DISMISS THE "CLASSES," BRING ON REFORM

After this, I promise to get off of this political kick for a while, but right now, I just have to say that sometimes, I think if I hear the term "middle class" one more time, I'm going to have a psychotic break.  I recognize that there are social distinctions based upon income that, to some extent, are unavoidable and even necessary, but it's gotten to the point at which being "middle class" is, in a political context, akin to being some kind of saint. If you're too poor, then you're lazy.  If you're too rich, then you're greedy.  Worse, if you're already in the middle class nowadays, you can expect roadblock after roadblock upon trying to get out of it. I understand that there are some that just are not suited to the types of jobs and/or lifestyles that
are going to make them very rich, and that's fine. As both a Christian and a person whose disabilities make earning a lot of money very difficult, to say the least, I believe in being content with what you have... so long as what you have is earned or, at the very least, not squandered.  The problem today is that beyond a certain point, there seems to be an unspoken stigma attached to the attainment of wealth and success. I feel this has become especially true since we're starting to believe that if you're not already rich, the economy, both as-is and as it's predicted to be for quite some time, makes getting rich impossible short of doing things that are downright unethical. 

Here is a personal example of how the system essentially discourages transition from the lower to the upper income classes.  At 33, I've been disabled my entire life and have technically held only 3 jobs, all of them part time and, because of that, none of them paying much per hour.  Fortunately, I have Social Security income and good Medicare and Medicaid coverage, primarily because of my parents' work history, but this has nothing to do with why I don't currently have a traditional job.  Social Security and Medicare both have transitions-to-work programs that help people get off of these entitlement programs and get back to work if they want to, and at least on the surface, we're encouraged to do just that.  However, my particular disability means that not only do I lack the stamina to sustain full-time employment - which I would need for an income I could live on - but require frequent follow-ups and treatments with physicians that constitutes potential time away from work.  This is why I had to give up my last job in 2005, but in the meantime, having any kind of work at all actually proved to be a FINANCIAL BURDEN!  Why? Because programs like Medicare, in particular, seem to be so overextended that the moment any recipient starts earning private income, it becomes harder to justify the same level of coverage.  Besides not paying much to begin with, part time work almost never offers health care coverage, so what little money I was making to supplement my Social Security income was, at the time, going almost entirely towards my medical expenses.  Those expenses suddenly went from about $20 for a doctor's visit and a maximum of $5 for a generic prescription to about $140 for a doctor's visit and up to $30-$50 or more for a single prescription, even the generic kind. It simply was not a sustainable situation, but believe it or not, it gets even worse. NOW, not only am I allegedly entitled to better, more comprehensive health care coverage under Medicare than either of my parents - who worked good jobs and paid taxes for the better part of 40 years before recently retiring - but my food stamp money has recently been REDUCED by ONE DOLLAR because even without a job - living on Social Security money I didn't pay-in to begin with - MY INCOME IS TOO HIGH TO PLACE ME IN THE POVERTY BRACKET.  Normally, I'd be ashamed to even admit this stuff - and strictly speaking, it's probably still  not the best of ideas - but I feel it necessary to illustrate just how screwed up things really are in the arena of government programs and entitlements.  Clearly, I can't afford to begrudge their existence, but something has to give. 

I often wonder if people think I'm crazy or just retarded for being a Republican that is dependent upon government as much as I am, regardless of whether or not I can help it.  I don't begrudge anyone their perspectives and, to be honest, I'm not really inclined to argue given the evidence they have at their disposal.  For at least the first 2 years of Obama's presidency, I don't think Social Security amounts went up once - and that may be due to a stagnation in the cost of living - but I was actually encouraged by that! I'm in an interesting position, as a disabled person, in that what I was born with could have killed me; but since I got treatment and since it didn't kill me, there's really nothing that is threatening my life right now or in the near future that isn't related to my own choices (i.e., nutrition, etc.). As little money as I get to begin with relative to what it costs most people to live year in and year out, I'd rather have to tighten my
financial belt even more NOW than risk having little or nothing later. I remain as I am, politically, because my future depends upon it and because I know that doing "right" for people is more than just doing things to benefit them in the short-term.  As cliched as it sounds, "right" is teaching a man to fish - if he's able -
instead of constantly giving the fish to him every time he's hungry.  It's because so long as he knows he can get the fish just by asking, he's going to stay perpetually hungry.  It's just human nature, and it's exactly what has happened in America, with our environment and natural resources AND with the over-expansion of these social and entitlement programs.  There's little appreciable difference. The more these programs have been leveraged by politicians to get votes instead of being managed properly for those that genuinely need them, the more people feel entitled to get what they have to offer, to get more of it at younger ages and with less given back.  Romney may have been way off when it comes to why 46% to 47% of Americans don't pay income taxes, but there is still enough represented within that number to suggest the need for stringent reform. In college, I encountered people whose major criteria for choosing a career seemed to be the age at which they could retire with the most money and benefits - and to them, the sooner, the better.  Those are fine considerations, to be sure, but aspirations of personal achievement and contribution to society often came a distant second, or even third. Even then, I thought that was terribly sad, and it's even sadder to me now because, on the surface, I don't seem to have much of a choice in the matter. 

In conclusion, is this "stringent reform" going to be fun or easy?  No, I seriously doubt it.  Are some people going to get hurt that probably don't deserve it?  Well, unfortunately... yeah, I think so. IT COULD EVEN HURT ME! Yet I fear that even more people are going to get hurt worse later on if we don't get this kind of reform. As for a way in which this reform should begin, I think a good start would be weaning people off of the habit of thinking of themselves and others in terms of "lower," "middle" and "upper class" people.  Relative to some other places in the world, America is still literally the land of opportunity, and NOBODY should be stuck in "class" or either discouraged or punished for taking full advantage of that opportunity. They say that necessity is the father of invention and innovation.  Perhaps we need to make more independent and responsible living NECESSARY again.  In my opinion, it's better that fewer people need these entitlement programs than that more money can be taken to fund them.