Greetings, Gentle Reader,
Perhaps all Americans saw and heard the woman who ecstatically exulted that she would no longer have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage. Why? Because Obama had been elected President of this country. She said if they took care of him–meaning if they elected him–he would take care of them.
Is it our President’s job to put gas in the cars and pay the mortgages of his constituents? I don’t remember being taught that in school. In fact, it says nothing about that in my copy of our Constitution. It talks about his providing for the common defense and general welfare of the citizenry, but I can’t find anything about gas in cars and paying mortgages.
So, how did this weird reading of the President’s job come to pass? It may have been a result of his telling people who don’t pay any taxes that they were going to get a tax cut, which, subsequently, has been correctly defined as a welfare check. Then, again, it may have been something they were explicitly told by those trying to get him elected.
It is impossible for someone, who was not where that lady was at the time she learned that he would give them money–provided they elected him–to really know how this reading of his intentions was communicated. Were they actually told he would give them money, if they elected him? We will never know, because no one is going to spill the beans.
Is it correct and proper for Americans to elect a President, in order to get money on which to live from day to day? No. It is not. It is the President’s job to keep the country safe and keep all government departments functioning as well as possible, but to allow people to think they will get money if they elect him is tantamount to bribery, and bribery is very illegal.
It is past time for Americans to return to the level of honor most of us were taught as children. Honor and/or dishonor is a step higher than legal and/or illegal. Legal refers to how people behave when others are watching. Honor refers to how people behave when no one is watching but God and their own conscience. It means giving back the extra change accidentally given you by a young, inexperienced clerk, even though no one but you knew a mistake had been made.
Many years ago my children and I were left alone and destitute. I applied for welfare and got it. Soon, I was able to get a job that supported us, but I did not cancel the welfare we were receiving. Instead, I just put the checks in my purse and left them there, that way we continued to have health care. At the end of that year, I was called into the welfare office and told I would have to pay back a goodly portion of the money we had received, since I was now making enough to support us. I pulled those checks out of my purse and gave them to the lady, telling her I had not cashed them because we did not need them. She looked at them in astonishment. Then she realized some of them were more than six months old, and she absentmindedly said they were not good anymore. Then she told me not to worry about it; she would take care of it, and she did. I never heard another word about having to pay back money.
She had not been used to people living by a standard of honor that said the American people should not have to support those who could support themselves. She knew we were still dirt-poor, but were getting by. That was close enough for us; we were perfectly happy to scrape by, just barely, and she had no intention of allowing a technicality to harm us.
It is still true that Americans should get by without government handouts, if it is possible for them to keep food on the table, and I am not referring to take-out food bought at a fast-food place.
No, our Presidents are not our financial keepers. It is not their job. It is up to us to work hard enough to support ourselves. Nor is it proper for union members making staggeringly high hourly wages to refuse to live on the level of wages the common everyday American receives, if their company goes broke. Incidentally, many companies go broke precisely because their unionized workers demand salaries and benefits that the company cannot truly afford to pay.
No. The new President is not going to take money from working Americans to put gas in that woman’s car, nor to pay her mortgage, nor should she think such a thing is proper, because it isn’t.
Until next time,
Muriel Sluyter
Return to the Neighborhood.
Perhaps all Americans saw and heard the woman who ecstatically exulted that she would no longer have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage. Why? Because Obama had been elected President of this country. She said if they took care of him–meaning if they elected him–he would take care of them.
Is it our President’s job to put gas in the cars and pay the mortgages of his constituents? I don’t remember being taught that in school. In fact, it says nothing about that in my copy of our Constitution. It talks about his providing for the common defense and general welfare of the citizenry, but I can’t find anything about gas in cars and paying mortgages.
So, how did this weird reading of the President’s job come to pass? It may have been a result of his telling people who don’t pay any taxes that they were going to get a tax cut, which, subsequently, has been correctly defined as a welfare check. Then, again, it may have been something they were explicitly told by those trying to get him elected.
It is impossible for someone, who was not where that lady was at the time she learned that he would give them money–provided they elected him–to really know how this reading of his intentions was communicated. Were they actually told he would give them money, if they elected him? We will never know, because no one is going to spill the beans.
Is it correct and proper for Americans to elect a President, in order to get money on which to live from day to day? No. It is not. It is the President’s job to keep the country safe and keep all government departments functioning as well as possible, but to allow people to think they will get money if they elect him is tantamount to bribery, and bribery is very illegal.
It is past time for Americans to return to the level of honor most of us were taught as children. Honor and/or dishonor is a step higher than legal and/or illegal. Legal refers to how people behave when others are watching. Honor refers to how people behave when no one is watching but God and their own conscience. It means giving back the extra change accidentally given you by a young, inexperienced clerk, even though no one but you knew a mistake had been made.
Many years ago my children and I were left alone and destitute. I applied for welfare and got it. Soon, I was able to get a job that supported us, but I did not cancel the welfare we were receiving. Instead, I just put the checks in my purse and left them there, that way we continued to have health care. At the end of that year, I was called into the welfare office and told I would have to pay back a goodly portion of the money we had received, since I was now making enough to support us. I pulled those checks out of my purse and gave them to the lady, telling her I had not cashed them because we did not need them. She looked at them in astonishment. Then she realized some of them were more than six months old, and she absentmindedly said they were not good anymore. Then she told me not to worry about it; she would take care of it, and she did. I never heard another word about having to pay back money.
She had not been used to people living by a standard of honor that said the American people should not have to support those who could support themselves. She knew we were still dirt-poor, but were getting by. That was close enough for us; we were perfectly happy to scrape by, just barely, and she had no intention of allowing a technicality to harm us.
It is still true that Americans should get by without government handouts, if it is possible for them to keep food on the table, and I am not referring to take-out food bought at a fast-food place.
No, our Presidents are not our financial keepers. It is not their job. It is up to us to work hard enough to support ourselves. Nor is it proper for union members making staggeringly high hourly wages to refuse to live on the level of wages the common everyday American receives, if their company goes broke. Incidentally, many companies go broke precisely because their unionized workers demand salaries and benefits that the company cannot truly afford to pay.
No. The new President is not going to take money from working Americans to put gas in that woman’s car, nor to pay her mortgage, nor should she think such a thing is proper, because it isn’t.
Until next time,
Muriel Sluyter
Return to the Neighborhood.
3 comments:
Sum Ergo Cogito said...
I saw that clip on TV and I could just see the liberal media, and their candidate, cringing at being so blatantly exposed. I was, and still am, fuming over that video clip.
Thank you for bringing it to the forefront of the discussion.
Tristi Pinkston said...
I am finding it absolutely ridiculous how many people want someone else to step in and clean up the messes they themselves made. What happened to personal responsibility? If I run up a debt, I fully expect to be the one to pay it. It's only fair.
Cindy Beck, author said...
Muriel,
I'm so glad you mentioned that woman's comment in your blog. Many people watched that news clip, but not nearly as many caught what she said ... or to what she thought (rightly or not) she was being promised.
So few people seemed to have noticed it that I was beginning to think I'd dreamed her comment in my sleep. No wait, a comment like that would only show up in a nightmare, right?