People to People
 

There seems to be an invisible caste system in this country based not on birth or family status but on bank accounts. It doesn't matter if you have any money in your account, as long as it appears that you do. If you ignore the poor, you won't be placed in their caste. Keeping someone beneath you socially, assures that you're not the one on the bottom. How very shallow!

We hear a lot from Conservative Republicans condemning Liberal Democrats for favoring government "handout" programs. What is a government "handout" program? Is there such a thing? Who funds government "handout" programs? Aren't they all funded by taxes from working people's paychecks? If that's true, then there are no such things as government "handout" programs. They are all people funded programs. They are people helping other people programs. Why do the Conservatives find that such a bad thing? Most of the objectors are Christian Fundamentalists. Do they not know that it is part of their religion to help those who need it? Did Christ not say that whatever we did for the least of His brethren, we did for Him?

The eighties were said to be the age of the "Me" generation when our selfishness was at a peak. It was "everything for me and everyone else can get their own." We appear to be starting this new century the same way. It is a very narrow view instead of taking in the full vista of society at large. People funded programs seek to give someone a hand up, not a hand out. It would seem that the Conservatives would rather kick someone when they're down. When society as a whole has all their basic needs met, food, clothing, shelter, it raises the whole of society. It gives everyone the opportunity to fulfill their potential. A successful nation can be judged by the way they treat their poor. Some people treat poverty as some kind of contagious disease. I've heard people say, "It's their choice." Given a choice, who would choose to be poor? How much poverty could be eliminated if everyone was given an equal opportunity? How much more progress would we make as a society if more people had the opportunity to use their talents and reach their potential?

Would we rather have our people funded programs going to help other American people or would we rather fund corporate programs like the Overseas Private Investment Corporation that provides loans and subsidies to large multinational for-profit companies like Coke and Pepsi, Dupont, Motorola and Levi-Strauss to open their businesses overseas?

Or perhaps the MAP, Market Access Program is the one to fund, This gives cash to companies with overseas businesses like Mc Donald's, Seagrams, Sunkist, and M&Ms to advertise overseas. Recently, these funds have even gone to foreign businesses. These multimillion, multinational companies can certainly pay for their own advertising.

These two programs are being funded with our tax dollars and actually encourages and rewards companies for investing in opening businesses overseas. Without these programs, perhaps some of the people funded programs wouldn't be necessary because those jobs would be here.

Until those people, who object to helping our less fortunate or temporarily less fortunate fellow Americans can develop a social conscience, perhaps we can just let my taxes fund the people helping people programs and they can let their taxes pay to advertise McDonald's in Russia.

2-2-04