Let The Punishment Fit The Crime

OffHisMeds is of the opinion that, in fining Detroit Lion Ndamukong Suh $30,000 for kicking Matt Schaub in the groin, the NFL did little to fix the problem of dirty hits in football games. 

"Donkey Kong" Suh is of course the prototypical dirty player, racking up more cheap shots over the course of a game than do most teams.  And like his namesake in the video game, given the opportunity, he would drop barrels on the heads of his opponents, if only he could figure out a way to get them onto the field. 

The NFL equivocated on the issue of subjecting Suh to yet another suspension, claiming they could not adequately determine his intent in lashing backwards with his leg straight into Schaubs nuts.  Hey NFL, try this: Look at the replay, particularly the sequence just prior to the strike as he is in midair.  Notice that his eyes are locked onto Schaub's package like a Wild Weasel lighting up an Iraqi anti-aircraft battery.  Note that he starts the kick still with eyes on the target.  Note the bullseye.

Any questions?

Blinders on, the NFL brass has clearly not thought through the consequences of their inaction.  It's hard not to conclude that if Suh can constantly get away with a puny fine for his attempts to injure his opponents, the rest of the league is going to follow his example.  There's clear evidence this is already happening.

For the past couple months, and several times every week, quarterbacks and receivers get knocked out of games by helmet to helmet hits that draw a simple penalty and little else.  Offensive linemen have perfected the "low blow" to a defender's knees, such as the one that New York Jets guard Matt Slauson put on Brian Cushing. His punishment for ending Cushing's season? A piddling $10K fine. Teams have done the math, and they have reached the same conclusion that New Orleans' headhunters did with their "bounty" scheme: the price for knocking impact players out of the game is worth paying. Unlike New Orleans, though, nobody else has been so stupid as to post rewards for injuring opponents. No doubt, the NFL considers this progress.

 

Simply put, there are no teeth in the penalties, and eventually, the result is going to be an on-field injury resulting in paralysis, major brain damage or a potentially career-ending injury like Cushing's. And perhaps even someone's death. With all the scrutiny the NFL is under due to the hundreds of former players either crippled or rendered senseless over decades of such abuse, you'd think they would be doing more to prevent it. The simple truth, though, is that they are not. Maybe the NFL is confused as to how to fix the problem. Maybe they're worried that acknowledging the problem exists exposes them to more liability.   Maybe some of the rules makers are themselves former players who've taken too many hits to the skull, thus clouding their ability to reason.  That last reason is not easily discounted, considering that - at this point - the NFL has roughly the same chance of avoiding a multi-billion dollar class action lawsuit as Wylie Coyote does of a happy outcome any time he takes a delivery from Acme Products.

How can they not see the disaster they are courting?  How can they not comprehend that if they continue with their present course, not only will it cost them billions, but ruin the game in the process?  The average career span for an NFL player is three years.  Including not just the players but their extended families, that's a whole lot of existing and future litigants, once the trial attorneys pop their cherry. 

And the mortal pity of this fine mess is that there are simple rules that - if implemented - would solve the problem and increase fan interest:

 

1) A 25 yard penalty for "egregious" personal fouls.

 

2) A penalty box. All personal fouls result in the player being ejected anywhere from five minutes to one quarter. This can be reviewable and assessed any time during the game so as to not slow down play.

 

3) Probation for repeat offenders, with escalating fines and suspensions. This probation could be carried over to the next season.

 

4) Suspensions that fit the crime: a minimum 6 game suspension when you knock an opposing player out for the season with a dirty hit, up to an entire season. It seems only right that dirty hits ought to have at least the penalties that are imposed for substance abuse.

 

5) No pay during any and all suspensions, whether they are for a quarter, a game, or multiple games. Plus, the team would sacrifice TRIPLE that amount either to charity, or to a fund supporting disabled NFL players.

 

OffHisMeds doesn't expect the NFL to embrace any of the above, because - let's face it - they're pretty much all complicit, including the players with their "guy's code". It's instructive that a day after Matt Schaub ripped Suh for kicking him in the groin, he changed his tune and said "I didn't even feel it, and I'm moving on". Matt may not value his health, but his fans do. Just consider how much our enjoyment of football was affected when Albert Haynsworth stomped his ankle in 2011, knocking him out for most of last season and killing any chance for long-suffering Houston football fans to watch their team make a Superbowl run.

 

Bottom line, workplace behavior in the NFL should be no different than any place else, with proper allowances made for the inherently violent nature of the game.  If you want to get the problem under control, start hitting players and owners in the pocketbook.

And make an example of Donkey Kong Suh.

George F. Will Digs Too Deep For A Metaphor

OffHisMeds read a hysterical opinion piece titled "Hostess brought down by sweet labor deals", that featured - to my great amusement - George F. Will going completely off his rocker. While his piece is ostensibly a commentary on berserk unions destroying yet another corporation - and along with it thousands of union jobs - his disgust resides not with Hostess or the unions, but with the Baby Boomer generation that he alleges reveres Twinkies.

Will departs from his main topic early, in the second paragraph accusing Baby Boomers of "acute narcissism".  He concludes that we (Boomers) must see troubling portents in Hostess's demise, putting the following words in a little thought balloon over our heads: "if an 82-year-old brand can die, so can we. Is that even legal?". But wait, he's not done. In paragraph three Will portrays Boomers as people "wooed by advertising", who "plight their troths to brands in marriages that often are more durable than boomers’ actual marriages".  

From that point, though, it gets weird.  

In paragraph six, he suggests that the Boomer obsession with Twinkies almost made Hostess a candidate for a GM-style bailout because the demise of Hostess was "big in what matters most — in boomers’ minds". He then immediately contradicts himself by describing Boomers as "a generation of food scolds.....who considered Twinkies and other sugary things sinful".
 

I'm on the ropes now, equally distracted not only by my narcissism but a heretofore unrealized fidelity to snack cakes that is simultaneously bigger than marriage yet still leaves me pathologically conflicted and ashamed. I'm also awash in tears of laughter. I gamely struggle to the end of Wills' piece, but none of it makes an impression. I read and re-read the first half of his article, and I laugh and then I laugh again. 

 

After I calm myself, I reflect on Wills' particular pathology when it comes to the regularity with which he disses his fellow Americans, and most typically implicitly conservative groups such as Boomers.  I conclude that he feels forced to do it mostly to lend an apparent credibility to his words that would appease the editors and peers with whom he associates, almost all of whom are Liberal.  Beyond that, the only conceivable reason is some internal clock of his that mandates that - out of fairness - 20% of his energies must be devoted to trashing Republicans and Conservatives.  This time it was the Boomers turn, no doubt because he had too recently trashed The Tea Party, Suburbanites or Libertarians. 

 

Either that, or he is in fact the Snuff-pinching elitist we've always suspected him of being, and life would have no meaning without the opportunity to visit upon the shoulders of the Great Unwashed the ignominy they so richly deserve.

 

As a Boomer, I appreciate the opportunity to laugh at other people, no doubt one of my many Boomer faults.  I am thankful to George F. Will for writing this piece and giving me the opportunity to do so, guilt-free.

Like Rats On A Sinking Ship

The opinion piece "Finding compromise between Republicans and evangelicals" (Sunday Outlook) was striking, not just for the blatantly political character of the message, but it's conclusions regarding the direction of the Republican Party, whose interests Pastor Robert Jeffress claims to have at heart. Jefress opines that in order for the Republican Party to remain politically relevant and for Evangelicals to advance their moral agenda, they should embrace Democrat policies on issue like ObamaCare and higher taxes. On this, two observations:
 

1) Republicans - and, I believe most Evangelicals - believe that there is an explicit moral component in opposing ObamaCare and higher taxes, specifically, that it is wrong to pursue such selfish policies because they saddle future generations with a crippling debt, destroying not just their prospects for a good life, but perhaps their very existence.

2) With his give-and-take approach, Jefress pursues an explicitly political agenda, something that is - or ought to be - anathema to Christians of all stripes. Jesus said "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's"; He didn't say "compromise with Caesar on taxes so you can have your way on gay marriage".

It's strange to think that any conservative Christian should so embrace the philosophy of Secularists, given that these same folks have spent decades reviling Evangelicals not just for their beliefs, but for any effort on their part to organize themselves politically. It's hard not to conclude that Jefress - by embracing ObamaCare and higher taxes - desires not only to be politically relevant, but to sell out some core Christian beliefs in the process.

All in all, a bizarre epistle from a man of God.

Union Suicide In The Age Of Obama

So, Twinkies drivers made $120,000 per year AFTER they accepted an 8% pay cut. That's not including benefits, by the way.   Just so we're clear, that's Twinkie drivers: as in, the guys who delivers Twinkies.  Check it all out right here:

http://www.investingchannel.com/article/120224/Hostess-Mediation-Fails-Liquidation-To-Proceed-Furious-Laid-Off-Workers-Now-Turn-On-Labor-Union

OffHisMeds will spare you his opinion of this union member or his brethren, other than to say that they live in some alternate universe incomprehensible to decent folk. 

He will, however, observe that, if this is the so-called "concession" that the Teamsters made so as to keep Hostess viable, it is no wonder that this country is going to hell in a handbasket.  I generally take no pleasure in the prospect of 18,500 people losing their jobs, but when those 18,500 are extremely overpaid people who purposely work to destroy their own livelihoods on the off chance they can extort even more moolah from their employers, I say, good riddance.

One can only assume that the AFL-CIO thought the Obama Administration was going to impose itself in some way, and it looked like that might happen when the judge overseeing the bankruptcy proceedings ordered Hostess back to the table before pursuing their Chapter 11 dissolution.  It's instructive that less than 48 hours later he caved, and granted Hostess their right to self-destruct, a reassuring sign that there is some limit even to President Obama's powers to transfer OPM (Other People's Money) to his union chums.

Sorry, Baker's Union.  There will be no taxpayer-funded "Government Motors" style bailout for you.  Obama didn't want to go down in history as the Twinkie president.   

The Selling Of Texas

Read an article today titled "Lake deal taps new funding for water" in the Houston Chronicle.  This story is yet another indication of the lengths politicians will go to sell public assets for private gain. In this instance, the East Texas River Authority wants to sell 47% of the water rights of Lake Columbia to a private equity firm for about half of the funding necessary to convert it into a reservoir, approximately $160 million.  The equity firm would then be free to sell their 47% of the water rights. 

 This is an increasingly tiresome theme in the past generation. Whether it's Rick Perry pushing the Trans Texas Corridor and selling the toll rights for 50 years to a Spanish conglomerate, or Sempra Energy out of California wanting 3.2 million gallons of water a day from Lake Conroe to run a natural gas fired power plant, our state's assets are increasingly forfeit to an increasingly corrupt political culture.

 

Beyond the numerous instances of politicians lining their pockets, the number one cause for this trend is berserk public spending that has bankrupted government at all levels. Simply put, the private sector has been invited in because there is no more money that can be confiscated through taxes and there is no further credit to exploit. Private funding and the fire-sale pricing on our natural resources are simply other means for the Usual Suspects to remain politically viable today while saddling future generations with more and more debt, the irony of course being that - even as we go downhill - there's still money to be made.

 

Meanwhile, OffHisMeds is once again left to wonder why it is that more people aren't in jail, or at least rejected by Polite Society.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A tiresome theme

The story "Lake deal taps new funding for water" (Page A1, Friday) is yet another indication of the lengths politicians will go to sell public assets for private gain. In this instance, the East Texas River Authority wants to sell 47 percent of the water rights of Lake Columbia to a private equity firm for about half of the funding necessary to convert it into a reservoir, approximately $160 million.

This has become an increasingly tiresome theme. Whether it's Texas Gov. Rick Perry pushing the Trans-Texas Corridor and selling the toll rights for 50 years to a Spanish conglomerate, or Sempra Energy out of California wanting 3.2 million gallons of water a day from Lake Conroe to run a power plant, our state's assets are increasingly hostage to a corrupt political culture.

The No. 1 cause for this trend is berserk public spending that threatens to bankrupt government at all levels. Simply put, the private sector has been invited in because there is no more money that can be confiscated through taxes and there is no further credit to exploit.

Private funding and the fire-sale pricing on our natural resources are simply other means for the usual suspects to remain politically viable today while saddling future generations with more and more debt, the irony of course being that, even as we go downhill, there's still money to be made.

Pete Smith, Cypress

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/letters/article/Letters-A-tiresome-theme-4071511.php

Government Motors

The subject of government intervention in private markets - solely to the benefit of Democrat constituencies - has been much on OffHisMeds' mind since Obama's re-election, particularly with the fresh round of reports about the failure of GM and Chrysler in the wake of the first bailout of the auto industry. In the annals of government run amok, the bailout of GM and Chrysler in 2010 stands out, mostly because of the appallingly unfair way in which he went about it. Rather than let the normal bankruptcy process run its course, Obama mandated that the assets of the corporations be given substantially to the United Auto Worker pension funds. This was unprecedented in the history of bankruptcy proceedings, largely because Obama - by executive fiat - ignored the clear intent of bankruptcy law that mandated that creditors were to be compensated in a particular order.
 

Obama didn't just step on fairness, he trampled it. And what he did was not just innovative, it was illegal. Had he not stuck his nose into the process, creditors would have been remunerated in this order: debtors, bondholders, preferred stock holders and lastly, common stock holders. Unions would have received nothing, just as the thousands of other bankrupt private sector unions that preceded them would have received nothing. The reason this was "fair" was because everybody understood before they invested in GM or Chrysler that this was the pecking order. The risk was known.
 

Obama's actions resulted in every one of these investor groups getting screwed, with common stock holders getting completely screwed. This last point did not resonate with the Media, who failed to report that millions of common folks - most of them former GM employees - had invested heavily in GM Common through their IRAs and 401Ks. For all intents and purposes, Obama took the billions that stockholders had invested, and outright gave it to the UAW. What's ironic about that is that the UAW - along with the federal government - was the primary reason that those corporations failed in the first place, with an hourly labor rate (pay and benefits) equalling $70 per hour, or $145,000 per year. Layer that with the byzantine work rules that allowed thousands of UAW employees to collect full pay while not working, and you've got a prescription for failure.
 

And fail they did.
 

Even after the bankruptcy, UAW pay and bennies is still $56 per hour. By comparison, the average hourly rate for pay and bennies in the rest of the private sector is just $29 per hour. This not only explains why taxpayers losses will eventually exceed $25 billion on the original bailout, but guarantees endless additional bailouts in the future. The endless taxpayer bailout is of course the price "Government Motors" will have to pay in order to get investors to purchase their common stock. See, the new class of investors are not moms and pops pointing some percentage of their modest IRA at auto stocks, the new class of investors are the Chinese, who are notoriously fickle when it comes to somebody screwing with their money.
 

The transfer of wealth from equity holders to a bunch of greedy union members was substantial, and Byzantine. For example, the UAW pension fund ended up with 46% ownership of Chrysler; the balance was a giveaway to Fiat. At GM, the government retains 30% ownership and the UAW pension fund only 18%, but the potential is there for that percentage to be ramped up, assuming this new arrangement fails to cover the UAW's sumptuous benefits plans.
 

Finally and damningly, the stocks are in the toilet and to all appearances will remain there. GM's per share price is 40% below the IPO, as clear an indication as to what the market thinks of Government Motors' prospects, despite the explicit government guarantee of their investment. GM's imminent bankruptcy is widely predicted in the coming year.
 

My Democrat friends upon reading this will not be affected. Their mouths will be agape in some combination of annoyance and incomprehension, but they will steadfastly avoid the truth of the matter. At least until NBC, CBS or ABC tells them to think otherwise.
 

Here's something for them to contemplate: if over the course of the last 50 years the UAW had pursued reasonable labor agreements - unabetted by an interventionist government - and if they had provided good labor value for a reasonable rate of pay, there would now be at least 5 million auto related jobs in America instead of 2 million. And they ought to consider just for second the ten million retirees who had invested in auto company stock that lost some $500 Billion due to the knavery of the Democrats and the UAW.
 

Chances are they actually know some of those folks.

The Hockey Strike

To my NHL-loving family members and friends Up North: Sorry to say, no hockey for you this season. So as an alternative, may I recommend soccer? Like hockey, it is played with two goals. The similarities pretty much end there. Soccer will take a little getting used to, since it is played for long periods of time without a single shot on net, much less a score. This is mostly because of the size of the field, or "pitch", as they call it. A soccer pitch is roughly the size of two WalMart Supercenters laid end-to-end. Since it takes the players literally minutes to run from one end of the field to the other, the announcers create the illusion of excitement by speaking very rapidly in a loud voice.

When there is an actual score, the announcer will scream the word "goal", and stretch it out for anywhere from one to three minutes, depending on how long he can keep his breath. The fans and players all celebrate for several minutes, often breaking out into little dances and other strange rituals. Frequently players and fans will also roll on the ground in apparent convulsions, as if possessed. All of this time comes off the play clock. Otherwise, soccer games would never end.

During the numerous lulls in the action, fans eat, drink and socialize. Many of them have small grills and actually cook meals in the stands, and it is not uncommon for them to bring their dinner - mostly chickens and small pigs - "on the hoof", and slaughter them right there at their seats. This is called "Barbacoa".

Soccer bonus: while there aren't many fights on the field, there are literally dozens of them in the stands. And, players who inadvertantly score on their own team - called an "Own Goal" - are murdered. Riots before, during and after the games are common, and add to the excitement.

So, there you have it. Soccer is not hockey. Soccer is not perfect. But Soccer is everywhere, and the season never ends. Enjoy.

Whichever Way The Wind Blows

It's the Thursday after the Tuesday of the 2012 elections, and along with the rest of the Media my local paper is awash in stories diagnosing the terrible state of the Republican Party.  Now,  that's a curious conclusion given that Repubs continued to dominate the House of Representatives and picked up more governorships as well.  This article was typical though: "Advocates for immigration reform say party needs to step up, deliver" (Thursday Front Page).  In their usual irritating style, my local paper - The Chronicle - changed the article's title once it got embedded on their website, so on their behalf, I apologize for the confusion.

 

The article's author used the occasion of President Obama's re-election to once again - along with all the Usual Suspects - admonish Republicans to cave in to Democrat policies or be doomed to irrelevance.   And this is by no means limited to immigration: there are seven other articles or opinion pieces in the Thursday edition of the Chron that conclude that voters also rejected the Republican position on women's issues, gay marriage, health care and the economy - all on the basis of Obama's sub 2% victory, fueled largely by his domination of the Hispanic vote.
 

Let's focus on immigration. If you look at this issue strictly based on politics, it makes perfect sense for Democrats to promote Illegal Immigration through America's hyper-generous social welfare programs. Once Immigrants cross the border, their numbers count in our census and exert a proportionate influence on our Electoral College and the allocation of Congressional districts. That is why California - to name but one example - is the electoral colossus for Democrats that it is, and will be for generations.
 

Open to question is whether this is good for anybody. The bulk of our Immigrants come from Mexico, as many as the next eight countries combined. But why is it that these folks feel the need to flee their own country? Mexico is as blessed as America with arable land, natural resources and weather, but they have never developed the civil society that America has.  Their country is in thrall to narco-terrorist cartels whose poisons flow over our borders by the ton every day, with much of that carried by Illegal Immigrants.
 

Isn't it curious that America has devoted so little in resources to helping Mexico solve our collective problems? You'd think that if we can justify spending a trillion dollars over a dozen years to transform Iraq and Afghanistan, that we could scrape together a fraction of that to transform our next door neighbor. And surely it is better for Mexicans to live in Mexico, regardless of the consequences for American politics? Instead of inviting them to live in America, we ought be fighting to make their country one worth living in.
 

Looked at from that perspective, the chairs could fairly be turned on Democrats.  If they are in fact the party of compassion, why so little concern for the 110 million Mexicans left in Mexico?  Do they propose that all of them should be allowed to come to America, or only enough to preserve their political fortunes?

These are the questions I would like my local newspaper to ask.  I'm not holding my breath waiting for it to happen though.

Stock Markets & Elections

Re: "Fretful Wall Street extends sell-off" (Friday Business Page D4), for the umpteenth time in the past two days I've read that the precipitous drop in the stock market in the days after President Obama's re-election was caused by investors who "turned their focus back to Europe’s problems and the so-called fiscal cliff". 

 

I've got a couple of problems with this conclusion, not the least of which is the glib assertion that investors decided to stop paying attention to matters that affect their money simply because there was an election going on. Secondly, the explanations offered are facile in the extreme. Is there a shred of evidence that Europe's travails and the fiscal cliff are the reasons the market tanked by 434 points in the past two days?

Investors didn't just discover that Europe teeters on the brink, or that America faces the one-two punch of tax increases and spending cuts come Jan. 1st. Markets don't turn on anecdotes, and markets never take a millisecond off from moving money efficiently, which means this information had no additional relevance the day after the elections than it did the day before. Clearly what investors were reacting to was the one indisputable fact at their disposal: President Obama won re-election, and they didn't like it.

Pete Smith
Cypress

The Right Side Of Immigration

Re: "Advocates for immigration reform say party needs to step up, deliver" (Thursday Front Page), on the occasion of President Obama's re-election, Republicans are once again admonished by the Usual Suspects to cave in to Democrat policies or be doomed to irrelevance.  And not just on immigration: there are seven other articles or opinion pieces in this issue of the Chron that conclude that voters rejected the Republican position on immigration, women's issues, gay marriage, health care and the economy - all on the basis of Obama's 2% victory.

 

Let's focus on immigration.  If you look at this issue strictly based on politics, it makes perfect sense for Democrats to promote Illegal Immigration through America's hyper-generous social welfare programs.  Once Immigrants cross the border, their numbers count in our census and exert a proportionate influence on our Electoral College and the allocation of Congressional districts.  That is why California - to name but one example - is the electoral colossus for Democrats that it is, and will be for generations.

 

Open to question is whether this is good for anybody.  The bulk of our Immigrants come from Mexico, as many as the next eight countries combined.  But why is it that these folks feel the need to flee their own country?  Mexico is as blessed as America with arable land, natural resources and weather, but they are also in thrall to narco-terrorist cartels, and their poisons flow over our borders by the ton every day, much of it carried by Illegal Immigrants. 

 

Isn't it curious that America has devoted so little in resources to helping Mexico solve our collective problems?  You'd think that if we can justify spending a trillion dollars over a dozen years to transform Iraq and Afghanistan, that we could scrape together a fraction of that to transform our next door neighbor.  And surely it is better for Mexicans to live in Mexico, regardless of the consequences for American politics?  Instead of inviting them to live in America, we ought be fighting to make their country one worth living in.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress

Pot Calls Kettle Black, Then Doubles Down

Re: "Democrats more likely to support compromise" (Friday Opinion), EJ Dionne takes his usual tack, which is to criticize all things Republican.  This go-round he's making the case that Democrat politicians are more bi-partisan than Republicans, stating that "while polls find that six in 10 Democrats regard themselves as moderate or conservative, nearly three-quarters of Republicans say they are conservative."

 

What is delicious about his conclusions is that Dionne cannot help but filter reality through those special and very partisan glasses he wears.  Here are a few examples:

 

1) Dionne ties himself in knots to avoid using the dreaded "L" word - liberal - to describe any portion of the Democrat electorate.  This is not an isolated phenomenon.  It is well documented that many liberal Democrats flee from the term, and prefer to call themselves moderate, or progressive.

 

2) To jigger the statistics where he needs them to be, Dionne then lumps "moderate" and conservative Democrats into a 60% majority, bestowing a centrist tinge to the Party that is unsupported by the facts these past four very controversial years. 

 

3) Dionne repeatedly throws in references to the Tea Party so as to - in his mind at least - marginalize Republicans, but makes no reference to Occupy Wallstreet's connections to the Democratic Party.  These are not coincidences, since it is key to his argument that only those who can be portrayed as moderate are capable of compromise. 

 

Finally, he cites an April 2011 Pew survey that "found that 69 percent of Democrats supported the idea of their own side making compromises" compared to only 50% of Republicans.  But given the meltdown of our economy due to berserk spending mostly authored by the Democratic Party, reasonable people might conclude that a Democrat's propensity to compromise might not be because they are inherently more reasonable people, but because they had come to the realization that their party has been on the wrong track for quite some time.  It would also explain the 2010 Republican sweep of Congress and the rise of the Tea Party.

 

The phenomenon is called "Reagan Democrats".  Dionne should look it up.

Advertising For Welfare Recipients

Re: "Food stamp aid OK’d with 2 dissents" (Thursday Page B1), it's distressing that Pols like Mayor Parker and Councilman Ed Gonzalez actually believe that any and every expansion of welfare spending is not only virtuous, but that it actually promotes economic growth.  Clearly, there has to come a point when even they would agree that some level of welfare dependency is bad for the soul and kills the economy. 

 

But I might be giving them too much credit.  I say this because - despite the berserk expansion of food stamp and other welfare benefits in the past three years - they still intend to go after another $142 million per year that the Food Research and Action Center says is due to Houston residents, assuming they can sign up all the people that the study shows theoretically qualify for benefits.  They don't even pay lip service to the notion that poor folks might benefit more from a job so as to lift themselves up.  There's "money on the table", as Gonzalez put it, and Houston needs to pick it up.

 

Kudos to Councilpersons Pennington and Brown for being voices of reason on this matter, and shame on Parker and the rest not only for the latest tiresomely predictable money grab, but their failure to even think about the consequences.

 

Pete Smith

Cypress