson wrote an article titled, Nation headed over food stamp cliff, saying, "Millions of people are in for a shock at the end of the week when their food stamp benefits will be cut across the board. There is little chance that Congress will act to avert what hunger activists call the “food stamp cliff” — a cut to benefits that will affect some 47 million beneficiaries, including children and the elderly" and highlighting how many meals a family of four would no longer have available....presumably.  And when you highlight that children or the elderly may be deprived - that's a trigger that starts America's emotional engine running.

First of all I don't think the national government should be in the 'permanent' food stamp business.  Furthermore I don’t believe anyone should be allowed to be on food stamps indefinitely, or over and over again.  But that’s easy to say, the story is always in details. Who decides when the end point is for ‘over and over again’? I also believe they need to get a job, or jobs -although a substantial number of food stamp recipients have jobs - and stop having babies they can’t feed. I know….I know …..there are people incapable of caring for themselves. True, but why are they still having babies? Babies they can’t care for!

As an exterminator I end up going to apartments or private homes and firsthand seeing people who are clearly genetically impaired.  One will naturally feel empathy for them, but I keep wondering why are they breeding beyond their ability to care for the children they’re having.  For that matter why are they breeding at all and passing these impairment off onto these children?  It appears to me that the number of those children who share those impairments is substantial.

It’s hateful to most Americans to think of depriving human beings of the right to have and raise children. It’s social engineering at a monstrous level much like Hitlerism. But Hitler didn’t invent this idea. Hitler was influenced heavily by Margaret Sanger, the founder of what eventually became Planned Parenthood. Among her many social engineering goals were plans to reduce and eventually eliminate the “unfit”, including the brown races, through contraception and planned sterilization programs. Interesting she believed that abortion was murder and the organization she founded is one of the leaders in providing abortions.

At any rate, social engineering of that sort is "hubris on steroids" and Americans won’t stand for it, and the Constitution certainly would prohibit forced sterilization as illegal arrogant government actions.  At least that’s what you would think wouldn’t you? Well it isn’t true!


Eugenics programs are broken down into three categories, “eugenics (concerned with heredity), therapeutic (part of an even-then obscure medical theory that sterilization would lead to vitality), or punitive (as a punishment for criminals), though of course these motivations could be combined in practice and theory (sterilization of criminals could be both punitive and eugenic, for example)” Such programs were proposed in the United States starting in Michigan in 1897, although the state legislature voted it down.


Pennsylvania passed one a few years later that was vetoed by the governor, but Indiana did pass such legislation in 1907 followed by California and Washington two years later and Virginia’s law of forced sterilization of the mentally retarded was upheld in 1927 by SCOTUS. In 1942 SCOTUS ruled that forced sterilization was legal as long as the ‘equal protection’ clause of the Constitution was upheld…..in other words…..it could not exempt white collar criminals. I’ll bet that shook up the politicians in Virginia!

After WWII Hitler’s eugenics programs became so well known the concept became very unpopular in the U.S. However states continued to sterilize until the late 1960’s and the Board of Social Protection (the eugenics board in Oregon) lasted until 1983. The last forced sterilization in the United States was in 1981.

So what to do?

The concept is sound from a biological viewpoint, but there is the human factor. What happens when government bureaucrats, including medical bureaucrats, have that kind 0f power? We now know that forced sterilizations can be conducted on a massive scale and we know the rules can be altered to meet some agenda that is not the original intention…ergo….the concept is extremely dangerous as public policy.

That really is the conundrum isn’t it? So what to do?

Lets’ deal with what we actually can do. It is my belief that ending nationwide food stamp programs is the first step. Let each state determine how they wish to handle this, preferably at the local level. The local people will have a better understanding as to who are deserving, and who aren’t, and the state can set criteria that can be more easily altered at the state level as needs arise or decrease, rather than at the national level, where such programs become entrenched with powerful forces keeping them in place and expanding them beyond reason.

Is this the perfect solution? No! Not by any means. There is no perfect solution because people are involved. There will be unfairness, there will be local tyrants in control who are vindictive, there will be those undeservedly receiving benefits while those who are deserving will be deprived. But it won't be worse than bankruptsy. To demand perfection is irrational, because it doesn’t exist. It’s all too complicated. In reality the best we can reasonably hope for is the most acceptable imperfection.

No comments: