Outrage! Feds Cut EBT Benefits by $44.00 a month

Does the Washington Post ever factor in any degree of personal responsibility in any of its stories or philosophically is everyone just automatically a victim? 

While difficult economic times, failing health and a product of multigenerational welfare are mitigating factors, the subject of Mr. Saslow's extensive piece, Raphael Richmond, chose not to pursue higher education or a professional career, chose to lay down with no less than five deadbeat baby daddies and produce six children.  She appears to have enough discretionary funds to beautify herself and support a cigarette habit at seven dollars a pack in DC.  Per Mr. Saslow's extensive profile, Ms. Richmond is provided with a housing voucher to a four bedroom domicile (at $139.00 per month); she has access to what I assume to be a free cell phone; she receives free medical care at a southeast Washington health clinic and periodic ER visits which I assume she does not pay for; and food stamps for herself, her adult daughter and soon to be adult son.  Ms. Richmond even has access to a free computer and scanner but somehow a subway ride and four bus transfers equal an insurmountable journey.  And the Post devotes three pages worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in column space to detail this woman's supposed plight and the underlying reason for this article is the fact that her EBT benefits have been reduced by a grand total of $44.00 dollars a month.  I put it to Mr. Saslow, hasn't the American taxpayer done enough for this woman given her life choices and how else does a society reduce a 17 trillion dollar debt unless cuts are made somewhere?

Re:  'December 7th & December 8th' (Eli Saslow, Front Page, Washington Post)

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

Seriously? 'Push to give Pell grants to prisoners' (Nick Anderson, Education section, Washington Post)

Charles Manson is a cult leader and convicted mass murder--so like many felons he doesn't exactly have a history of playing well with others--but if he ever earned a Ph.D. in prison he should be hired (assuming he ever gets out of prison) over someone with a clean record?  And when Mr. Manson fills out that inevitable job application with that pesky standard question about whether or not he has ever been convicted of a felony, how likely is it that any rational employer is going to disregard a violent criminal history just because he holds an advanced degree?  In other words, 34.6 million in Pell grants for prisoners may be less than 1% of the program's annual budget, but in point of fact, it is a colossal waste of money because those resources could and rightfully should be used to educate the non-violent and law-abiding.  Add to that expense the annual average taxpayer cost in 40 states of $31,286 per inmate (per the Vera Institute of Justice in a 2010 study released in 2012) and many inmates who also get free health care have a standard of living that is better than many rank and file Americans.  The fact that the Post would bring attention to this highly controversial issue--a political lightning rod so extreme that even Democrats won't touch it--is, in effect, subtle advocacy of a truly radical ideal.  The Post should be less concerned about the flagging self-esteem of criminals and more concerned with the interests of John Q. Taxpayer for it is he who buys the subscriptions and pays the bills.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

'To get rid of "Redskins," let's pay off Dan Snyder' (Justin Moyer, Op-ed, Washington Post)

Just because Mr. Moyer has a price why does he assume that everyone else does?  Be logical: the last thing a billionaire needs is more money.  And because Mr. Snyder doesn't share Mr. Moyer's perspective--when Mr. Snyder's view is the only one that really matters as he is the private owner of the franchise so his word literally is the law--Mr. Moyer advocates a payoff (a.k.a. a bribe).  And does Mr. Moyer reach into his own deep pockets to follow through on his own advice?  No, of course not, Mr. Moyer expects to use someone else's resources to achieve his politically correct objective.  Indeed, Mr. Moyer must be an Obama Kool-Aid drinker.  Or maybe he was drinking something stronger when he wrote his fantasy piece.  Mr. Moyer certainly has a talent for discounting or ignoring the facts: per his own Washington Post poll two-thirds of Washingtonians advocate no name change, but that's not good enough for Mr. Moyer because some hypothetical group of people with a drop of Native American blood in their veins might be offended by a name that has been in use for 80 years.  But as Mr. Moyer has already disregarded private property rights I suspect it was very easy for him to neglect to mention this historical fact in his column.  The fact is people vote with their feet and their wallets and if the hypothetically negative connotations of the name mattered consumers would have rejected the team long ago.  Further, the fallacious idea that a name change would actually increase merchandise sales is laughable on its face: with a losing record (another one of those pesky facts Mr. Moyer consistently ignores) I assure him that no one is running out to buy a celebratory t-shirt regardless of the name.  Mr. Moyer's column would have been more honest--and grounded in a semblance of reality--if he advocated Snyder paying off the supposedly 'injured party' assuming he could actually find them.  That is, I suspect, what they are really looking for.  The fact that Mr. Moyer cannot impose his Utopian ideals on others must cause him, and his boot-licking masters at the Post, a great deal of discomfort.  In my view, his suffering is my just desserts.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/