17 September 2009

Credit where it's due

or, as the behavioral psychiatrists would say, "catch them doing something right"

so anyway, lately, I've been heaping some much-deserved bashing on my "so-called" U.S. Representative, Mark Schauer (D-MI-07). Today, it looks like he did the right and proper thing in voting to have all of ACORN's Federal Housing funds cut off. John Lott has the list of the House members who think under-age forced prostitution is just fine and dandy. Sure, Schauer could have been one of the hand-full who voted "Present", but for today (being Constitution Day, and all) I'm willing to cut Schauer some slack. Today, and today only.

For today, I feel like I am being "represented" in Washington. Thank you, Rep.Schauer.

The regular Schauer-bashing will resume in full force at sun-rise tomorrow, unless he surprises me and does the right thing some more times.

Curiously, I've been thumbing through my well-worn copy of The Constitution, and I can't find any mention of "Federal Housing funding" or anything remotely similar. Looks like I have some research to do.

More soon.

3 Comments:

At 18 September, 2009 16:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It doesn't say anything about unemployment compensation either...glad to know that while unemployed you never accepted any...after all, that would be hypocritical...

 
At 19 September, 2009 23:22, Blogger Michael X. said...

An interesting question...shoutin' out to "Anonymous" from somewhere in the Chula Vista, CA area.

so anyway, "Anonymous" (if that is indeed your real name) poses an interesting question in response to this post:

It doesn't say anything about unemployment compensation either...glad to know that while unemployed you never accepted any...after all, that would be hypocritical...

A little background information: "Anonymous" is referring (I assume) to the following from my post:

" Curiously, I've been thumbing through my well-worn copy of The Constitution, and I can't find any mention of "Federal Housing funding" or anything remotely similar. Looks like I have some research to do."

"Anonymous" has a point, The Constitution says nothing about unemployment compensation. Spot on, Sir or Madam. We'll get to that in a minute.

The Constitution also does not mention the government providing the Fire Department, or various other services. Let's use the Fire Department example for our discussion.

Extrapolating "Anonymous": he/she is absolutely correct, The Constitution makes no mention of the Fire Department. Does that mean that I would not call the Fire Department if my house was on fire, because it's "un-constitutional"? Not just no, but hell no; I'd make the call. Hypocritical? Not at all. The FD is paid for out of my tax dollars, it is a benefit / service that I have contracted for, via the democratic process, to insure that someone would be there to put out the fire. Fire Department funding is subject to frequent review and approval, again via the democratic process.

Which brings us to the burr in "Anonymous'" blanket: how can I, as a Constitutional Conservative, accept unemployment compensation?

I know this varies from state to state, but here in Michigan, the Unemployment Capital of the Known Universe, unemployment compensation is administered by the Unemployment Insurance Agency.

Insurance. As in premiums paid for benefits received.

Yes, I am receiving a small pittance of "un-constitutional unemployment compensation", without any hypocrisy. Why do I accept it? Because I paid for it up front.

My (former) employer paid government-mandated "unemployment insurance" premiums based on my salary. Premiums that were paid for as a cost of employing yours truly, in leu of passing those monies on to me. Like the concept of "Corporate Taxes", those monies paid on my behaft, were siphoned off from monies that could have been paid to me. Hence, I paid the "unemployment insurance" premium; therefore my "unemployment compensation" is a benefit that I have contracted for, much like the Fire Department.

doG, I get tired of these"Anonymous" wankers.

 
At 20 September, 2009 13:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is very enjoyable that "social programs" are picked and chosen to suit ones reference. But the truth remains that these are very much social programs and to be true to ones ideology we must reject all of them.

btw I don't know why your provider came up with Chula Vista or even Ca for that matter, because it's actually a lot closer to home than that. haha

You always crack me up. I must be the only one who ever reads your posts.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home