After discussing my sister's letter with Hiram, I think I have figured it out. Fiscal Conservatives like myself see the responsibility hierarchy like this. It starts with personal responsibility first, progresses through the steps, with Federal rarely being used. (ie small population of people) And preferably they mostly pressure the lower levels to fulfill their role.
Whereas the Fiscal Liberals seemingly want to skip steps 1 thru 5 and give all the responsibility, authority and power to the Federal government. Thus lifting the burden of responsibility from everyone above.
- Person
- Person's Family
- Charities & Other Non-Profits
- Local Government
- State Government
- Federal Government *
* Primarily paid for by the "Wealthy" (ie wealth transfer)
37 comments:
Your sister arges we have a duty to help those who need help. She suggests at least, that churches are capable of discharging this duty. It would be nice to believe that but I don't see much evidence of that.
Please, someone prove me wrong.
--hiram
I find the notion that different levels of government have differing degrees of responsibility. Aren't they all employed by us and have exactly the same responsibility any employer has to his or her employer?
--Hiram
Look at this way. What's the argument for holding some public employees to a lower standard of responsibility than others simply based on the entity they happen to work for? Why should we expect less from a mailman who works for the federal government than maybe a cop who works for the city?
--Hiram
This will be hard for you to grasp since you believe somebody other than ourselves is responsible for us and our lives... I think there will be a significant pradigm issue.
I'll try anyway. Here are some of the key reasons we should honor the hierarchy in proper order.
It is most effective if people take personal responsibility for their lives. It is very hard, expensive and wasteful for anyone else to do this, especially if the person is resisting improvement.
The person's family should be the next step because they know the individual's situation best and being a parent, child, sibling, etc comes with some inherent familial responsibilities from my perspective. (ie blood should be thicker than govt)
Charities come next because they often are specialized in certain areas of need. They can work at a relatively personalized level and are usually focused on helping people accept personal responsibility and improvement since they care about the people and want them off their rolls. Their help is not considered an entitlement by most beneficiaries, so people be more grateful and willing to change.
4 - 6 have to do with roles, responsibilities and redundencies. Local/State gov't is much closer to the citizens in need and the citizens paying the bill. Also, they are most familiar with the region's norms, beliefs, etc. Therefore these groups are best suited to work with the needy in their region with the least waste and redundency.
The Federal gov't has to work through the States and Locals to help the truly needy, and they end up creating a one size fits all system. This is therefore full of ineffective practice, redundency, waste, etc. The organization costs start to eat up the actual benefits that were to be given to the people that need them.
Also, please note that the risk of fraud and the costs to monitor against it are very low in stages 1 & 2, whereas they become very high by stage 6.
Finally, the sense of entitlement and willingness to not change also likely grow as one progresses up the hierarchy.
In summary, the Federal gov't should be focused on things that the States can not reasonably do. (ie national defense, interstate regulations, etc) And leave caring for individual citizens to the level of government closest to them.
One last thought, why would many individuals and families strive to take responsibily for their lives if the Federal gov't says it wants the responsibility? (ie food, housing, healthcare, other?)
Being personally responsible for your circumstances is hard work, and scary for many. I don't think letting them avoid this is doing them any favors.
It is most effective if people take personal responsibility for their lives.
the letter writer argues differently. She says we have a duty to help others. She happens to believe that her church can discharge this duty, a proposition on which I am still not convinced, but we agree on the principle. As for responsibility for others, she talks about insurance, and what that means is that we who are part of the same insurance pool are responsible for the costs of her health care. That's something with which I don't have a problem, but doesn't that directly contradict the notion that each of us are best able to take care of our own needs?
I wish it was true that charities and churches took care of everyone's specialized needs. Government takes care of specialized needs too. And if you can convince me that they do, and if you can provide me with the evidence that charities and churches discharge these duties on behalf of us all, I will gladly accept that government need not have a role in this area. But I just don't see any evidence of that. In the specific case of the letter writer, I don't see her medical costs being picked up by her church, however specialized those needs might be? Why is that?
--Hiram
Being personally responsible for your circumstances is hard work, and scary for many.
Is it your suggestion that the problem with the letter writer's health care is that she isn't working hard enough?
==Hiram
Background Discussions:
G2A Dependent etc
G2A Govt Encouragement
G2A Tax the Rich
G2A Poor People Poor?
Apparently you are missing something here, she hasn't needed any Gov't assistance since she and my family follow the Responsibility Hierarchy. This is the way it should be.
Apparently you are missing something here, she hasn't needed any Gov't assistance since she and my family follow the Responsibility Hierarchy
She is certainly depending on the insurance we are paying for. And by the way, she is relying whether she knows it or not, on the implicit promise that the government will pick up the tab, if she loses that expensive and hard to get insurance.
--Hiram
So far I have never heard that the insurance she pays for is expensive or hard to get. I think that is a spooky fireside tale that you folks tell to scare the voters and little old ladies.
And yes, government assistance should be available for a very very small group of people for which levels 1 - 3 are inadequate. However it certainly should not be easy to get or enable a very comfortable life.
John,
The same heirarchy can be true for both liberals and conservatives, we just have a different way of addressing those various levels. To say liberals skip 1-5 is a political bias not based in fact, but in rhetoric.
There are many of us who believe that ensuring a minimum standard quality of life for all people, IS a responsibility, for example, and having universal health care so that no one falls through the cracks or gets a free ride is one of the avenues to getting there.
Then please clarify why the DFL seems to insist that Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, Food Payments, Housing Payments and now Obamacare all be legislated, financed and controlled at the Federal level? What is wrong with the Local/State Gov'ts or should we disband them to save money?
I know it is easier to lobby for the agenda, since that one body controls all 50 states, and they are a long ways from the Tax Payer and Benefit Recipient. However this was not the intended role of the Federal government from my perspective. And it sure is far from where the responsibility should rest as I have explained.
I always ask the more Liberal minded folks what is an acceptable growth of gov't spending rate? What happens when it exceeds the GDP growth rate or the CPI rate for extended periods of time? How will this work out when it does?
US Govt Spending Govt vs GDP Chart
Somebody asked on Liz's facebook. "Why are you folks voting against your own self interests?" My answer is that if we keep voting for our self interests like selfish children the goose that lays the golden egg will be dead...
My personal goal is that gov'ts burden on the GDP will be less by the time my daughters are adults. (unfortunately we are running out of time and headed the wrong direction)
The idea for passing legislation at the Federal level is so that the law applies equally among all the states, allowing less possibility for public monies to be corrupted by crime or discrimination or things of that nature at the state and local level. Applying it federally tries to ensure consistency across the states.
As for Liz's insurance, it's only good because her husband is working. Something happens to his job and they are both screwed. It shouldn't be that way.
That's kind of funny. You'll have to ask her or your Mrs about that.
Ha!
I have never heard that the insurance she pays for is expensive or hard to get.
It has lots of options and is expected to cover pre-existing conditions. And I have never heard of health insurance that was cheap. Usually you get it through an employer where it's less expensive because of economies of scale.
" What is wrong with the Local/State Gov'ts or should we disband them to save money?"
In some cases, the states weren't doing them. Social Security was a federal initiative. Handling it on a state level would be immensely complicated. SS is a national program to address national needs. Many states couldn't or wouldn't choose to afford it.
I still don't understand why you hold the federal government to a lower standard of responsibility than state government. Federal officials work for us, just like state officials. They live next door to each other. Why should we expect less from the federal government?
==Hiram
Just like the quarterback and the lineman , we don't expect any less of either of them. We just expect different things from each.
I am pretty certain a football team would be decimated if they just operated where everyone had the same roles and responsibilities. (ie because they were all on the field) Talk about confusion, redundency and waste.
Same as the teams I lead at work, roles and responsibilies are one of the first thing we clarify. That is if we want the Team to function effectively.
This is just silly. The hierarchy of responsibilities directly corresponds to the hierarchy of rights. The federal government has absolutely ZERO right to take money from one person, by force of law, to benefit another. Neither does any other government, for that matter. Only WILLING transactions constitute true charity-- from churches, community, or family, and then only when the person involved has made the effort themselves and, through no fault of their own, fallen short. We have a CHRISTIAN "duty" to help the less fortunate, but it is truly said "the Lord helps those that help themselves."
Think how well churches would do at alleviating the problems of poverty, etc. if government wasn't always there with the big swag bag, playing sugar daddy with their stolen tax revenue? I go back to the simple calculation: The federal government reportedly spent over $1 trillion last year on "means tested programs" (welfare), for the 50 million people (men, women and children) in poverty. That's $20,000 apiece. Mom and the two kids would be drawing $60,000/year, with no other income!! How is it we spent that much and the number of poor people went UP! Surely churches could be more effective than that!
J. Ewing
"The federal government has absolutely ZERO right to take money from one person, by force of law, to benefit another."
Where does the US Constitution say that?
--Hiram
Just like the quarterback and the lineman , we don't expect any less of either of them. We just expect different things from each.
Wasn't that my point? And doesn't mean that there really isn't a hierarchy of responsibility?
--Hiram
Looks like this may be J's source.
Heritage 69 Programs
If they don't have the God given Right, they sure have the Authority granted by the People. (ie society)
The link makes my point well, the further down the hierarchy, the more wasteful the transaction. (ie bureaucracy, redundency, fraud prevention, wasteful giving to the Obama bucks crowd, etc) The tax payers pay more and the Recipients receive less.
"The federal government has absolutely ZERO right to take money from one person, by force of law, to benefit another."
Let me note in passing that the letter writer disagrees. She says we have a duty to help those in need, an issue on which we agree. Where we may differ is on how that is to be done. She thinks it should be done through churches. I have my doubts about that because I suspect that churches just don't have the resources to discharge the duty. But I would love to see a link that proves me wrong on this.
Does anyone have such a link?
==Hiram
Of course the non-profits don't have the money... It is all being hoarded and wasted by the inefficient gov't programs...
Imagine if $1 Trillion per year was in the pockects of people and businesses. And they could make the choice to use it to help their neighbors.
Would they or would they just spend it on themselves? I think many would give much more because they couldn't rationalize that they were giving to the needy via taxes.
magine if $1 Trillion per year was in the pockects of people and businesses.
Oh, the Keynesianism of it. But actually, this is what we learned from the Bush years, when we borrowed huge amounts of money and turned it over to rich people, on the theory that they would create jobs. Turns out, they used the money for various forms of speculation, in the real estate and stock markets, and that money is mostly gone now.
But hey, maybe we learned from experience. Maybe our rich folks learned the error of their ways, and if we just gave them another try, another trillion dollars or so, they wouldn't blow it this time. That seems to be what Republicans are arguing at least.
--Hiram
You really need to get another financial planner. My house is devalued back to where it should have been in the first place, but the rest of my investments are back to their pre-recession value.
So I am not sure what this "mostly gone" talk is about.
Sorry, bad link. This should work better:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/30/opinion/a-big-storm-requires-big-government.html
NY Times Big Storm Big Govt
Interesting opinion piece. I of course am puzzled why the government ends up so deeply involved in these situations.
Aren't people paying for the proper insurance? (ie flood if near water (already subsidized), renters if renting, normal hazard insurance, etc) And our personal insurance premiums are already higher to help cover these disasters.
I agree that the coordination of public services and the repair of public property and utilities is definitely a government role/ responsibility, but why all the HUGE DOLLAR disaster aid to private citizens and businesses?
Without that it seems the states should be able handle most of it. Maybe just some cross state line coordination efforts.
No wonder the government expenses are out of control. Folks seem to believe the govt's role is to bail out everyone, even if they didn't pay for insurance, built/bought in a high risk area, didn't save for a "rainy" day, etc.
Then again why should they act responsibly if the gov't keeps saving them from their own irresponsibility?
Insurance? Insurance is a for-profit business driven to profit. You know Shirly paid into a homeowners policy for like 30 years. She had two incidents in one year and they CANCELED her. That's how reliable insurance is. Besides, they are not there to rescue people. This is done through a coordinated effort of multiple state agencies, coordinated through FEMA, a federal agency.
Do you believe all those folks coming in and rescuing people, restoring infrastructure like roads and bridges, and restoring power lines are insurance agents sent out to save their policy holders from disaster? Hardly.
Also, the Federal government has emergency funds to provide to states encountering disasters. It's one of the important services our "big government" provides.
I do have one more correction to my statement, the gov't is responsible for getting the water back off private property if they had been maintaining dikes, levies, etc and approving people to live behind them. Or better yet they buy the land, clear the site and stop allowing people to rebuild in a flood plain.
So are you arguing that we responsible folk should stop paying for insurance and just rely on the federal gov't to pick up the tab when bad things happen to good people?
Remembering that the govt has no money of it's own, it simply takes and spends ours with questionable effectiveness and efficiency. Or since you believe the govt is us, maybe you believe our money is theirs? G2A Govt or Pers Prop
I am not saying that FEMA should be disbanded, yet the belief that they are absolutely required makes little sense. According to your link, somehow we got by just fine without them for ~200 years. Or maybe there weren't natural disasters before ~1976... Seems hard to believe.
By the way, why can't the multiple state agencies be coordinated by the State personnel? This is why the States have their National Guard , etc. And FEMA then just coordinates between personnel from different states.
Here is some info on FEMA, it budgets and what it spends the money on. FEMA FY2013 BIB
Not sure is what is up with all those grants, and it looks like only ~65% of the budget goes out as aid relief.
A close family member recently died, at the age of 64. You know all of that money he paid into "Social Security OldAge Insurance"? His widow got exactly nothing. Private insurance (or savings) would have been infinitely better, had he taken that responsibility, but he was told by politicians that he didn't have to because they would "save Social Security" for him. And by the way, SS "disability insurance" didn't pay out anything for his hospital bills, either.
J. Ewing
You know all of that money he paid into "Social Security OldAge Insurance"?
As I have often pointed out, SS payments are a tax, not an insurance premium.
==Hiram
Post a Comment