"WRITTEN BY A 21 YEAR OLD FEMALE.
PUT ME IN CHARGE . . .
Put me in charge of food stamps. I'd get rid of Lone Star cards; no cash for Ding Dongs or Ho Ho's, just money for 50-pound bags of rice and beans, blocks of cheese and all the powdered milk you can haul away. If you want steak and frozen pizza, then get a job.
Put me in charge of Medicaid. The first thing I'd do is to get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations. Then, we'll test recipients for drugs, alcohol, and nicotine. If you want to reproduce or use drugs, alcohol, or smoke, then get a job.
Put me in charge of government housing. Ever live in a military barracks? You will maintain our property in a clean and good state of repair. Your home will be subject to inspections anytime and possessions will be inventoried. If you want a plasma TV or Xbox 360, then get a job and your own place.
In addition, you will either present a check stub from a job each week or you will report to a 'government' job. It may be cleaning the roadways of trash, painting and repairing public housing, whatever we find for you. We will sell your 22 inch rims and low profile tires and your blasting stereo and speakers and put that money toward the 'common good.'
Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary. If you want our money, accept our rules. Before you say that this would be 'demeaning' and ruin their 'self esteem,' consider that it wasn't that long ago that taking someone else's money for doing absolutely nothing was demeaning and lowered self esteem.
If we are expected to pay for other people's mistakes we should at least attempt to make them learn from their bad choices. The current system rewards them for continuing to make bad choices.
AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job.
Now, if you have the guts - PASS IT ON...I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GET THIS BACK, IF EVERYONE SENDS IT, I WILL GET OVER 220 BACK!!! I WOULD KNOW YOU SENT IT ON!!!"
As I've come to learn, 9 out of 10 times one of these stories ends with the words "pass it on," it's at least partially false. That was yet again the case here. The letter was actually written by 56-year old Alfred W. Evans of Gatesville, Texas. Yes, besides a difference in gender and 35 years, the e-mail was right on the money!
With regard to the actual letter, I just have to shake my head, because Mr. Evans is obviously not very educated about such matters.
What's his solution for people with food stamps? "Get a job!"
Approximately 47% of food stamp recipients are children, with another 8% being elderly. Of the remaining 45%, 41% have jobs - or 91% of those whom aren't children or elderly. Would Mr. Evans like to look a starving child in the eyes and tell him or her to, "get a job"? Unless he's without a heart, I highly doubt it.
He then goes after Medicaid and women, saying, "The first thing I'd do is get women Norplant birth control implants or tubal ligations." Why he decided to solely go after women is beyond me. If he wants to go that route, how about forcing men to have condoms glued to their dingalings or a box permanently covering them like the one sported by Justin Timberlake and Andy Samberg in their Saturday Night Live skit "Dick in a Box"? Yes, common sense folk should have known after reading this bit that there was less probability this letter was written by a woman than of winning the lottery without purchasing a ticket.
Mr. Evans' next bright idea is drug-testing welfare recipients, because as stereotypes would tell us, they use drugs far more than non-welfare recipients, right? Actually, a recent study showed otherwise. While the Justice Department estimated that approximately 6% of Americans age 12 and older use illegal drugs, just 2.5% of Welfare recipients do.
Also, recent studies have shown that drug-testing welfare recipients costs taxpayers more money than it saves. The state of Florida implemented this law and how much did their taxpayers save over the course of a year? They lost $45,780.
What's Mr. Evans' solution for people on Medicaid whom want to have sex, drink, do drugs, or smoke? "Get a job!" Of course, as far as sex goes, this rule only applies to women for some strange reason. Unemployed men can have as much sex as they'd like! Evans appears to be in favor of Brokeback-Mountain orgies nationwide! Also, every person I know that's on Medicaid is working. I find the bit about illegal drugs to be kind of strange as well. Whether a person is working or unemployed, illegal drugs are still illegal...
A little further down, I had to laugh. Evans wrote, "Before you write that I've violated someone's rights, realize that all of the above is voluntary."
Voluntary? Women having to get their tubes tied if they're on Medicaid is voluntary? People being subjected to mandatory drug-testing is voluntary? I'm thinking Mr. Evans may want to look up the definition of the word "voluntary" in the dictionary, because he seems to be slightly puzzled on the matter.
Evans then closed with this gem:
"AND While you are on Gov't subsistence, you no longer can VOTE! Yes, that is correct. For you to vote would be a conflict of interest. You will voluntarily remove yourself from voting while you are receiving a Gov't welfare check. If you want to vote, then get a job."
So people whom receive "government subsistence" of any kind shouldn't vote, eh? Why? Because they'll likely vote for the candidate who supports such a thing? Can politicians not take donations from corporations then? Since they'll then make decisions while in office based on those donations? Now, let's think about this for a minute. Mr. Evans wasn't very specific when he said "government subsistence." So I'll respond in a general manner as well. The elderly have Social Security and Medicare, so they couldn't vote. Students receive loans, so they couldn't vote. Parents of children whom go to public schools couldn't vote. The poor are on Medicaid and get food stamps, so they couldn't vote. People whom are protected by police couldn't vote. Citizens whom drive on roads couldn't vote. It looks like if Mr. Evans had his way, there would be no such thing as elections.
Mr. Evans, whether one may want to admit it or not, every single United States citizen is at least partially dependent on the government. Just because one person may be more dependent on it than another doesn't mean he or she shouldn't be afforded the right to vote. If one is a citizen of this country, he or she should be allowed to partake in what we like to call something resembling a democracy. Stereotype against poor women and minorities all you'd like, but 91% of those on food stamps whom aren't children or elderly do have jobs. Mr. Evans, if you don't like the voting process as is, might I suggest you move to Saudi Arabia, where women still aren't allowed to vote. That seems to be more like your cup of tea. You better hurry, though, for they'll be allowed to vote starting in 2015. At that point, I'd probably recommend you move to Mars (definitely not Venus).