Tag Archives: welfare

We the People

Our Founders were clear on the role of government in the United States:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

We the People are the government. If our government is bad, it’s because We the People created it or were apathetic while someone else was participating. Demonizing the government is the same as demonizing We the People. Democracy allows that if we don’t like an aspect of governing, we can work to change it. Many times that work requires money, so the logic is that those with the most money can influence the government the most. What we have now with runaway campaign spending, unlimited corporate contributions, lobbyist domination, and media moguls is a case of money trouncing We the People (that is the real flesh and blood humans that populate the country).

The government exists to protect our rights as well as a whole host of other charges. The government seeks to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure liberty for now and the future. These are the ideas our constitutionally limited, democratic republic are founded on and those in office should be held to.

I appreciate the comments being made in response to my post yesterday about being unemployed. It is hard for me to keep framing in mind, I want to support or dispute so many points that are made. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , ,

Authenticity matters

In communications, authenticity matters. A lot. Our authenticity meters are what make lawyers and car salesmen consistently despised over the years – and Congress currently. We all hate being lied to with a straight face – we don’t even like being fibbed to. We respect those that tell us the truth because it shows that they respect us. Mitt Romney has an authenticity issue, so does Newt Gingrich when he does events like this one (which I will deconstruct the value manipulations attempted there in the future), Obama too. They all are disingenuous in different ways – Romney has the problem of looking and acting like a spokesmodel – a little too polished for an Average American’s comfort – and then completing the role by saying whatever he thinks the customers want. Newt seems to say what he means but in his election bid, is fully involved in the posturing and manipulations of crowds and media to suit his cause – he can only “open up” when it seems it would serve his polling and/or the Republican establishment. Obama seems to speak from the heart and brain but when it comes to following through on his rhetoric, his resolve dissolves. His “compromises” undermine the principles he established verbally. The end result? Not many of us can agree that any of those three politicians are genuinely authentic and are as good as their word; when you match up their deeds with their speech, the integrity gap becomes apparent.

Rick Santorum had authenticity going for him. I really do believe that he is a man of faith that lives by his beliefs, I believe he is a family man and doing something he feels called to do, but his slip about black people getting welfare showed some of his underlying perceptions – possibly racist leanings. All of these attributes still fit into a character that some Americans really admire and want (sadly even the potentially racist part). However, when Santorum was confronted about the racist part, his authenticity fell apart.  He commented, “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money. I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.”  Quickly thereafter he back pedaled on the concept, saying that he indeed didn’t want African-Americans to be dependent on government – up to this point he might be guilty of not being pc but he is still authentic. His next move is what cracks that characteristic – he makes a planned statement, saying that he studied the footage of the rhetoric in question and decided that he did not say the word “black”. This is totally disingenuous and anyone who watches the footage can see that,  Santorum would have gained more respect if he simply stood his ground and apologized by his lack of sensitivity and his implication that black people are the main food stamp recipients in this country; they’re not. The Kaiser Family Foundation puts black recipients at a total of 22% of medicaid benefits. Continue reading

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,