Troubling: Bigotry vs need

It is ludicrous for this administration to spin the views of governance by fielding a bigoted question on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) that would include people from without. It came out swinging, red flagging that it would enable participation of people from the Freely Associated States and foreigners who have been here for five years and legally situated.

At best, it is an incendiary statement, unnecessarily raising the issue to the level of a racist class war. Perhaps it’s time for this brigade to revisit the First Principles of the U.S. Constitution, its essence and lasting contribution toward fostering harmony and progress amongst all in “I Pluribus Unum.”

Let’s put this issue into perspective with finality: 1. SNAP is a federal program with its own sets of federal law, rules, and regulations. 2. It isn’t subject to substantive change by the states or territories. 3. We’d be slammed from the outset if perchance we turn the program heedlessly into a racist program. Shall we buckle down and do what’s legally right? After all, it’s federal law!

And with an administration whose performance rating is way below mediocrity on economic recovery, at least Uncle Sam is there to cushion where this administration has failed its people grandly.

***

[B]On Public 17-51:[/B] It must be a bad law that at best was incidental to an already imperiled Fund. The Fund has long been careening to bankruptcy. Of course, I’d be the first to protest that law especially when I can milk the system of millions of dollars. Naturally, seeking legal insulation is the way to protect my income as money managers and investment consultants. Now, take a closer scrutiny at what’s happening at “Occupy Wall Street” in NY, DC, and across the nation.

Interesting, though, how the heads of the board and Fund have finally showed their true colors. Their interest is to protect the money making scheme of external managers and consultants from lawsuits by providing legal insulation. You see, gentlemen, you ignored the rights of retirees (people who justified your existence) to sue in order to secure what is due them when the greedy bunch fails to fulfill their fiduciary duties. The law is not only “incidental” but equally inconsequential! Now, how is it that MPLT did an exemplary job on its investments portfolios while the Fund, through your less than sterling performance as leaders, went Deep South?

***
[B] Public Law 3-99:[/B] The newly elected chairman of the retirees’ association, Mr. Lorenzo Cabrera, has begun researching where the Fund started its long journey into bankruptcy. He found that under Public 3-99 the administration is given the privilege to remit to the Fund its financial needs. Did this law absolve the administration from the timely remittance of its share of employer contributions?

I am in agreement with the chairman that the administration isn’t absolved in its obligation to remit the employer’s contribution and must therefore defer to the principal law that established the Fund. PL 3-99 also permitted double dipping and other woefully generous, though destructive, provisions that drained the Fund of its money. I am sure the chairman would find many more irresponsible laws that led to the demise of the Fund today.
[B] Political pundits scanning landscape[/B]

There are whispers in various quarters of political reorganization by old and new kingmakers, the former convinced that they still have the charisma to move mountains. Comically surprising, this is coming even from those who have literally lost their marbles to arrogance, clueless of the perception of governance on their failed leadership. Admirable though their belief that they still have it. But let’s probe deeper if only to get a preliminary glimpse of the fence posts that have long been slammed to the ground in recent past.

The foremost question is: Can the Covenant Party retain control of the lower chamber or for that matter, the Republican minority? It’s a highly questionable situational issue where the incumbent would be slammed the brunt of raw dissatisfaction from governance for their royal failure to improve their lots. In short, a lot of people are suffering from abject poverty that led to home foreclosures, and there’s no wider target than the ruling majority. But there’s the other half of a highly fragile equation where the governor has done his bid singing, “Daddy’s Home.”

Does the GOP leadership wish to dance the waltz to this tune? Would it give it their tacit approval or would a more deliberative approach be taken as to include singing a completely unpleasant tune? It’s a highly volatile situation. How incumbent Republicans fare is contingent upon how it treats the proposed merger for the impending midterm election. That the merger may or may not occur is an ugly sight in itself, loaded with powerful stench from each side.

Political infighting in the Covenant and GOP camps would derail and deny both sides the opportunity to carefully size up what’s ahead. Neither side can claim “united we stand” but both sides can intone “divided we fall.” Most followers would steer clear joining either side and not when subtle collusion between milquetoast politicians is too obvious. Not ready to repeat history!

****
[I] Delrosario is a regular contributor to the [/I]Saipan Tribune’[I]s Opinion Section[/I]