Who Wronged This Wright?

I didn't think it was possible.

Granted, I'm just an amateur student of architecture myself, but I'm still dismayed when somebody says they've never heard of Frank Lloyd Wright.

Fallingwater, the Kaufmann country house at Mill Run, PA

Wright was one of America's greatest architects, and popularizer of the prairie style of housing design that has become ubiquitous across North America's suburbs.  About 500 of his commissions actually got built during both sides of the turn of the 20th Century, but he designed twice that many projects, some of which are just as famous as what got built.

His most renowned commission was Fallingwater at Mill Run, Pennsylvania.  To this day, his exquisite multi-level stone and concrete country house for the Kaufmann family, perched over a real waterfall amongst elegant trees and grand slabs of rocks, is considered one of the best - if not the best - piece of American design in our country's history.

Unfortunately, his talent was only outmatched by his ego, yet considering both of those, and aside from some stunning projects in suburban Los Angeles, the bulk of his work was built in relatively uncelebrated places.  Places like Oak Park, Illinois, one of Chicago's first suburbs.  Wisconsin.  And Arizona.

The House Scholars Forgot and the Family Sold

Ahh, yes, Arizona!  After spending years on the frigid prairie around Spring Green, Wisconsin, Wright relocated his design studio, which he called Taliesin, to the much warmer climes of Scottsdale, in Arizona's desert.  In suburban Phoenix.  Which became his base of operations from the 1930's until his death in 1959.

Despite - or more likely, because of - his famous career, Wright had a miserable family life.  He cheated on his wives countless times, seemed to father children left and right, and made little effort to hide any of it.  Yet one of those poor children, David, received a special gift from his father:  a custom-designed house near Camelback Mountain, surrounded by an orange grove.  David and his wife, Gladys, lived there for decades, with her surviving him and eventually passing away in 2008, at the age of 104.  Their heirs, three granddaughters, sold the house - a unique spiral of concrete and steel - for $2.8 million.

Turns out, the property is no longer surrounded by orange groves, but sprawling mansions and luxury condominiums, all relishing their rarefied air in the shadows of Phoenix's rustic Camelback centerpiece.  The Frank Lloyd Wright original may have been sold for three million based on the pedigree of its designer, but somehow, the house ended up being flipped - for much less money - to a couple of carpetbagging developers from Idaho.

Two guys who'd never heard of Frank Lloyd Wright.  And had no idea a place like Phoenix, Arizona was home to such an architectural treasure.

They bought the place with plans to tear it down, subdivide the lot, and construct two brand-new miniature estates in its place.  Apparently without any research into the history of the property.

Not that a cursory inquiry into the home's provenance would have yielded anything significant.  According to the New York Times, which has been faithfully following this developing story for the world's architecture community, not much is known about this house, even though it was built in 1952.  David and Gladys did not want the elder Wright's notoriety to infect their family's home life, so they never welcomed the type of academic study that has chronicled other Wright designs.  Basically, it had fallen off the radar of many Wright scholars.

But not completely off of everybody's radar!  When word got out that a vintage Wright project had slipped into the hands of indifferent developers, suddenly preservationists were coming out of the woodwork to save the place.

Past Perfect Preservation

The David and Gladys Wright Home in Phoenix, AZ

It's a clever gem of a house, with a circular ramp from the ground up to a second level, under which is tucked a carport.  It's been described as shaped like a desert rattlesnake coiled to strike, but in actuality, its form is far less menacing.  Gracious and warm, with a delightful garden in its center, David and Gladys' home features many of the personal touches Frank Lloyd himself was famous for designing, such as chairs, windows, and other fixtures and furnishings specifically original to this home, and still in remarkably good condition.

For better or worse, however, those Idaho developers only saw money to be made.  A funky old house with a floorplan too odd for conventional buyers, and lots of prime real estate begging to welcome yet more McMansions.  And that red glazed plaque by the front door?  Frank Lloyd Wright's iconic "logo," as it were?  So what?

Blame the developers for only having dollar signs in their eyes if you like, or blame the public school system in Meridian from which they graduated (they were friends from high school), but isn't it also curious that it took some out-of-state developers to light a fire under Arizona's preservationists?  According to the landmark preservation document slapped together in the city's recent efforts to stave off its demolition, the property is described as "the most significant work within the city of Phoenix by the most significant architect in American history."

If that's true, and it probably is, why did it take its imminent demise, four years after the death of its last original owner, before scholars, designers, preservationists, and critics rallied around its cause?

According to the Times, Arizona law is strong on property rights and weak on historic preservation.  Perhaps that reality plays some role in why Arizona's Wright aficionados are having to scramble with a demolition moratorium that will only last three years anyway.  But who dropped the ball when the elderly Mrs. David Wright finally passed?  In 2008?  When plenty of Arizona scholars should have been aware that a prized Wright design could be in peril?

Maybe the family should be blamed, since it doesn't seem as though they cared much about the home's heritage.  If the granddaughters simply needed the money, couldn't a trust have been formed to purchase the property from them and preserve it?  Many heirs sell the family homestead for a variety of reasons, but this wasn't just any old family homestead.  To a certain degree, as the historic preservation landmark request states, this house is a remarkable amenity for Phoenix, which as a relatively new city, boasts precious little historic architecture.

Money Hounds Save White Elephants

Granted, money doesn't flow amongst Phoenix society like it does in Chicago and New York, where historic preservation is a way of life, and plenty of deep-pocketed donors with ready access to cash gladly fund a variety of preservation efforts.  And architects, in general, aren't the most wealthy of professionals.  That $2.8 million is chump change to a New York hedge fund manager, but for an Arizona designer, it's likely several years' salary.

Perhaps this is typical of what happens in "fly-over country," where other deserving architectural gems fail to attract the attention of angel investors willing to fund a piece of American history for posterity's sake.  It's unlikely any other buildings of this home's stature have simply been bulldozed for lack of interest, but should these developers from Idaho be left holding the bag when they try to do it on a previously forgotten Wright house?  If this property wins historic preservation designation for even three years, that's three years that the developers won't be able to recoup any of their investment.  Even if they got a good price for it back when nobody else was watching, and even though they had no clue about its provenance.

To their credit, now that the Idaho developers have been educated on the home's value, they admit tearing it down doesn't make the most sense.

"Does the house deserve landmark status? Yes. This place needs to be preserved,” one of them conceded to the Times. “But when three Wright granddaughters sell it for $2.8 million, for me to carry the cross for Frank Lloyd Wright, that’s not fair.”

And that's true, isn't it?  Why should two developers from Idaho, even though they'd never heard of Frank Lloyd Wright until all this mess blew up in their faces, be stuck with the cost of something the Wright family and Phoenix preservationists either couldn't - or didn't want to - assume themselves?

Frankly, altruism can only go so far.  Sometimes lessons are most strongly learned from loss.  If Wright's family and his present-day admirers can't scrape together the money necessary to purchase this home and preserve it, and since the property was acquired fairly and squarely, why not let the ball bounce where it may?

Even if it's a wrecking ball?
_____

When Waiting Wearies

Waiting.

Waiting, waiting... waiting.

It's what a lot of us seem to be doing a lot these days, isn't it?  Waiting.

I'm waiting for a writing job that will pay my bills.  Perhaps you're waiting for a job, too.  Employment is something for which many folks are waiting.  I just finished reading an article online about a run-down rust-belt town waiting for the "next big thing" to come along and revive their local economy and drive down their high unemployment rate.  Some experts say corporate America is waiting for this November's presidential election to be over before making long-term plans regarding investing in new products or new employees.

Waiting can be excruciatingly frustrating.  Thousands of New Yorkers were waiting on idle subway trains earlier this week, waiting for glitches to be exorcised from the MTA's byzantine switching systems.  If you've ever been at the mercy of public transit when things aren't working, you know how maddening it can be.  Maybe you wait in long lines of bumper-to-bumper traffic during your morning and evening commutes, day after day, mocking the word "rush" in rush hour.

We wait, and wait, and wait some more.  About the only thing for which we never have to wait is, well... waiting.

The difference between people who simply sit and wait, and people who keep busy while they're waiting, may actually provide the spark that ignites the "next big thing" our society seems to be waiting for economically, politically, and even emotionally.

I've been writing this blog, trying to ignite the interest of somebody who believes, as an editor of mine once told me, that I "deserve to be read."  The rust belt town languishing from the offshoring of its manufacturing economy is investing in higher education and new business incubators, hoping to somehow differentiate themselves from the plethora of small towns across America doing the same exact thing in the hopes of jump-starting their economies.

Maybe what you're waiting for has nothing to do with jobs, or getting to your job.  Maybe you're waiting for a report back from your doctor.  Maybe you're waiting to learn if you're going to be a parent, or a grandparent.   Maybe you're just waiting for your child's soccer practice to be over so you can have dinner.

Waiting By the Side of the Road

Then too, sometimes what we're waiting for, and what we get, are two different things.  We wait, thinking we know what we're waiting for, but do we?

About two thousand years ago, a blind beggar was confined to the roadside outside the gates of Jericho, an ancient city in what is now the political state of Israel.  This blind beggar's name was Bartimaeus, and although we don't know how old he was, or whether he'd been blind from birth or from some disease, we can easily assume most of Jericho's population probably knew him, or knew who he was.  They'd likely seen him there for years, begging and waiting.

Regardless of how long he hadn't been able to see, you can imagine that being blind for any length of time in that culture would have been sheer misery.  It's bad enough today in North America, where our culture is quite progressive in curing, treating, or providing assistance for people with vision problems.  Two thousand years ago, blindness was a virtual prison.

About all a blind person could do back then was take up a spot alongside a road and beg all day long, every day, and hope that enough sympathetic passers-by will toss enough money their way to buy a simple supper.

Waiting, all day.  Sometimes calling out when you hear people approaching, then slumping back against a wall or rock, and waiting some more.

Waiting, calling, begging.  But most likely, mostly waiting.  Waiting in utter darkness, even as you can feel the sun beating down on you.

Suddenly, Bartimaeus heard more than just the shuffling of passers-by.  There was a commotion, and he learned that Jesus of Nazareth was going to be passing right by his spot by the road!  Maybe Jesus would heal him!

He had to get Christ's attention.

So he hollered out, calling on Jesus to have mercy on him.  He made such a ruckus and racket, calling out so desperately, that people in the crowd, who had relegated him to the sidelines of life, sitting out of the way of normal people, told him to be quiet.

Yet undoubtedly, this was just such an opportunity for which Bartimaeus would likely have never before dreamed.  Maybe he'd spent his time waiting by the side of the road not only for enough money to make it through the day, but waiting for death itself.  The commotion he himself causes in this passage creates the impression that he'd immediately realized this might be his one chance in his entire life to be healed from blindness - and he was frantically hoping to seize the moment.

Christ is the Creator of Perfect Timing

Christ, of course, knew Bartimaeus was nearby on the roadside.  And he stopped.

The Son of God stopped, just like He does when each of His children call out to Him.  And Christ called Bartimaeus to Himself.

Quickly, the crowd changed its tune, turned to Bartimaeus, and said, "well, what do you know!  You've gotten His attention, and He wants to talk to you."

As you can imagine, Bartimaeus didn't need any more urging.  He jumped to his feet, likely needing to be steadied by people in the crowd who only moments before were telling him to shut up.  He threw off his cloak, perhaps so fully assured that Christ would heal him, he'd be able to retrieve it after his miracle, and he could see where it had fallen.

And sure enough, Christ performed his miracle, based on his blunt, honest, earnest faith.

I don't know about you, but I'm waiting for many things, not just a job.  You're probably waiting for many things, too.  Most of them aren't as dire as waiting for the remotest of chances to be healed from something as grave as blindness.  But yet the emotional, spiritual, and mental blindnesses with which we suffer may still be things we have to wait through until God's appointed time, when our waiting will finally be over.

Waiting can only be true agony when you don't trust the Person for Whom you're waiting.

May the Lord grant us the grace to wait as long as He would have us wait, and to wait with patience, hope, and even joy.

As the psalmist has so poignantly phrased it, wait on the Lord.  Be of good courage, and He shall strengthen your heart.  Wait, I say, on the Lord!
_____

Big Bird Isn't the Public's Enemy

He's big, he's yellow, and despite his age, he's still quite popular.

He's Big Bird, and if Mitt Romney gets his way, his neighborhood on Sesame Street is about to be gentrified.  Instead of subsidized housing, it's going to be free market rates.  Conservatives think that's a good thing.

But is it?

Won't You Be My Neighbor?

America's venerable Public Broadcasting Corporation has been in the crosshairs before by right-wingers looking to make a public spectacle out of slashing our government's budget.  Stop funding PBS, the mantra has gone, and look at how much of our debt will disappear!  If the liberal-leaning PBS can't survive on its own, it isn't as good as its boosters claim it is anyway.

Such bluster plays well to the portion of America's populace that likes to politicize things at the expense of their own morality.  Think about it:  PBS doesn't feature cuss words or sexually suggestive programming during prime time, but plenty of public television's conservative naysayers enjoy their Desperate Housewives, Office, Modern Family, Glee, and Married With Children episodes in all of their raunchy glory on the commercial networks.

Fox, NBC, ABC, and CBS claim that they need to air such morally vapid shows because they couldn't survive financially if they didn't.  But what makes conservatives think PBS couldn't survive on its own?  And if it could, would they be happier if PBS began featuring as much skin and perversion as the regular networks?  Sure, it's great PR for talk radio's blowhards and right wing political wonks to spin a story of waste when it comes to public broadcasting, but when you compare the level of programming on PBS to the lowest common denominator of perversity elsewhere on the TV dial, aren't we taxpayers getting a pretty good return on our investment?

Do you realize we're subsidizing PBS at $222.5 million per year?  The horror!  75% of that money goes to PBS on TV, and 25% to PBS on the radio (think NPR).  Granted, that's a lot of money, except when compared to our federal budget, which is $3.8 trillion.  PBS costs each of us Americans about $1.35 per year in taxes - a heavy burden that Romney claims isn't worth all of the education, art, science, and community programming that PBS broadcasts 24/7.

Brought To You Today By the Letters P, O, L, I, T, I, C, S

One of the consistent reasons conservatives like to hold PBS as a prime example of what's wrong with our federal budget stems from the common complaint that public broadcasting has a liberal bias.  And yes, when it does show a bias, it's hardly towards the right of anything.  For example, it's hard to deny that their science shows pretend the theory of Evolution is irrefutable fact.  Many conservatives also bristle at the urban legends about Bert and Ernie being gay lovers, which they're not, or the network's other childhood shows pushing a socialist agenda on our impressionable children - a claim conservative parents make with a straight face, while letting their kids consume all sorts of hedonistic carnality on other channels.  And while it's true that PBS's venerable talk show hosts Charlie Rose, who always tries to outdo his sophisticated guests in pomposity, and Bill Moyers, with his pious religious fuzziness, tend to advance blatantly liberal biases in their shows, theirs still doesn't sink to the vitriolic rhetoric of right-wing radio's partisan stars that conservatives consume for free.

If conservatives really want to see unabashed liberal propaganda on PBS, however, just go ahead and pull its taxpayer subsidies, and watch what happens.  With its undisputed reputation as a bastion of creative programming, PBS will undoubtedly have no problem wooing left-wing sponsors and limousine liberals to swoop in as angel investors and replace that public funding.  And then who'll be in complete control of one of the most ubiquitous childrens learning channels on the planet?

Right now, with PBS receiving public subsidies, the American people can complain to their elected officials whenever they perceive it to be crossing some ideological line.  The political curse conservatives consider PBS to be is actually an effective way they can hold public broadcasting's feet to the fire of bipartisan equity.  $222 million per year is just enough money to make PBS executives take conservatives seriously when it comes to questionable programming content.  If the George Soros'es, Bill Gates'es, Al Gore's and Oprah Winfrey's of America get to replace taxpayers and underwrite PBS unilaterally, what voice will conservatives have when it comes to what PBS puts on the air?

Isn't having that voice worth $1.35 per year to you?

Not that PBS is just itching to dive into the deep end of liberal bias.  If their directors really wanted to abdicate any semblance of moderate neutrality, instead of running panicked pledge drives, they'd be lobbying Congress for going solo.  Right-wingers may feel threatened by folks at PBS who share different viewpoints, but compared with what could happen if it went completely private, the money we spend to help keep it "public" isn't the real threat here.

The real threat is the unknown:  who takes over the money wagon at PBS if Romney pulls the plug on taxpayer subsidies?  Right now, Romney and everybody else who thinks "firing Big Bird" is a good idea need to be grateful that PBS is content to fight for its relatively paltry quarter-billion dollars every year.

Yes, yes, yes, that's a lot of money!  But to put it in context, this past winter, NBC grossed $245 million just in advertisements during the Super Bowl.  And you still don't think we're getting our money's worth out of PBS?

There is value in us helping to pay Big Bird's rent.  Especially since we might not be able to afford the alternative.
_____

DC Is a Mega-Village

It's tops politically.

And according to the Wall Street Journal, it's tops when it comes to making a living, too.

Turns out, working in or around our nation's capital likely means you've got a good job and you're earning a good salary.  DC workers, on average, make the most money.  Not working stiffs in New York City, America's financial capital, or Chicago, or Houston, or San Francisco - all generally considered more obvious bastions of free-market capitalism.

So much for the right-wing pundits who scoff at "it takes a village."

After all, it's not like the defense contractors, lawyers, and lobbyists who populate the District are there for its climate, which can be suffocatingly humid in the summer, and downright blustery in the winter.  The scenery along the Virginia - Maryland border is nice enough, if you like the way suburban sprawl eats into the forests and farmland for which people supposedly move away from the inner city.  And it's not like the elegance of Washington DC itself has anything but its iconic status in world affairs to camouflage its crime-ridden, poorly-run, and politically disenfranchised personality.

No, for years, Washington has been creeping up the salary scale because of what it provides the purportedly free markets:  access.  Access to the men and women who craft the legislation that funnels tax dollars to businesses of all types, from finance and computer science to law, education, healthcare, law enforcement, and hotels and restaurants.  And what is a hallmark of village life?  Interpersonal access, right?

It's popularly assumed that DC is a company town, with our federal government being the company.  However, only 1 in 6 workers in the greater metropolitan area are employed by you and me, although out of a total workforce numbering over 2.3 million souls, that still represents a stunningly large taxpayer-funded amount.  The rest work for all of those companies who feed at the trough of government subsidies, contracts, and grants.  Yes, joke if you like about President Obama's ill-delivered line about "you didn't build that," but many companies in America today do turn a profit at least in part due to good old Uncle Sam.

Salaries in Washington, DC are living proof.

You and I, after all, own part of the world's largest procurement operation, otherwise known as the United States government.  Our tax dollars collectively purchase more stuff than any other single entity on the planet.  Think about it:  we purchase guns, cars, computers, trees, hydroelectric dams, paper, soft drinks, airports, pretzels, nuclear power stations, lawn mowers, coffee cups, scissors, and the occasional Majority World election.

Who wouldn't want to be located in close proximity to such a cash cow?  It's like all of the corporations who grovel at the feet of Wal-Mart in po-dunk, Arkansas.  Wal-Mart's buyers are like federal bureaucrats - they don't come to us when they're doing the buying.

And it's not just for-profit businesses that have their hands out in Washington.  Hundreds of non-profits have their headquarters in DC, hoping to siphon off some of our political influence (or lack of it) and tax dollars for their budgets and programs.  All of these companies, charities, think tanks, and even diplomatic organizations want legislators to notice them and think their objectives are legitimate ways to spend other peoples' money.

Granted, many of these non-profits get their funding not from the US Treasury, but from their earnest supporters who pay them to advocate on their behalf.  But still, who on Capitol Hill would listen to a poorly-dressed schmuck who drives a ratty old car and can only afford a dilapidated walk-up in one of DC's notorious 'hoods?  And if you were the schmuck who had to hob-nob with politicians and woo them to your point of view for a living, would you stoop that low for a pittance of a salary?  Maybe if you wholeheartedly believed that your cause was imminently just - but how many of those causes are out there, and how many people who view their own salary so altruistically?

So the gravy train that is Washington's personal employment economics keeps chugging along, helped every few years by people like Republican George W. Bush, who willfully bloated the size of our federal government's payroll with "jobs for the boys," as they call political patronage in Great Britain.  Only Bush shrouded his patronage with two wars in which preventing another 9/11 provided blanket amnesty for much of his unfunded spending.

Still, perhaps it's a bit disingenuous for us to draw too many correlations between Washington, DC being tops in American salaries and the fact that our federal government is headquartered there.  During periods of recession, while the phenomenon of offshoring is ravaging corporate workforces across the country, doesn't it make sense to go for the only goose laying golden eggs that, because of its geopolitical raison d'être, can't go anywhere else?  Hopefully, this village - that's apparently sustaining our economy through these bad times - won't remain atop the Wall Street Journal's salary statistics when times improve.

No matter what happens, however, the stark survival-of-the-fittest mentality of capitalism can't hide the dark reality that our economy is in love with our tax dollars.

Talk about "too big to fail."
_____

At My Church, the First Shall Be Next!

Notice 8/17/14:  I am aware from following the Google Analytics data for this blog that there are people online searching for information regarding the self-confessed relapse of Dr. Skip Ryan.  Since Dr. Ryan himself has published a personal letter to Redeemer Seminary, from which he has resigned, I'm providing a link to that letter here so you can hear this from him.

_____



This coming Sunday, my church is installing its newest pastor.

Who was also my church's first pastor.

Since its founding in 1991, Dr. Joseph "Skip" Ryan served Park Cities Presbyterian in Dallas as its very first senior minister before resigning in disgrace in 2006.  He was hooked on prescription narcotics, and spent several months at an out-of-state drug rehabilitation center.  His road to recovery has been challenging on a number of fronts, not the least of which being questions swirling around his opportunities for future ministry in the body of Christ, the church.

Needless to say, God has performed a work of transformation in not only Dr. Ryan, but his wife, both of whom have remained at Park Cities Presbyterian throughout this multi-year ordeal, and have emerged with a testimony of God's grace that is shaping a profound new emphasis on how they're serving God and His people.

Earlier this year, I wrote on this blog about the announcement at church regarding Dr. Ryan's reinstatement as a part-time associate pastor over our flock, and this Sunday, his official installation in that post will signal a new era of ministry in his life, our church, and even the broader evangelical community, as more and more people become exposed to God's work in his faith, his health, his marriage, and his career.

Instead of writing an essay about them, I'm providing a link to a video my church has made.  In it, both Dr. Ryan and his wife, Barbara, a force of spiritual ministry in her own right, discuss their journey and their "story of rescue," as we like to frame the Gospel of Salvation at Park Cities Presbyterian.

I had the privilege of sharing dinner with them at a mutual friend's birthday party last month, but I realize many of my dear readers will never meet Skip and Barbara this side of Heaven.  Nevertheless, the new life they now live in Christ may just help you see what Christ can do in yours!
_____

PS - On that link to the video you'll find a couple of other links to audio from a seminar the Ryan's led at our church in which they more deeply explored things that God has been teaching them during this transformative time.

Fair Share for the Unemployed Rich?

Congress has known about it for a while.

But it's just now hitting the presses.

Apparently, in 2009, about 2,400 people in households worth more than $1 million collected unemployment, at a cost of approximately $21 million dollars.  Tom Coburn, a Republican senator from Oklahoma, has sponsored legislation to make these people ineligible for unemployment, but it's stalled in Congress.

Some websites are spinning the news as "2,400 millionaires," although it can't be proven that each one of those people are individually worth at least $1 million.  For example, they may be married to somebody worth that amount of money.  Suffice it to say that there are many people who collect unemployment who likely are already in a far more favorable economic position than the majority of unemployed Americans of lesser means.

You Know Times are Bad When Folks Get Greedy Over Unemployment

Indeed, dwelling on the 2,400 "millionaires" obscures the greater economic potency of still-comfortable claimants of unemployment benefits who live in households earning $100,000 to $500,000.  These "almost-millionaires" are costing unemployment programs nearly $8 billion a year, according to the Wall Street Journal.  If unemployment is supposed to help tide a family over until gainful employment can be re-established, does a family with someone still earning $100,000 a year need those relatively paltry unemployment funds as much as a family with somebody earning $50,000, or even less?

Remember that unemployment insurance is something that is paid for by a person's employer, through taxes on their payroll from the state in which the employee is working, and payroll taxes from the federal government.  Generally speaking, the United States Department of Labor administers the rules for unemployment programs, while individual states administer the payments.  This means that unemployment insurance isn't something for which the employee personally pays out of their salary.  Instead, it's another real cost, along with salary and any other benefits, that each employee represents for their employer.

Unemployment is intended to help maintain a certain semblance of stability in the event workers need to be terminated through no fault of their own.  It gives employers additional flexibility when it comes to their need to adjust staffing levels downward, yet the financial benefits to the unemployed aren't good enough to encourage long-term joblessness.  Unemployment checks are a fraction of a person's former take-home pay, they're taxable as income, and there are rules by which recipients must abide while they receive the benefit.

So for the right-wingers whose knee-jerk reaction to anything unemployment-related is to eliminate such a wasteful and apparently easily-abused entitlement program: don't get your knickers in a twist.  Nobody's getting rich off of their unemployment benefits.  Not even the people living in million-dollar-earning households.

After all, they're just getting what they're entitled.  At least, that's what some people say.  Their employers paid into the system for them, the same way they pay in for lowly clerks, so what's the fuss?  They're entitled.  It's not like any family, regardless of income, should be automatically expected to suffer through a loss of income after having established a certain lifestyle based on that income.  Rich people have bills to pay, same as poor people.  Only rich peoples' bills are generally considerably higher.

Is Altruism Too Expensive for the Unemployed Rich?

It would be nice if people who really didn't need unemployment benefits simply refused to claim them, even if they had every legal right to them.  With unemployment being what it is, there's not a lot of slush in the fund into which employers continue to pay, since the number of employees for which they're paying continues to dwindle.  Uncle Sam can step in and make up the difference if it has to, but it will just turn around and bill the states, which in turn will hike the rates they expect employers to pay.  Which may force even more employers to think extra hard about how many employees they can afford.  Which could lead to more layoffs, or at least forcing companies to freeze their hiring of new employees.

Like many things in government and business, unemployment taxes can be a vicious cycle.

The best solution to this problem - and yes, having people who should be able to afford to forgo unemployment benefits selfishly taking them anyway is a problem - is to plug the holes in our economic and political systems that are causing employers to hemorrhage jobs in the first place.

Until that happens, however, perhaps it would help to see some of the reality being exposed by the comparatively wealthy among us who still want more.

Some right-wingers prefer to assume that high-income people - and yes, salaries greater than $100,000 is legitimate high-income territory - naturally seek society's best interests by using money in ways that, while benefiting them personally, eventually raise all boats.  Unemployment, however, doesn't represent enough money to be a significant boost to the economy.  At least, not in comparison with the job or two that might be eliminated or deferred when an employer has to pay more in unemployment premiums and holds off on hiring.

Selfishness such as people in families earning more than $100,000 filing for unemployment insurance just because they can won't contribute much to our collective society.  If you're expecting people at the lower end of the economic ladder to make sacrifices for the good of our country, what makes you think the example you're setting serves as any enticement for altruism?  If you're out for all you can get, why do you blame people poorer than you for trying to get all they can?

"To whom much is given, much is required."

In the long run, couldn't the rich benefit from taking the high road when it comes to how they treat their own entitlements?
_____