WELFARE

                               
                                                              WELFARE                                                                  
    Before you delete this sermon because you already have your own
conclusion concerning the social programs, please consider the question
I ask here and now. This is about patriotism, our constitution, religion and
common sense. We know our nation has a financial problem, and we must
slash spending. American citizens provide the tax dollars. No foreign nations
provide money to operate our governmental programs. Many of these
recipient foreign nations accept our tax dollars and kill or injure our husbands
and fathers through their "wars". Why do we send millions of dollars to the
Arab countries that hate us, and then bring home the caskets bearing our
taxpayer husbands and fathers? Why should we, in biblical conscience,
cut funds to our own citizens--lazy or not--to support foreigners who murder
our men and women? Why should our poor and middle class pay taxes to
enable foreigners to live a better life? Why? Why? Why? I PRAY YOU WILL
ASK YOUR CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS WHY THE AMERICAN
TAXPAYERS SHOULD SUPPORT FOREIGN NATIONS AT THE COST
TO ANY AMERICAN CITIZEN? ARE OUR CHILDREN AND ELDERLY LESS
IMPORTANT THAN FOREIGNERS? WHY SHOULD AMERICANS ARGUE
AND FIGHT OVER SHARING OUR TAX DOLLARS WHILE FOREIGNERS
WHO CONTRIBUTE NOT ONE DOLLAR LAUGHINGLY ENJOY THE
SIGHT OF DEAD AMERICAN SOLDIERS ON FOREIGN SOIL? ALL BILLS
DEALING WITH EXPENDITURES MUST ORIGINATE IN THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES. THE SENATE AND PRESIDENT CANNOT DO
ANYTHING ABOUT EXPENDITURES UNLESS THE HOUSE ORIGINATES
AND PASSES THE BILL AUTHORIZING PAYMENT. IF YOU ARE A PATRIOT,
TO WHAT COUNTRY DO YOU OWE YOUR PATRIOTISM? ARE ALL OUR
CITIZENS AMERICANS, OR ARE WE SERVING MANY OTHER COUNTRIES?
SHOULD AMERICAN TAX DOLLARS GO TO A LAZY AMERICAN, AN ELDERLY
AMERICAN, A DISABLED AMERICAN, OR A FOREIGNER WHO WANTS TO
SEE OUR NATION FAIL? WHAT NATION DOES YOUR REPRESENTATIVE
SERVE, AMERICA OR IRAQ OR PAKISTAN?
   
                                                     just askin.....
    Prolog: Here is a subject nearly everyone has an opinion about, as well as
a plan (?) to cure the problem. Unfortunately, few--and I mean very few--people
understand or know real facts about welfare, social security or food stamps.
    You will probably have trouble believing me when I tell you these programs
began over 2,000 years ago. They did, however, and I direct you to the King
James translation of the Holy Bible, where we will use scripture to tell how it
all began. You may use other translations if you prefer, but my quotes will be
from the most familiar KJ version.

    If you choose not to use the quotes and information taken directly from
scripture, or make excuses for not  accepting God's very Word, I believe we
have a serious problem with your professed Christianity.

                                                   Background

    If you're still with me, some 30 years ago there was a great deal of talk about
the future of the social security program. There were very loud critics of the food
stamp program, and a sizable number of people were so upset by the welfare
program that many qualified citizens were shamed into not applying for assistance.
I did investigative reporting at the time, and was moved to try and learn what the
accurate information was concerning these programs. I am now going to scripture
to tell you about God's plan and direction.  It is His plan, and the exact plan taught
by His Son, Jesus Christ. If you disagree, I respectfully ask you to get out your
bible and examine the quotes and references. I believe the bible above any and
all other sources of information. To be a Christian, I believe you must have that
same commitment.
                                                   Differences

    The first thing we need to understand are the vast differences in these programs.
Social security is money paid out by an employer and employee, sharing the cost.
It is part of the wage or salary agreed upon by the employer and employee. The
government handles the administration of the program. It is not in any way an
entitlement for anybody. It is insurance, the same as a 401k or other similar account
set up to take care of workers' retirement years. If you continue to work after reaching
retirement age, your social security may become taxable. I repeat, this is not free
money, and every cent comes from the agreed wage or salary paid the employee.
It is not entitlement money--it is a premium on an insurance policy. Bankers and
investment brokers are clamoring the fund is fast growing broke. They want it
privatized. They want commissions. It is not going broke, and would never go broke
if Congress repaid the money they took out of the fund to pay other bills and balance
the budget. The social security funds were supposed to be untouchable. Politicians
think "untouchables" refers to the TV program of that name many years ago about
gangsters and crime. They play the part of the gangsters pretty well.

     I'll take us back to the bible now to see how social security began before and
after Christ. God has never changed His plan for social security, but you do have
to not only read the Word of God; you have to understand how He set up the
entire culture for His people. Social security is for people who WORKED. Nobody
gets a social security check unless he/she worked and paid into the fund. If you
are a spouse of a worker, you are considered a contributor to the fund because
you worked as a spouse to assist your husband/wife to be in the work force, as
well as duties in the home, including child care. A good homemaker should be
entitled to recognition for his/her work at home.

    What about God's plan in the Old Testament? And in the New Testament? And
today? If you want to dig right into welfare, you'll have to wait until we look at God's
plan for social security. We start with the book of Genesis, 12:1-5. God was looking
for a man who would listen to Him. Abram was that man. We pray to God and even
speak to Him, but we have difficulty hearing Him. In these verses of Genesis, God
said He would take care of His people. Our next step is to go to Jacob, Genesis 28,
where God made Jacob the father of the tribes of Israel, the system God would use
to create a social security system for all His people.

    From Jacob, we go to Moses (Ex. 2), and then on to Ex.19. Here God knows He
must organize the people to be sure (insure) they care for their own properly. God
hands down the Ten Commandments as a guide for life. Israel now becomes His
people. If you are having difficulty following this thread of social security, you need
to understand the establishment of the Israeli tribes was God's basis for providing
cradle to grave (social security) for his people. It was a system of families, all living
and following God's directions. To be sure, there were some people who didn't
follow God's directions. There were beggars and malcontents. While their quality
of life may have been poor, they still had the protection (security) and necessities
of life (social awareness). Members of a tribe retained tribal membership, and it was
up to the tribe and individual family to be certain every member had a work ethic as
well as the right to dignity and respect as they aged or became ill.

    I know you're mostly or completely bored with this explanation so far, but we'll
skip right to the meat of this subject by going to the Book of Ruth. Here, if you know
how to study, you'll find a direct connection to Jesus Christ, and your salvation, if
you are saved. If you have an education, you must understand that it is necessary
to spend considerable time studying any field of expertise. You don't learn calculus
or physics by some casual reading. Why do you perhaps think you can understand
God's subject of life by reading (not studying) a few verses or chapters of scripture?
The book of Ruth is all about redemption--you know, how we are saved by the shed
blood of Christ. The activity here happens long before Christ comes into the world,
but the manner of redemption is much the same. It tells how the tribal families
provided for the care and well-being of widows and relatives, and even of strangers
who were not tribal members. Think about Christ's parable of the Good Samaritan.

    While you're in the Book of Ruth, note how the poor were supported by the
workers and WEALTHY. This was an agricultural society, and the well-being of
everyone depended on agricultural production. Understand this: the poor were
GIVEN food, but they had to do the work of gleaning it themselves. These were
not the ill, aged or children. In today's world they would be welfare recipients who
couldn't get a job for legitimate reasons. That society didn't suffer welfare cheats.
There was no government agency or cheap politicians who used the system to
secure jobs for themselves or relatives. More about this later, but go back to that
word, WEALTHY. The land owners were REQUIRED to leave a portion of the crop
in the field for gleaners. That was the method of taxation to provide for those who
were poor through no fault of their own. Part of the harvest was designated for the poor.
Nobody would go hungry. The workers harvesting the crops were REQUIRED to
leave part of the harvest for gleaners. They were not permitted to go back to get
some of the crop left for gleaners.

    I have experienced the actual process of gleaning, and I found a very interesting
FACT by that experience. For example, there were two well-to-do landowners who
were harvesting their crops. One was an unsaved carnal man. He utilized the
latest mechanical equipment, but there still remained a scattering of the harvest
on the field. This was left for gleaners, who gathered up the missed crop. The
other landowner was a leader in a religious denomination. After the harvesters
completed the harvest, he sent children and adults into the field to pick up the
missed crop. But, it was not for them. It was taken by the owner, who didn't even
have to pay his own gleaners. That field was so picked clean it looked like the
top of a pool table. There wasn't even anything for wildlife. Unsaved people
saw this disparity and asked me why they should respect or consider becoming
a Christian. My answer was and is, "Look at the example their philosophy gives
you, and consider if they are what they claim to be."

    One more aspect of social security, and this example is almost unanimously
not accepted by many Christians. Here we can look at two examples that are
given us in the New Testament. First, look at Mark 10:21. "Then Jesus, looking
at him, loved him, and said to him, 'One thing you lack. Go your way, sell whatever
you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven, and come,
take up the cross, and follow me.' But he (the rich young ruler) was sad at this
word, and went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions. (Mark 10:22)
This is not to say it is wrong to be wealthy, but if you equate financial wealth
as more valuable than the Word of God, you are not one of His children.

Matt. 6:26 reinforces this FACT, as taught by Jesus Christ. "No one can serve
two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will
be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
    The other example really bothers professing Christians, and I have heard all
kinds of lame excuses to deny the very Word of God as given us in Acts 4:32.
"Now the multitude of those who believed were of one heart and one soul; neither
did anyone say that any of the things he possessed was his own, but they had all
things in common." Pure socialism, according to professing Christians. This is
true, but you have to understand two things about that scripture: God owns
everything and He lets us use it for His purpose, and God directs us to share
His blessings which include our profits and "extra" assets.

    One final example of sharing your wealth: I Cor. 16:1-2. Paul tells the Corinthians,
and already has told the Galatians to have their collections ready for transit to the
Saints in Jerusalem. You may tithe, but if you can easily give more, you should
support others.

    I've probably made you weary about social security and money, but you must
understand not one penny of that money belongs to anybody but the person whose name
is on the check. It is not your tax dollars. To claim social security is an entitlement
makes you a dishonest, greedy and envious person--not the qualifications for
a Christian.
                                             SSI AND WORKMAN'S COMP

    Still nothing on welfare, and you can barely stand the waiting so you can jump on
all the welfare recipients? Here are two programs that can and may reflect all that's
wrong with social programs. We will look at workman's comp first, because it is more
likely to be doing the right thing. As a ministry for over 30 years, we have accompanied
applicants to hearings for the establishment of eligibility and benefits. We know these
people and the people who make the decisions. There are lawyers, businessmen,
physicians, insurance men and bankers involved in this process, not to mention judges.
That's a lot of people with personal agendas, not forgetting the applicant. This is frequently
a hit or miss situation. Sometimes the decision seems to fit the need, but often the
applicant appears to be short changed. An observer unfamiliar with the situation may
jump to the conclusion the applicant got a sweet deal. However, if you don't know the
medical details, you may make a horrible misjudgment. Our general assessment has
been the two outcomes balance the grants. There is some cheating by applicants, but
there is also misinformation from the employer's backers. This is a program that should
not be considered an entitlement because it is not funded solely by taxpayers, and there
is a need.

    Now we come to the SSI program--Supplemental Security Income. If you want to bitch
about an entitlement program that wastes taxpayer dollars, this is the one to use as an
example. Our ministry has become familiar with this program, and has been responsible
for completing forms for some of these people. I can honestly say, knowing these people,
this is the most misused program in social services, far worse than regular welfare. There
are many men who have no real physical problems who could work. I've seen them given
jobs they could easily handle, but they quit if they feel the work is too hard. We're talking
about picking berries, fruit, or potatoes off the ground. Many must have a supervisor on
hand to keep them working. This costs the employer money he can't afford. Truth of the
matter is these people usually have a low IQ, but they are able to work. The SSI money
is generous. Women sometimes refuse to take a job and are pretty good actresses. They
won't work at a job, but sneak in under the table funds through doing other people's wash
and spot jobs like baby sitting. A big percentage of people receiving SSI should be at
work. They are lazy, and the cost of keeping them at work prevents the program from
actually working. Some women keep having illegitimate children so they can collect
more money and remain out of the work force. This program doesn't work, and should
have been cleaned up long ago. Here is your entitlement drag on tax dollars.

     I'm throwing the Food Stamp (or card) in, because it is very misunderstood. First, the
amount given to recipients is small. No one gets enough in food stamps to buy lobsters
or steak. I know this is true because our ministry has purchased food for shut ins using
their food stamps. You are limited on things you may buy, including some cleaning
supplies. If you spread stories about food stamps used for premium meats and exotic
desserts, you are a liar, showing your envy and greed. This is a very important supplement,
especially for families with young children. Some of you envious people actually almost
attacked us when they saw us use shut ins stamps to buy them food. The insults were
terrible and embarrassing.
                                                          WELFARE

    Can you believe it? We're finally here at welfare. This is not the most abused social
program--the SSI is. There is abuse, but the unfairness of benefits is worse than the
abuse. Since our ministry deals with people of many income levels, we have hands on
experience with welfare recipients and the program administrators. We have asked the
pertinent questions on both sides. My "report" here is an attempt to be fair to those who
administer the program as well as those who benefit. Understand this--there is no doubt
about the need, but the program is a terrible mess. I discussed the perimeters of the
program with a number of officials, ranging from the people who enact the laws to the
case workers. My conclusion was easily reached. The entire program needs to be
redone because the officials--our Congress, especially the members of the House of
Representatives--do not have a clue about the people who need assistance.

    I spoke with our local representative--a lawyer by trade until politics called. He assured
me he knew the subject top to bottom. My question was," Why does everybody requesting
assistance--if eligible--receive roughly the same amount although situations may be very
different?" The response was, "We treat everyone the same." In other words, a day laborer
who rents a house or trailer, and is frequently in need of help, gets X dollars. The owner of
a property who has had a regular job and is suddenly temporarily in need for a brief time
gets a similar amount. While moving the latter person from assistance in the matter of a few
weeks or months by giving a larger amount, was not done because everybody gets treated
the same. If you're temporarily broke, you fit the same category as the person who is often
broke. You can't make distinctions because it is too costly, time consuming, and unfair to
treat welfare recipients differently.

    I told him about a friend who had been a case worker for a short time, but quit because
he saw the program wasn't helping short term needs. He had two examples. One was an
elderly woman who with her husband, owned a vineyard. They worked all their life and paid
for the property and did not have outstanding bills. Her husband died, and then the company
who had contracted to buy their grapes was sold and the contract voided. All of a sudden
she had no source of income. She didn't qualify for unemployment, was physically unable to
get a regular job, had a property almost impossible to sell quickly, and couldn't get any bank
to loan her funds. There weren't any relatives or children to help. With great shame, she came
to the welfare office.

    Another woman applying that day was unemployed and hadn't been previously employed.
She had two small children, no husband, but a live-in boyfriend. She owned no property and
had no source of income. Because of her small children, she did not feel she should have to
get a job because they needed her attention. She had attended a job training course, and
passed the requirements, but still couldn't get a job. A third person was applying because he
didn't own property, although he had a pickup, and didn't qualify for unemployment. Did you
know you can't get unemployment unless you have a work history? He was able to earn some
under the table money through part time truck driving, but didn't report the income.

    These were three quite different situations. One had a short time need to enable her to
find a source of income using her property and facilities. One needed to make life changing
decisions that didn't include the possibility of more unfathered children, and the third one
needed a dose of honesty and work enthusiasm. There will probably be welfare fraud in
the latter case, sooner rather than later.

    Speaking of welfare fraud, I see these criminal cases reported in the paper frequently. The
interesting comparison is the amount by these people and the amounts reported in the cases
against white collar and businessmen. Welfare recipients usually are charged with accepting
several hundred dollars up to a few cases of $1,000 to $5,000. They misrepresented their
finances. The white collar or businessman usually has outright cheated. Why castigate the
poorer person while giving the other cheat a plea bargain or slap on the wrist? He didn't work
for the money--he actually stole and tried to cover it up. Are we condoning what more than a
fourth of business executives admit--it may be necessary to cheat to insure success and a
profit. Is it only bad if you're a little guy?

     I talked with a lawyer who handled the county's legal matters for the welfare program. She
readily agreed the program didn't work, and added the very rules were wrong and put in place
by people who knew nothing--that's ZERO--of the situation of lower income people. As she
said, the local administrators just follow the rules. Have you ever seen a poor congressman?
Have you ever seen one of his children cry because they were hungry? Do you think your
congressman has an enthusiastic work ethic? Has he ever earned a living by sweat of the
brow? Does he suffer for lack of the world's best health care or insurance? Does he have to
worry that his 401K will tank? Or is he the beneficiary of the best retirement plan in the
world?

    People tell me they have read every word of scripture. They tell me they have read every
word in the thousands of pages of the health care act. In either case, they are either lying
or don't have any reading comprehension. They know all about the lower class of Americans
stealing our tax dollars, but have nothing to say about a smiling Iraqi who just shot an American
soldier. Let's cut food stamps to our poor (or even the not poor) so we can send our wheat and
corn to a foreign country--free of charge and shipping, of course. If this sermon didn't make you
do some serious thinking, I know the future of America. You won't want to talk about it.

Rev. Walbear