"$ for Nothing, and your chips for free"...

In response to blog post 'A Living Wage' by Christina Waid, I found it a great post  by Christina!  I'm glad she chose to use an example such as the CEO from Walmart, especially because that is one of the most popular stores that Americans shop at.  Although many people ban Walmart for its corporate overtaking, it has changed a lot in the past 2 years in an effort to keep up with green initiatives and more sustainable efforts toward product retail, and production costs.  So another way to win the respect of people who ban such Corporate America outlets of retail, would be able to help make a substantial change in the allocation of employee hourly wages.  The benefit would probably draw in additional shoppers because people like to see altruistic efforts, and the company would gain so much more respect in the long run. She proposed an excellent idea just to increase each person's wage an additional amount, which adds up in the end.  Committed employees efforts shouldn't be negotiated or tossed by the way side.  Though people have "banned" Walmart,realistically it isn't the most affordable choice since our last recession, since you can pay up to 1/4 the cost of some items that you'd pay at competitor stores.  Is spending more money to consciously make a difference at a retail store worth more to you then being financially happier?  Wouldn't people feel better about donating their saved money elsewhere and still have extra money at the end of the month to order pizza or go to a movie.  People can survive like a minimalist by shopping at Walmart, the employees should be rewarded because it's such a stressful environment, the CEO should have to budget his pocket book differently.  There are many great companies that have other incentives that help offset the cost of living or times when employees increases are in a pay freeze.  For instance, Valero Fuel Company spreads the wealth by every time an Executive Memeber gets an increase, every one in the company gets one too.  In the hospitality industry employees get free hotel nights and discounts on travel, in the Airplane Industry workers get extremely cheap or free air flights.  Benefits also make a huge difference, so there could possibly be a clause added to Corporate Companies in America, and passed by our Federal Government, that suggest a certain percentage of wages should be allocated in discounts to staff.  Since a lot of Non-Profits do this already because their salaries and hourly wages are already fairly low, they should be mandated as well, for those who don't present any extra incentives.  Social Services, Behavioral Health and Medical & Disabled Care workers for needing recipients  don't get paid enough for what they do and their wages should be increased to at least $2.00 above minimum wage.  With the inflated numbers of people receiving assistance from the government, it makes it difficult for those who work 40 hours a week on hourly wages to get ahead.  Again this would be another opportunity for the government to add additional regulations on behalf of the Wage Committee, that stipulate assistance for minimum wage workers, including resources to use for housing, financing, planning, education, and health; currently all the areas most effected by poverty.  In addition to thirsty workers helping those in need of greed instead of those in need, I find similarly irritating is beggars at stoplights who have given up completely on earning a living, and would merely rather beg their wages away.  Are they too receiving assistance, and taking advantage of other citizens who work and try to get by on an earnest living? Some of them gross at least $30,000 year, more then poverty stricken working Americans!  I'm all for helping people in need, but I tend to think beggars are just the same as Corporate Hound dogs disguised in dirty attire; greedy as charged.  Pay people a little bit more, and maybe they'll be less of them on the street.  They are out of control.  People can help people rise out of poverty, but only those who are poverty stricken, putting forth some effort to help themselves first, will survive.  Those are the Americans that the Government and Politicians needs to step up, and help represent.

Toxic Toys in the US

Parents have to do a lot of baby proofing before having a child, but did you ever think that parents would have to make sure that their son or daughter's toys weren't toxic?  Since 2007 the US Government has been recalling toys that were proven to have traces in lead in them, and the numbers rank as high as 17 million!  This past June 12 million promotional drinking glasses that were sold at fast food restaurants nationwide were recalled by the government.  The paint on theses glasses contained the toxic metal cadmium.  In search of a US Government issue relating to the environment I stumbled across many interesting Science Daily articles.  I retrieved information from  the 'Toxic Toy Crisis' Requires Fresh Solutions, Experts Say' article and looked closer at the article Science Daily was referring to.  Environmental Science and Technology website featured an article by Monica Becker, Sally Edwards, and Rachel I. Massey titled, Toxic Chemicals in Toys and Children’s Products: Limitations of Current Responses and Recommendations for Government and Industry.  All three writers have worked closely in similar fields that pertain to a kid's environment which  increases the validity of the article at hand.

A helpful website that has additionally done it's research in tracking toys, where parents can also look for helpful information on hazerdous materials is HealthyStuff.org.  They published an article that helps parents research products and ratings.  Some of the products tracked include cadmium, chlorine, lead, arsenic, bromine, mercury and tin.   Additional "data reflects over 20,000 individual samples of different product components. The testing methodology includes an X-ray technology that identifies elements on or near the surface of a product, called an XRF analyzer", the XRF analyzer is what tracks the levels of elements found in toys.  You can also post their HealthyStuff.org Search Widget to your blog or website.

Healthy Child Healthy World, is a national, nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting the health and well being of children from harmful environmental exposures.  A brief fact regarding the phthalates found in toys as stated by HCHW notes that they are used as "a plastic softener in polyvinyl chloride (also known as PVC or vinyl). Some PVC toys may be labeled with a V or #3 inside the chasing arrows triangle usually located on the bottom of a product. Most won't be labeled at all. Generally, if a toy is a squishy plastic—like rubber duckies and baby dolls—or if it has highly flexible plastic as a component—like the clear pages in child "photo albums," the clear plastic purses that some girl's toys are sold in, or the plastic-like "fabric" used on some dolls—you should avoid it or call the manufacturer to ask if the product is made with PVC or phthalates."

Since a large portion of toys manufactured have been outsourced to China it makes it difficult to test these products before they are shipped to the U.S.  Companies can request samples of goods before a giant shipment is placed to test for hazardous products used.  Apparently now more then ever, this is necessary.    "Although government, industry, and advocacy groups have taken significant actions to solve the problem, including restricting the use of certain substances, that response remains inadequate, the scientists say," quoted from the Toxic Toy Crisis article from November 12, 2010.  Perhaps the government and local companies will decide that it's better to craft toys in the states, because it's safer for families, and reduce the production with companies overseas even more.

Other suggestions that have been recommended include the toy industry collaborating a list of toxic substances that provide toxicity levels of all toys made.  The Consumer Product Safety Commission does have a list of guidelines for toys containing lead.  Other organizations have created lists already that are beneficial to manufacturers, and parents.  The government should use toxic chemical lists that have been already composed by companies to properly measure, track, and inspect each mafacturers products.  This will help prevent production and enforce the government to enforce stricter regulations.

The World Trade Organization should become more interactive with this issue since America imports most of their toys from other countries.  Especially since trade representatives for WTO report to the President and Congress, and part of their responsibilities already include monitoring compliance and handling trade disputes between 150 member nations.  A team of negotiators work with the WTO and individual traders practice their rights through the Office of the United States Trade Representative.  Therefor negotiations, meetings, and regulations could be addressed and assessed at this level to insure that the Toy Industry is following Safety Compliance Regulations.  Some other departments, agencies, organizations, committees, and subcommittees may need to be involved on this issue including the Environmental Protection Agency, who could impose fines for not abiding by environmental regulations, Department of Health and Human Services, because it does raise health concerns on our nations families, and Senate Standing Committee on Health.  Many are already involved and have been for quite some time. 

For more information, see: HealthyToys.org and U.S. Public Interest Research Group: Trouble in Toyland: The 22nd Annual Survey of Toy Safety.  MomsRising.org has developed a text messaging system that uses the HealthyToys.org database.

1.) American Chemical Society. "'Toxic Toy Crisis' Requires Fresh Solutions, Experts Say." ScienceDaily, 12 November 2010. Web. 17 November 2010. <http://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/11/101110123941.htm>.

2.) Baker, Ralph and Losco, Joseph.  "World Trade Organization."  AM GOV.  2010 ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010. 396.

3.) http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/412/toxins-in-toys.html

4.) http://healthychild.org/main/

5.) http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es1009407

Response to student article "Food Stamps Getting the Boot"

After reading Briana Zak's well written article, "Food Stamps Getting the Boot", regarding government spending cuts to food stamp allocations, http://govsmalltalk.blogspot.com/, my forethought was, absolutely cut funding in this program, for several reasons.  I am a firm believer that while the welfare system assists families with food and resources they need to raise a family, it additionally stunts growth, adds to our deficit, affects tax paying citizens, and impedes the need for people to get a job.  I have seen different states handle the welfare system, so I know it doesn't entirely rely on the national government to be fool proof however, I definitely think that control over the system has been lacking, which could be the reason for upcoming bills to cut spending in this area.  If there was a system in place that would monitor and authorize what each person uses their food stamps on, it could more sufficiently track copious amounts of wasted money.  People who have not abused the system should be rewarded for following the program as it was designed to, but unfortunately some of those who use the system, abuse the system, and make it more difficult for others to reap good benefits.  The government should be able to assess an individuals need, given their age, history of spending, case worker notes, etc. and more money should be given to those who show exceptionally higher needs or inability to care for themselves at all.  They should immediately try to implement some source of spending habit tracking system, that would allow them to view trends in each person's spending, so that when they were evaluated at a later date, they could be compared to their spending history which would help negate the amount of funds that should or should not be reduced.  Each person should be evaluated to assure the accurate amount of allocations reduced or increased.  By stating funds could increase it would reduce the amount of upheaval that will happen when people find out about the government cuts in their welfare spending.

I have seen people have more children to receive more aid, without ever attempting to get a job.  I have also seen people spend most of their welfare checks on alcohol and cigarettes.  I have heard stories from past employers, of people who were caretakers of the elderly, children and disabled, spend their food stamps on themselves instead of using the food stamps to help the people they were issued to.  Sometimes there is no rhyme or reason to the amount one person gets to the next.  I have referred to several flaws in the system that I have seen first hand.  Some of these practices hopefully no longer exist, and it's quite possible the government has become more aware of the funding that it allocates and where it is spent over the past few years, which may have lead to such budgetary cuts in spending.  

Medicaid is important and I believe that some of the food stamp funding could be appropriately be spent in this area.  Many physicians do not receive any money for services they provide to many people without insurance, which is one of the reasons for the current change in the health care reform, and Medicaid provides at least some relief for populations that need it, which is a growing number every day as our nation ages. More people seem to be stereotyped as disabled and incapable of providing payment for medical services now then ever before.  I don't necessarily agree that some of the allocations should be going to teacher funding, although I do believe teachers are important.  The 'No Child Left Behind Act' has proven to be an extremely expensive government program that has needed funding since 2001.  With a poor economy, and more teachers then ever before, it makes sense that the government is looking at every possible angle where they can increase revenue for such programs.  If they want to take money from people who don't have jobs, have kids, and no education, and give it to people who need medical assistance, and better benefits for educating our future America, in attempt to prevent us from being in the current situation we are in now, is it really wrong, or communicated inappropriately?  I believe the government and the tax paying citizens of America, have spent enough money on welfare, I'd much rather help provide care for people who need it, and reward teachers for ensuring a better education system then give people money for their unnecessary spending habits.  There are numerous amounts of community programs, non-profit organizations, and churches that support local and state poverty stricken areas.  Additionally there are farmers who could also benefit from the change within the system and people could be taught how to volunteer at farms in exchange for free produce, or possibly get involved in gleaning programs; that allow you to pay a small price and pick as much produce as you can at the end of the season.  WIC is a fantastic program, that should continue to thrive, and  should become better with the change in government spending.  The option could be given to some people if they wanted to donate money towards food programs annually in their taxes, similarly to what they do for election support, as a type of tax deductible donation.  

Briana Zak states "Eventually the funding will run out and those jobs saved by the bill will be just another casualty of this recession, creating more need for food stamps.  So when the cuts take effect in 2014, the poorest of poor will have to give up food for health care and education, what a life."  I think this is an excellent point to her editorial, and strongly gets the reader to become more cognizant of what our future may become.  I think her interest in this topic will make people become more engaged in the issue and people will put forth more of an effort to speak up regarding such topics that directly effect their pocket books.  

I do believe that the government should designate a new program to those welfare recipients who will receive a cut in food stamps to teach them additional life learning skills including how to get a job, how to save money, meal saving tips, where to find additional resources for necessities, non-profit organizations who lend a hand, etc.  For the programs that are already offered, they need reviewed, rewritten, and re-taught, with the challenges of today in mind.  We can not keep giving people a chance to live off the servitude of others for nothing, it's not ok to just be given free money at the cost of someone else laboring endlessly to have enough to pay their own bills.  It isn't fair to the people who work for minimum wage, although I agree that there are some exceptions to the rule; elderly, disabled, etc.  If the government is taking a stand to move forward with this bill, they need to provide assistance to make up for the difference that $50 more or less a month will make; to some of us that's a tank of gas.  For most of the people who work for a living, we want our money to be useful, and help people help themselves.  The last place we want our money to go is towards frivolous spending or getting taken advantage of, from people who abuse the system.  In any regard, there must be accountability for all programs, so that tax payers feel confident about where their money goes, once it's in the bank, beyond government reform.