Unemployment Benefits Extention? | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Currently in the United States Congress: Should unemployment benefits be legislated to icentivise the workforce?

    It is a Conundrum: Do we continue to subsidize those that are work free, or do we endeavor to help them rejoin the workforce by providing them the ultimate incentive - on some level, one works to exist? The work to exist concept is not some novel approach to 'living a purposeful life'; it is actually the way humans survived for millennia. Understandably, there were far fewer overweight people in those days, all work was honorable, and everyone capable worked; few excuses not to.

    I well remember this broad concept of work that was not only an honorable facility of personal self-respect, but a necessity to exist. And then there was the Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Those who were less than successful in climbing that ladder to success, would now have the option to never have to work again.

    Sadly for these pitiable non contributors, there was an added intended incentive factor, by this ill-conceived legislation by President Johnson's fellow Democrats in the congressional majority, beginning in 1965. That incentive was, and is to have more babies out of wedlock to receive far greater benefits. The purpose for this legislation for Democrats was two fold, as admitted publicly and privately by their most serious advocates: 1) to assuage Liberal guilt for their perceived income inequality that is a direct by product of capitalism; 2) to mine the minority vote for fellow liberal politicians to get, and stay in elected office for generations to come.

    These are the two primary purposes for the Democrats' Great Society, and to state otherwise would be unmitigatedly dishonest.

    Understandably, liberal Democrats tenuously guard this new voting base since 1965, and, alternately, challenge liberal Republicans to be more understanding of these people in their 'political care'. The purpose for involving the liberal Republican is two fold: 1) to legitimize their unconscionable political behavior; 2) to drive a wedge between these squishy moderates and the constitutional Republicans, or better known as Real Republicans.

    To better impact their point, Democrats drive these singular legislative challenges of whether to grant extended benefits to millions of noncontributing Americans, and this in the wake of the current Democrat controlled senate not passing a United States government budget in nearly four years, here in the Christmas season. The Yuletide Season better illustrates their one overarching argument against all logical thought contrary to their Great Society concept of governing: 'Conservative Republicans are mean-spirited, and furthermore, racists'.

    Accordingly, the moderate and very squishy Republicans that vote with these 'caring Democrats', traitors all to the ideals of their respective primary challenges, fall inline with their Democrat friends and remain, somehow, less "mean-spirited", possibly even less "racist" from their Real Republican counterparts. From many sectors of the liberal media, these Republican squishies will now get a momentary pass from liberal journalists; however, not so much here in BCN, and in other sectors of the less far-flung new media - the far more honest media.

    Countless studies prove that a great proclivity of Americans will not work, except the 'under the table' variety (cash payments) while receiving benefits, if they can enjoy the good will of publicly provided benefits for near infinity. So why continue to extend these disincentivizing benefits?

    Recently, Senator Rand Paul, R - Kentucky, highlighted my own long standing opinion, as he heads into the voting process to extend the unemployment benefit conundrum: "We do a terrible disservice to these unemployed Americans by ever extending these benefits past the 26 week period in which it was originally intended. Studies show that employers will be far more likely to hire an individual who has received benefits for 4 weeks rather than the 99 weeks."

    Agreed. In other words, employers such as myself, would rather hire the worker who possess the wherewithal to find work, and keep work, rather than an employee who does not. Speaking only for myself, I prefer to hire the American member of the work force, irrespective of their political beliefs, who prefers to lower their shoulders to pull the wagon rather than to move with all haste to ride.

    This concept of principled employment observances, irrespective of the Democrats' failed 'Great Society' experiment of governing, which well continues today, is gaining in popularity because it just works better in many precepts over an extended period of time. The is how the work force market works.

    The great majority of all logical minded people understand this well documented precept. For everyone else, who considers great an extension of thought to the contrary, I have just two words ...

    BAH HUMBUG!