We hear a lot about the "right to work"; at least it is repeatedly said that we are a "right to work" state. All that seems to mean is we cannot be forced into a labor union and bosses and employees don't need to account for quitting and firing.

If we really had a "right to work" then we would all have jobs - as of right. That is not the case.

If we all had the ability to do paid work, there would be no need for homeless shelters, and donating homes or apartments to homeless and non-working people.

Perhaps I have got some of this wrong, but all most of us know about the homeless is that some hundreds of people hang out in "Pioneer Park" and most if not all appear to have drug of drink problems. When we see people given homes to live in, many are discouraged at the sacrifices hardworking, sober people are making to buy a home or to be able to afford their rent in our overpriced market.

Let's have workfare. Most want it and it is fair. Honest people only want work and at least basic subsistence.

Not even Governor yet and every special interest is already telling him what h is priorities should be.

We also have a right not to work.

Charity still is better than government programs. As Ms. Cortez points out with her anecdote, direct charity results in good feelings. Government programs do not.

If I accuse a welfare reciepient of freeloading, they invariably get mad at me, and begin a rant of just how desperately they need the help.

Just because someone NEEDS help doesn't mean they DESERVE it. If I acknowledge the "need", can someone explain why anyone "deserves" for me to pay for their food, houseing, health care, etc?

Please leave religion and morals out of your answer because there are amoral atheists who are governed by our laws just as much as there are moral religionists.

I agree there is a need, that it is moral, and there are religious obligations. So WITHOUT expounding Need, Morals, or Religion, please answer me "Why should government force me to lose my choice on whether to help someone else or not?"

It is certainly NOT promoting the general welfare because I am part of the general population and it HURTS me.

I've heard a lot of good things about Pamela Atkinson, but does she have an official advisory role or is she just a regular citizen?

Why should the governor listen to everything she says and not to things that many other wise people have to say? If she's that great, then give her an official job and pay her.

The place for compassion is with the people not the government. The role of government does not include caring for our personal needs.

Only a lazy and indolent people would allow government to usurp their personal responsibility to aid and assist the unfortunate among us.

What makes a person think that some magical entity called 'government' can just wave a magic wand to absolve him of his personal responsibility to personally assist his 'brother'? If a person is too lazy to help or too indifferent to care, then the problem is with the person who could help and chose not to - not with the person who needed help.