Somehow all this talk of Goverment, People, Programs, Incentives, etc reminded me of some concepts I learned awhile back. I believe they mostly came from the work of Stephen Covey, however they have been reinforced through many other experiences and studies. These random search results do a good job of summarizing the issue, so I'll jump to my thoughts.
Polyamorous Misanthrope D/I/I
Quick MBA 7 Habits Summary
Psychology Today Continuum
Harvest OKC Stronger
The concept is that we ALL start out as Dependent humans. ALL babies are physically, emotionally and even technologically dependent. There is simply no denying this reality.
Another reality is that you have to develop independence in each area before you can operate in an interdependent way. (ie in each area) If you do not mature, develop your capabilities, develop your sense of self worth, etc in an area, you are doomed to exist in a Dependent state in that area of interaction. This will often promote various problems, especially if being reliant on other people bothers you. (ie co-dependency , double binds, low self esteem disfunctions,etc)
With this in mind, I would like to propose that the Government and it's programs do not make anyone Dependent. However they may remove some of the incentive to become Independent. I mean if people are provided with a living space and food, some will find this an acceptable state and not truly strive for more. (ie kid living in Parent's basement)
I would definitely argue though that co-dependency and double binds abound in this system. Kind Liberal folks feel that they must provide for the Dependent, instead of showing the tough love that may encourage them to become Independent. Programs that encourage Independence while rewarding Dependency.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
Aside from not understanding the pt of your final sentence fragment, I sort of agree that, at least in MN, programs provide a comfortable enough life that they likely contribute to dependency.
My experience with families living in poverty is with immigrants/refugees who have a reason to be dependent, at least for awhile. Many have a working adult and the kids deserve adequate food and housing, so I don't have a problem with the programs that benefit them.
I still think the main problem is jobs that pay too little to support a family.
My sentence fragment was meant to point to situations where people are encouraged to become independent by developmental programs and cheering citizens. Yet addition or loss of benefits as they change status incents them to stay on the dole. (ie welfare trap)
Best way to raise the income for lower end jobs is to make more of them or to have fewer employees applying. Two good solutions are deport all illegal residents, reduce the immigration of the lower educated and buy American designed, tested and built products that are sold by American based companies.
The question is: Would these folks that were born Dependent and raised by Adults that never grew into Independent adults be willing to take those jobs and strive for Independence?
Being Independent is very scary for many. It means they have to accept responsibility for their situation.
"The question is: Would these folks that were born Dependent and raised by Adults that never grew into Independent adults be willing to take those jobs and strive for Independence?"
On their own? Probably not. I agree--a strong education and work-ethic is critical. And in the vast majority of individuals, it comes from a solid, dependable upbringing and examples. I think if we really want to teach these kids a different/better model, it's not a matter of simply leading them to water. It's actually teaching them to drink.
I think the idea of dependency is so extraordinarily complex. Last Sunday's NYT had a really well-done article. It looks at a community with extreme poverty (where Obama worked 30 years ago) in Chicago. Because of funding formula changes, the poorest receive less funding now than then. And interestingly, it looks at the enlightened self-interest of why we should agressively and innovately fund those communities/families. Highly recommended. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/magazine/obama-poverty.html?_r=1&ref=magazine#comments
--Annie
Annie's long and very interesting link:
What Does Obama Really Believe In?
I wish you would comment here more often, Annie, as you always have such great insights.
For those who like paper, I think it was also in the Star Tribune. It was definitiely an excellent article.
Since Paul Tough wrote "Whatever It Takes" (about Harlem Children's Zone), it seems pretty similar and logical. If a large portion of the kids have little or no societal or Parental support system, no wonder the problems just continue. It seems someone definitely needs to fill in as Parent if we want to break the cycle. Or get this group to have fewer or no kid's.
Yet the Conservatives continue to block this hands on social worker intervention, readily available birth control and low cost abortions. It seems they have a vested interest in promoting the growth of these dependent and immature populations???
On the other hand, the Liberals seem to resist shifting the food stamp dollars to these "teach them to fish programs". The article seemed to say that Obama and crew gave out the cash instead of the education?
"Yet the Conservatives continue to block this hands on social worker intervention, readily available birth control and low cost abortions."
Oh, no, you don't. "Social worker intervention" was discarded by LBJ, not Republicans, and the answer to having kids follow their parent (not parents, usually) into inter-generational dependence isn't to abort them before or during birth! That's throwing the baby out with the bathwater, almost literally.
Some of the programs you are suggesting are the same worthless feel-good liberal nonsense that perpetuates the problem by treating symptoms, not root causes. The root cause of dependence is something to depend ON, like a government check with no strings attached. Attach strings and you can drag the willfully dependent towards independence. That kind of Welfare reform has already worked for about 2/3 of the formerly dependent. About half of those remaining NEED additional coercion coupled with coaching to get them where they need to be, but it is the Left working to keep them there and deny them hope and change.
Most of all, I think, we need to get the public schools to be the "great equalizer" in the society. Letting kids slide through without the knowledge, skills AND VALUES they need for independence is a waste of money, leading to a lifelong waste of money spent maintaining them in dependence.
J. Ewing
J,
You have got to be kidding, you claim Conservatives support early and intensive intervention after all these years of Conservatives fighting against the funding of Early Childhood Education, Parent Education, Social Services and Other critical programs. All I ever hear from you is get the Gov't out of the system and let the Parents rule.
As abortion as the answer, it is not a good answer however it has been proven to be an effective answer. Freakonomics And it is also a good way to keep the Government out of the Private and very personal decisions.
And as for use of public funds to implement this strategy of societal protection, how is it different than sending the military out to kill in other countries. Especially when innocent bystanders are sometimes killed by accident. It is interesting how humans think.
If Conservatives want to force the incompetent and irresponsible Parents to deliver their chidren to full term, then they should figure out how to support these children. Not just force their delivery and walk away.
re "the Liberals seem to resist shifting the food stamp dollars to these "teach them to fish programs". From the article it seems Obama had intended to do the latter, but did the former to pump more $ into our free falling economy.
I hadn't really thought of doubling the number of "food stamp" recipients as stimulus, but it has a much greater multiplier than tax cuts, especially for the rich.
I believe that liberals, if given a chance, would love to pump money into ECFE and preschool programs and create more "children's zones" in areas of high and deep poverty. I think Frogtown in St. Paul has been designated as such an area, though I don't know how many or what types of programs will be implemented.
I think either would have stimulated the economy.
One you are giving the money to a needy person that spends it on food, housing, etc. Unfortunately this has no longer term benefit. The money is spent and nothing changes.
Whereas they could have paid the salaries of counselors, staff, etc and others who would have spent the money on food, housing, etc. The benefit of this is that the poorest would have been hungrier (ie figuratively & literally) and maybe more motivated to change.
I am pretty sure the multiplier would have been similar, yet they just cut the checks. I am not sure why, maybe "giving out the fish" was just easier.
this sounds like a bad budget plan to me:
"To make Romney’s numbers add up, you have to assume that by the end of his presidency, Romney will have cut every federal program that’s not Medicare, Social Security or defense spending by 57 percent."
The real Romney-Ryan budgets cuts aren’t to Medicare. They’re to programs for the poor.
I share with Paul Krugman and Newt Gingrich a fondness for Isaac Asimov's "Foundation Trilogy". I actually reread it every year or so. It's my "Atlas Shrugged" I guess. Anyway, early on in the first book, there is a character, a politician visiting the Foundation from the dying Galactic Empire who seems to make various assurances to the local politicians. Unknown to him, his comments are recorded and then analyzed using symbolic logic. As it turns out, everything the politician said during his visit cancelled out. I feel that about Romney. He says lots of stuff; issues lengthy position papers, but what he says is either contradictory or meaningless. As shown with the Tax Policy Center, which did what famous detail oriented businessman Mitt Romney refused to do, actually run some numbers, we found that his tax cuts for the rich would have to be paid for by an increased tax burden on the middle class and the poor. It's no wonder that Mitt aspires to the vague, and the meaningless.
--Hiram
Laurie,
What is your rationale that dealing with the poor should be done at the National level rather than the State level?Nation vs State Roles
It seems to me that the State should be working this issue. Otherwise we have 2 sets of bureaucrats wasting the money that could be used more efficiently and tailored to the States needs.
My point is that removing the money from the National budget does not mean that it has to go away. It just means it need to collected and managed a more local level.
I assume Liberals are for moving more power to the National level for some reason?
In general I think states do a better job than the federal govt for many things, especially given the current congress and the dumb senate filibuster.
The downside in moving anti-poverty $/programs to the states is that more generous states (Minnesota would likely be one) would attract poor people from other areas. I used to hear how people would move here from Chicago for better welfare benefits.
When I am kidding, I indicate such.
Sorry, but count me a numbers guy. Ever since the War on Poverty began, these social problems multiplied exponentially, as have the dollars spent sustaining these misguided efforts. [It was sometimes said the War on Poverty is over and Poverty won.] 1994 Welfare Reform reversed that trend, seriously (by 2/3 or more). Now, liberal re-interpretation and meddling with that law have put us back on the same wrong track.
All we have to do is look at the numbers. If every person below the poverty line had no other income except their share of federal and state welfare spending, a single mother of two would have a $57,000 annual income!! Or, a $19,000 (poverty level) income and $38,000 (twice that) worth of training/coaching/education!
By this simple measure the current systems fail miserably and I don't care what the intentions were or are, nor do I care how they are SUPPOSED to work. John, you claim conservatives are blocking ECFE and such, so I assume you still believe that pouring more money into the public education system will bring about the "leveling" effect that it has heretofore demonstrated a complete inability to accomplish and has, in fact, demonstrated a horrific record of making worse. Public education is just one more miserably failed government welfare program, as currently established. Good intentions, I point out, don't mean diddly.
Current welfare systems are designed to subsidize bad choices in life, and so naturally we get more of them. Of course, John, abortion is an effective answer as you say, but a more effective one would be to simply allow all of the poor to starve to death or march into the disintegration chambers.
J. Ewing
Still waiting for sources on all these interesting numbers that you present.
Also, since America has many creative people that would be happy to defraud the Government (ie us taxpayers). I assume it is in our best interest to keep some of the money invested in Program Management and Fraud Prevention. Is that necessary cost in your calculations?
I agree that public K-12 could be improved, yet I find your denial that the problem starts and ends at home is hard to believe, especially after HCZ's success. So few Public funds are spent on training Parents and 0 - 5 yr olds that it would be laughable if the results were not so dire and catostrophic.
I think you are the one recommending letting them starve to death or die due to inadequate healthcare, so I guess we are aligned then. (ie eliminating the bad choice subsidies and the training/support programs)
I still can't figure out whether you are being deliberately provocative, extremist, or simply too literal.
These are simple numbers I present, admittedly approximate as they must be; you can easily derive them yourself whereupon the bias of the source cannot be questioned.
If we give the total value of welfare money directly to current recipients, then, no, there is no money left for fraud prevention or social worker assistance. That number is merely to indicate the wastefulness of the current system. If you give 1/3 of it in direct cash assistance and have 2/3 for program, there is way more than enough to prevent fraud. The current system, which obviously spends MORE than 2/3 of the total, does a poor job of fraud detection and an even poorer job of moving people from dependence to independence. Think about it: If the welfare worker does a good job at creating independence, she's out of a job herself. The incentives are wrong. One more reason private charity works vastly better than government handouts.
I do indeed deny that the problem "starts and ends at home." By your formulation, the current public school system is irrelevant to academic success. I propose, in light of your premise, we simply eliminate public education for any child from one of these "poor" homes. We could save a ton of money and put that towards kids who were going to succeed. Or maybe we don't need that, either? OK, now I'm being literal. I will say it again, though, when kids are chosen by lottery to go to a "better" school, those same kids do better. Until we get to the point where the public schools are doing as well as they can with the students they have, why would we entrust them with more to do? If they could correct the problems they have, wouldn't they have done it sometime in the last 40 years?
I see the problem. I thought talk of "disintegration chambers" would make it clear that /sarc was on. Silly me. As always, I favor extending compassion beyond enabling simple and perpetual dependence and enabling people to reach their potential as independent human beings and citizens. Since that can be done for a lot less money than the current humanity-stifling system, it's simple common sense.
J. Ewing
Since J has none, does anyone have any facts and data about the spending effectiveness of the USA Gov't run social systems? Meaning the dollars spent in operating system vs dollars spent at recipient level (ie services, cash, food stamps, etc) I would guess that ~50% of my Church giving goes to paying for buildings, salaries, synod dues, etc, so I assume the Gov't is similar.
And my United Way giving uses ~10% just to collect and redistribute the money. Then all those recipient orgs have overhead to cover. Meaning: all systems are expensive due to communication, structures, anti-fraud and other costs.
J, The reality is that there apparently was/is not enough voluntary compassion out there anymore to cover the scope of the problem, that is why us citizens instituted the Social Services side of Gov't. I do belief that there should be less cash aid and more training aid. This may motivate folks to take the training seriously and consider changing their beliefs and behaviors.
However cutting deep into the food programs, etc will certainly ensure more people go hungry. Maybe not to death, but it may be close. (no sarcasm there)
Maybe the Gov't should act more like United Way. They just forcefully collect the money and distribute it to effective and efficient chartities that are independently run.
Also, show us some of those lottery facts and figures. I've heard they are kind of inconsistent. And of course their scores should get better, they left all their trouble peers with dead beat Parents behind in the Public schools. The classrooms should therefore be much more conducive to learning.
Forbes Welfare Empire
Interesting reading, though it does not adress my question. It does show that almost all the money is going to buying fish, and almost nothing is going to developing fisher people. Thoughts?
It also does not discuss the changing world market where most of our good paying low education jobs have moved out of the country. Maybe keeping poverty level is actually succeeding given the changes in our economy?
Thoughts?
Poverties USA Welfare These folks are writing some common sense.(slightly to the Left, but still logical) They say we need:
- more training & education associated with TANF.
- address the reality that most of the poor are single Mother led households. (ie childcare, early education, tax code, etc)
- better coordination between the ~180 programs and the market
- a common goal for the American Welfare System
Using numbers from memory: State and local means-tested programs (aka welfare) totaled $970 Billion last year. Total number of people in poverty 45 million, according to federal government statistics. Divide 970 B by 45 M and you get $21,000. OK, I was wrong. The family of three would get $63,000, not $57,000. Again, the starting numbers are approximate but the math is right. And remember, few of these people have ZERO income, so if the mom in our example is making just enough to be classified as "in poverty" she would actually be making $82,000/year. That's real poverty in America!
OK, now let's do some really speculative math. Let's assume that those 45 million people are actually all in families of three, and that somehow they are working 20 hours/week at McDonald's, thus making #6000/year. A government check or benefits is going to bring them up to $19,000 per year, supposedly, or $13,000. But per our previous calculation government actually spent $63,000 to provide this benefit, therefore administrative overhead is something like 79%!!!
OK, that's worst case. Let's assume something more likely, such as that mom is sitting home watching TV, and that her total benefit brings her to 200% of poverty line, or $38,000 (better than about 1/3 of all families). Doing the calculation again says that overhead is only 40%. Better, but when a private charity like wasteful United Way has only 10% overhead, why are we pouring money into government welfare, a system which is wasteful, riddled with fraud and promotes the dependence and generational poverty that it has and does? I'm not saying don't do it. I'm saying it needs to be phased out in favor of something that creates independent contributors to the economy, rather than drags on it, and enhances our collective humanity rather than destroying it. Private charity could do the job, eventually, but not while government claims the duty and power for itself.
The problem with government welfare is it has zero compassion, and no capacity for it. I've said that, at one point, my middle-class family could have gotten food stamps by gaming the system; all I needed was a few (deliberately) bad choices. I've met people who really needed welfare and couldn't get it (and helped a few). I've met people getting welfare that shouldn't. It's a good idea, "farming out" welfare through Bush's church-based initiatives, but unfortunately it came with too many strings that churches couldn't handle and still be effective.
I am reminded of a story that ABC news (I think) did when Newt Gingrich (that evil man) was fighting for welfare reform. They found this woman with a small child who claimed that, if her welfare was cut, she would have to take a job and move back in with her mom. Well, mom had a big empty house and was happy to have her daughter live there, and happier still to look after her grandchild while her daughter was at work. Not only that, grandma was having trouble making ends meet on her modest SS check, so having someone else help out was ideal. So where's the problem? The problem is that this family would have become independent through it's own devices. Apparently, that is to be prevented by the welfare system, not encouraged.
J. Ewing
I do agree that something needs to change. Buying this much high priced fish, and spending almost nothing on fishing lessons is certain to lead to continued failure.
I suppose spreading the money to non-profits would have its own set of problems. Atheists wouldn't want to fund Churches. Churches wouldn't want to fund family planning orgs. Anti gays wouldn't want to fund gay orgs. Gays wouldn't want to hund Boy Scouts.
United Way handles this through check boxes. Though I am not sure it does anything, it makes the donor feel better.
Now here is an intentionally provacative thought.
I wonder if all military actions outside of the USA borders should be privatized and funded by contributions?
It seems they are of questionable benefit to most of the US citizens. (ie questionably effective)
My thought is that the low level of civil and social unrest that our investment in social programs and wealth redistribution buys may be more effective than the military in keeping us safe and secure.
Thoughts?
Bush's Faith-Based Initiative was a failure precisely because government rules would not permit these private charities to discriminate, which is the fundamental and singularly necessary way in which they differ from welfare. Private charity MUST discriminate between those who are trying but need a little help, those who are just freeloaders, and those somewhere in between who are addicted to bad life decisions. Since government cannot treat people as individuals, with compassion, the choice is between keeping the checks flowing or cutting them off according to some hard rule. Since actually helping a welfare recipient to become independent (or allowing them to work towards independence) would eventually cost the social worker their job, you can see where the incentive lies for the social worker, and for the welfare recipient as well.
I long ago stopped giving anything to the United Way because, if you ask them, they will tell you that checking a box does not change by one red cent the amount that any of their subsidiary organizations receives – the money is fungible. Since the United Way continued giving to gay organizations and dropped the Boy Scouts to appease those organizations, I simply write a big check to the Boy Scouts every year and write in a big fat zero on my UW pledge card. This annoys the Dickens out of my managers, since they want that nice big 100% participation plaque to hang on the wall, but that's too bad. I suppose I could give them three cents a month and make the managers happy, but it's the principle of the thing.
I do like the checkbox idea, though. I have long thought that, with modern computer systems available, the IRS could send you an itemized "Bill" indicating what they say you owe and then, in detail, how that money will be spent, unless you say otherwise. This depends, of course, on Congress actually having set a budget, which the Democrat Senate has refused to do, contrary to law, for over three years. But I digress. The way this could work is that, along with your form 1040 you would receive a long list of federal budget items and the amount that you are contributing to them. You could enter your own amounts for the top level departments, or you could enter amounts for the detailed line items. Anything you did not specify otherwise would be done according to the budget, with everything adjusted according to your actual tax due rather than the IRS estimate. The stipulation would be that your choices had to add up to the total estimated tax; if you added to one line item you would have to subtract from another and vice versa.
Suppose for an example, that your estimated tax was $1000. You might see the Defense Department allocated $60. You could change that to $80 (later cutting $20 out of the education department and EPA), but you could then go in and reduce the amount for foreign bases from $2 to $1 and add 10 dollars to the F 35 strike fighter program. Everything else would get adjusted accordingly. The sum total of all of these dollars allocated would become the budget outline for the following year. It would be real interesting to see which programs actually have support and which ones people think are worthless.
J. Ewing
Somehow your constrained giving belief does not surprise me.
I would summarize it as "if they look, act or believe differently than me, they don't deserve my charity or caring." It seems a lot of people think that way. I wonder if Jesus was that particular. My belief is that he was not.
The aim your tax dollars would make for some interesting long term planning. It would be fun if someone would even run a survey like this.
"I would summarize it as "if they look, act or believe differently than me, they don't deserve my charity or caring." It seems a lot of people think that way. I wonder if Jesus was that particular."
I find your summary a gross insult. I said nothing about how people look or believe, only how they act. I can care, but I am not going to give charity to someone not willing to make an effort towards independence. I can't afford it for very long and there are plenty of people who ARE willing to make the effort. Check any religious charity you like, and I'll bet there is some sort of restriction or requirement in place to avoid freeloaders and to "guide" those in the right direction. If I had my preference there would be more of them acting as training and employment centers, but for most of these people simple food, clothing and shelter has to come first.
Now, as for WWJD? Didn't he say, "go and sin no more"? I am almost certain he did not say "let government care for the poor."
J. Ewing
I was referring to your dislike for assisting the gay/lesbian folks.
I apologize for being so rude, however your comments remind me of the "Good Samaritan" story. Would you help the Gay/Lesbian laying in the ditch or walked past on the far side of the road? All the while rationalizing how busy you are, how important you are, how they do not deserve assistance because they are sinners, etc.
No answer rquired, just something to ponder.
Was this person in the ditch because of their homosexual activity? Even if they were attacked for that reason, I see no reason not to help in that emergency situation. If it wasn't for that reason then I probably wouldn't know they were gay, and it would be irrelevant for me to know. I also don't know that food, clothing, shelter (and employment) are problems that arise from being gay. I think you're putting up straw men.
Again, the "discrimination" I cite as essential to true charity is purely based on people's attitudes and actions. No "bad life decisions" allowed.
J.
United Way Mpls Agencies
Then it looks like contributing to these orgs would be just fine. A lot of good programs for a diverse group of people. And you will have peace with Management...
Ah, sorry I did not recognize the context of your argument. My concern wasn't that these organizations were serving gay people in poverty or distress, but that they were gay POLITICAL organizations, working to defund the Boy Scouts. I wouldn't have noticed, perhaps, if they hadn't succeeded. At that point I started looking at the UW the same way I look at government "charity," as an oxymoron.
J.
Post a Comment