This Week:

Federal Government pushing corporate welfare (or, Who is Rachel Swarns, and what is she up to?

Two songs for you to sing with friends

Greetings,

First off, I should mention that I will be on the radio once or twice this week, on KFAI Radio, 90.3 FM in Minneapolis and 106.7 FM in St. Paul. I expect to be on the evening news between 6:30 and 7:00 on either Tuesday night or Wednesday night (or both), responding to the White House Conference on the future of Social Security being held on those two days. Then, on Friday, Dec 11, I will be the featured guest on Northern Sun News from 11:30 am 'til noon. Talking about Social Security, of course. Tune in if you get a chance; then you can call me and tell me how I did.

‘Til next week,

Nygaard

Federal Government pushing corporate welfare

The Star Tribune (Newspaper of the Twin Cities!) of Sunday, November 29th gave us a gem of an article to illustrate how the most powerful editorials usually appear in the "news" columns. On page A12 was an article entitled "In an odd turn, federal officials are pushing food stamps, Medicaid." This struck me as an odd headline ("pushing"?), so I dove right in. It was written by a New York Times reporter named Rachel L. Swarns, and on the surface it appeared to be a pretty standard attack on poor people, of the type to which we have unfortunately become all too accustomed. However, articles of this type often inadvertently supply the astute reader with valuable information about how our society works - you just have to be willing to risk getting eyestrain from reading between the lines.

The main point of the article (you have to ignore the headline to get this) is that many people who were formerly on welfare, and now are not, have gotten the incorrect idea that they have also been thrown off of the food stamp and Medicaid programs. Not so. Eligibility for these programs depends on income, not on employment status. Turns out that these people are hurtin' for certain, because they are just not making it on the wages they are getting paid in "the marketplace." The article quotes one Jean Rogers, from Wisconsin's Department of Workforce Development, as saying "We're learning that you need to let people know they're eligible [for food stamps and Medicaid]. Both of these issues speak to being able to hold a job. If you're sick, you can't hold down a job. If you're hungry, the same applies." Where have I heard this sort of thinking before...? Oh, yeah, now I remember: The Pinochet government used to assign a doctor to be present whenever a political prisoner was being questioned. Not because they were concerned about the welfare of the prisoners, you understand. It's just that too many were dying while being tortured, and the government realized that dead people couldn't supply any information. Not exactly what Hippocrates had in mind, but you do what you have to.

I don't speak casually when I refer to the article as an attack on the poor. I am thinking of phrases like the following: "welfare's sour smell of failure," "welfare mothers hobbling toward self-reliance," "those who are simply too ashamed to admit they still need help after finding low-wage work," and "the culture of dependency in poor neighborhoods." Huh? She's talking about a country where minimum-wage levels are so low that full-time workers need federal assistance in order to put food on the table. Wages and benefits are so low in the private sector that workers remain eligible for Medicaid, the government's safety net for the poor. If anybody is ashamed here, it should be the corporadoes and their pals in government. As far as the workers go, a much more appropriate emotion would be anger, I'd say. Outrage, anyone? Here's a multiple choice question to test your ability to think independently: Which of the following is the best evidence of the existence of a "culture of dependency?"

1. Numerous people applying for public assistance after being forced to take jobs that pay too little to support their families
2. A nation full of corporations which cannot survive in the marketplace without wage subsidies paid for by taxpayers
3. Large numbers of people who need a weatherman to tell them which way the wind is blowing Couldn't the copy editors have thought up a better headline for this article? Here's my idea: "Public wage subsidies required to sustain corporate profits."

Two drug war songs for you to sing with friends

They Fenced Me In

(sung to the tune of "Don't Fence Me In")

They gave me time, lots of time, for the smoking that I did
They fenced me in
Although it's only my own harmless business that I mind
They fenced me in
If it had been alcohol, I'd be talkin' to ya
But when it's marijuana, then they sock it to ya
I hope my hard-luck story can begin to move ya, so you
Won't fence me in

[bridge]

Now here's the truth: some are legal, there are others that will get you put in jail
With drug abuse, we need treatment, 'cause the prohibition policy has failed
There are crimes that are bad, such as rape and murder
Now listen to my argument, I'll take you further
If I smoke marijuana, don't see how it hurts ya
So, don't fence me in

Downtown

(sung to the tune of "Downtown")

When you're alone, just getting quietly stoned
That's when you might get hauled
Downtown!
The cops in a hurry, crossing lines that are blurry
Want to take us all
Downtown!
In torrents, with their warrants,
They will come and break your door down
You may have rights, but not tonight
Your legal rights were worn down
What do you plead?
The victims are hard to find
But don't you try to talk sense
You know that justice is blind.
Just go Downtown! (Down to the city hall)
Downtown! (Who cares if your crime was small?)
Downtown! (Although there's no victim at all)