Tag Social Security

Thank God for Fathers

Allen Frederick 5 Comments

A Father’s Day message

See, I am sending you Elijah the prophet before the day of the Lord comes, that great day, greatly to be feared. And by him the hearts of fathers will be turned to their children, and the hearts of children to their fathers; for fear that I may come and put the earth under a curse. Malachi 4:5-6 (BBE)

Modern societal trends teach that religion is only for those who are superstitious, weak-minded, and/or closed-minded and old-fashioned. These purveyors of the secularization of modern culture are doing everything possible to remove ’religion’ from the public discourse. There is intolerance for anything biblical or religion based by those who are in positions of authority to effect societal and cultural revision. Secular humanists disparage Bible reading probably because any serious study of the Bible often leads us to see the limitations of a humanist approach to problem solving. In the pages of scripture we find the futilities of human nature and its pages are filled with the tragic examples of societies which had rejected the wisdom found in those very pages.

An example of such failed policies is: Welfare reform. The last major revisions, those of 1996, were successful, despite liberal predictions of disaster. Work requirements pushed parents without young children to change attitudes and improve employability. But single moms with kids make up the largest part of our national poverty problem, and it’s exceptionally hard for one person without backup to grow a career and grow children at the same time.

In 1995 Kenosha Wisconsin was the shiny face of state-level welfare reform: Twelve state delegations, dozens of reporters, and welfare bureaucrats from all over, including Tanzania, came and marveled at the advancements Kenosha made to its welfare program; however, on the walls of two large training rooms were signs proclaiming, “A family doesn’t need a man to be whole,” and “Stop waiting for Prince Charming, his horse broke down.”

In 1996 the Kenosha job center director won praise for saying that he told welfare recipients “straight-out that marriage is not the answer.” They didn’t realize that work requirements are necessary but not enough. From 1996 to 2001 Wisconsin-style welfare reform did move hundreds of thousands of people toward economic independence. But others stayed stuck, and in 2003 the Manhattan Institute organized a conference that asked, “Whither Welfare Reform? Lessons from the Wisconsin Experience.”

At the conference NYU professor Lawrence Mead argued that “we must find a way to get the fathers involved.” New York Times welfare specialist Jason DeParle said the “biggest surprise” to him as he wrote about poor communities was “just how much yearning there was among the kids and their mothers for the fathers.”

There is reason for hope. Since God, through the prophet Malachi said that God would send Elijah the prophet before the day of the Lord comes, that great day, greatly to be feared. And by him the hearts of fathers will be turned to their children, and the hearts of children to their fathers; for fear that I may come and put the earth under a curse. None of this then is a surprise to those with a biblical worldview. This yearning of children for fathers is a sign that God still cares for the fatherless. The second part of this equation however is the turning of father’s hearts back to caring for their children.

With over 40 percent of children born out-of-wedlock, we seem on the path to destruction. Can government (our modern god) do something to help? Not according to Jason Turner, who led the welfare reform campaign in Wisconsin and then took it to New York City, who stated sadly, “There is no solution that I can think of that will fundamentally affect men at the moment.” Government is not the solution to the problem, government programs are the problem. In fact most of the policies affecting those trapped in poverty are designed to penalize those who choose marriage.

Research has clearly shown that marriage and an intact family structure are associated with better financial prospects and a significant decrease in the likelihood of living in poverty. In fact, single-parent households are nearly six times as likely to be poor as married-parent families.

The federal government operates over 70 means-tested welfare programs that give cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services to poor and low-income persons. In fiscal year 2010, federal and state governments spent over $400 billion on means-tested welfare for low-income families with children. Roughly three-quarters of this welfare help, or $300 billion, went to single-parent families. Most non-marital births are now paid for by the taxpayers through the Medicaid system, and a variety of assistance will continue to be given to the mother and child for nearly two decades after the child is born.

Yet, the positive ramifications of an intact family extend beyond today’s circumstances to benefits in the future as well, given that the behavior of children tends to mimic that of their parents, increasing the likelihood of successful marriages among generations to come. Conversely, children who experience parental divorce are themselves more likely to divorce or experience greater discord in their own marriages.

In addition, the intact family can serve as a buffer against youth risk behavior such as substance abuse and sexual activity at an early age, improving children’s prospects for the future and promoting a healthy civil society. Youths living with both parents are also more likely to enjoy a higher quality of psychological and emotional health and are less likely to develop problem behavior. And children in intact families trend toward  higher levels of academic achievement and educational attainment, enhancing both their own chances of success and their potential for contributing to the common welfare.

Fathers remain America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet marriage continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result. Marriage is highly beneficial to children, adults, and society; it needs to be encouraged and strengthened. Under current government policies, however, marriage is either ignored or undermined. This needs to change or the prophecy declared in Malachi will come to pass and the earth will be placed under a curse.

Still, I know from reading the Bible Jesus changes lives and God still cares for the fatherless and is sending forth the Spirit of Elijah to rekindle the father child relationship. Social science notwithstanding, the Bible still holds the answer to lives problems if we are wise enough and brave enough to heed its advice.

Just another view from the nest.

But those who are waiting for the Lord will have new strength; they will get wings like eagles: running, they will not be tired, and walking, they will have no weariness. Isaiah 40:31 Open Link in New Window (BBE)

Along for the journey

Related articles

How to Fix Social Security Amish Style

Allen Frederick 1 Comment

How a religious sect stood together and fought for exemption from Social Security and later Medicare. They stood together to resist the social programs and later taxes that they say went against their religious beliefs.

While the Amish would endure rendering unto Caesar what was in fact Caesar’s, they had until now lived in such a way as to stay independent from anything that was Caesar’s. So taxation was not a problem. But this new imposition of Social Security taxes was new, for it struck against two core Amish beliefs.

The first was against insurance in general. Commercial insurance was seen as a way of trying to cheat God’s providence. Right or wrong in this particular belief, they had rightly seen all the leftist propaganda and by then official literature detailing the program as “Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance.” Thus they would refuse to pay taxes for such an entitlement.

The second belief was a strict separation of church and state—the state should not cross the line into wealth redistribution and welfare. The Amish powerfully upheld their own welfare community independently of any government coercion:

Perhaps most importantly, the care of the elderly is the responsibility of the family and community, not the government. Whether it be additions built onto the main house where grandparents “retire,” benefit sales to pay large medical bills, or the community effort of a barn-raising, the Amish truly try to “take care of their own.”

An example that can be emulated throughout society, but for far too many it is easier to relinquish our responsibilities to a third-party in this case the state and subsequently relinquish our liberties as well. From public education to Social security and Medicare, we have replaced personal liberty and as a result reneigned on our own personal responsibilities, for payments to the state. We no longer take care of our own.

Perhaps we would do better to emulate the Amish and disavow government seizure of our liberties. Can you live without a government hand-out? Do you need nanny government to take care of you? Really, do you?

See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/a13npq

But I Am Entitled

Allen Frederick 9 Comments

https://i0.wp.com/netrightdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Entitlements.jpg
Give Me and then give me some more. That is not what made America great and anyone with half a mind can see entitlements are destroying the very financial strength of this country. We need to cut federal entitlement programs and we need to cut them now.
Related articles by Zemanta:

Enhanced by Zemanta

Powered by ScribeFire.

Threats of a Government Shut Down are Highly Exaggerated

Allen Frederick 1 Comment

Apparently a government shut-down is not really a government shut down. According to this AP report less than half of all government workers are subject to a shutdown the rest continue to work as usual.

Apparently that is all that is really needed to run the federal government. The rest could be considered non-essential workers perhaps?

Amplify’d from www.comcast.net

WASHINGTON — Social Security checks would still go out. Troops would remain at their posts. Furloughed federal workers probably would get paid, though not until later. And virtually every essential government agency, like the FBI, the Border Patrol and the Coast Guard, would remain open.

That’s the little-known truth about a government shutdown. The government doesn’t shut down.

And it won’t on March 5, even if the combatants on Capitol Hill can’t resolve enough differences to pass a stopgap spending bill to fund the government while they hash out legislation to cover the last seven months of the budget year.

Fewer than half of the 2.1 million federal workers subject to a shutdown would be forced off the job if the Obama administration followed the path taken by presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. And that’s not counting 600,000 Postal Service employees or 1.6 million uniformed military personnel exempt from a shutdown.

The air traffic control system, food inspection, Medicare, veterans’ health care and many other essential government programs would run as usual. The Social Security Administration would not only send out benefits but would continue to take applications. The Postal Service, which is self-funded, would keep delivering the mail. Federal courts would remain open.

The Capitol would remain open, however. Congress is deemed essential, despite its abysmal poll ratings.

The IRS wouldn’t answer its taxpayer hotline — at the height of tax-filing season. Under IRS precedents, the agency would process tax returns that contain payments. But people getting refunds would have to wait.

But from a practical perspective, shutdowns usually aren’t that big a deal. They happened every year when Jimmy Carter was president, averaging 11 days each. During President Reagan’s two terms, there were six shutdowns, typically of just one or two days apiece. Deals got cut. Everybody moved on.

Lawmakers, however, typically provide back pay, even for employees who weren’t required to work. A repeat of that could raise hackles with some in the tea party-backed House GOP freshman class. A spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, wouldn’t address whether furloughed federal workers would receive back pay if there is a shutdown this time.

Regardless, federal contractors would lose out. Many contract workers could be furloughed without pay and not receive lost wages retroactively, especially in an extended shutdown.

Read more at www.comcast.net
 
See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/brrxl

Will You Get Back What You Paid to Social Security?

Allen Frederick 1 Comment

Amplify’d from www.insideronline.org

A fact about Social Security, from the latest Just Facts Foundation report:

For workers who earned average wages and retired at the age of 65 in 1980, it took 2.8 years of receiving old-age benefits to recover the value of their payroll taxes (including interest). For workers who retired in 2003, it will take 17.4 years. For workers who will retire in 2020, it will take 21.6 years. This assumes Social Security will have enough money to pay scheduled benefits for this entire period, which it is not projected to have. [Internal citations omitted.]

For more, see “Social Security Facts,” by James D. Agresti and Stephen F. Cardone, Just Facts, January 27, 2011.

Read more at www.insideronline.org
 
See this Amp at http://amplify.com/u/anyyn