|
2
Nerd-Its
|
|
blog (coffee shop)
by The recent shooting in the Amish community and some of the ensuing conversation somehow led me to develop my very own welfare reform plan - something I actually did discuss in a coffee shop this past week. My thought process starts by wondering how many of the Amish have died of starvation because of they refuse to accept welfare or unemployment. Or, how many have died prematurely because of the lack of state-sponsored retirement? I don't have a positive source, but the fact that an Internet search for anything on the topic turns up nothing seems to indicate it doesn't happen much, if at all.
Do the Amish just have more mental capacity than the rest of society, such that they don't need these social services to survive? I doubt it. A cross-section of the Amish inherited ability to function in society is likely similar to that of the rest of the country. Yet, they are fully capable of getting along without the help of the government. The difference must be not in innate ability, but the ideals they are taught when young. They learn to work and to be independent. They learn to live without "handouts."
It seems obvious, given this example, that the solution to poverty isn't in social programs but in the family/community. Why, then, is it so difficult for the government (er, I guess I should say the constituents) to recognize this and to make appropriate change? I'm not saying remove all government assistance completely, but it couldn't be that hard to implement a welfare program that actually worked.
The next cog in my thought process was inspired by the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. I live in Houston and had the chance to experience the destruction following the disaster by chainsawing trees off of houses on numerous weekends and by volunteering at the Astrodome. It was interesting to see so many people displaced from their homes, many of whom might never go back. Then again, would that be such a bad thing? From what I've heard/read, many families from New Orleans relocated all throughout the country, not just the surrounding states. Some even ended up in rural Utah. Consider the fate of young children in those families. In New Orleans they would likely have grown up on welfare with most of their family/friends on welfare - and many of them would have continued to be on welfare through the remainder of their lives. In the rural Utah towns, however, the culture is completely different. While not Amish, I'd venture to say that much of rural America is similar in the ideals/work ethics taught. Not only that, but the housing is affordable, the community would likely have no problem placing the parents in decent jobs, and even if these jobs paid minimum wage, that's probably enough to live on there. The kids get a whole new group of friends and would most likely take their education more seriously; they'd be headed in the same direction as most of their peers, which might not be doctors/lawyers/engineers, but it's definitely not poverty.
Putting these thoughts together, why not adopt something like this as the government's new "welfare" program? If you are stuck in a rut and you want to better your life and the life of your family, then the government will match you up with a sponsor community. The government can pay for the relocation expenses (although my guess is that the sponsoring community would probably volunteer to cover it) and that's it - the community takes it from there. The pros of such a system are obvious:
- It removes the need to try and ensure welfare recipients are 1) using the money in worthwhile ways and 2) seeking an end to the need for welfare.
- It allows sponsoring communities to see directly the effects of money they would have previously paid in taxes. Instead of seeing a deduction on their paycheck and wondering what is coming of it, they can keep their money and pay $20/wk for the new guy in town to mow their yard.
- It puts responsibility where it is due: in the hands of the family wanting a new start and their neighbors - except now the poverty stricken have a better opportunity and (probably) better neighbors.
- It is significantly cheaper, resulting in either tax cuts or the freeing of funds for other things.
Of course, there will be some that will refuse the opportunity. They won't want to leave the city they were raised in or they won't want to live in a boring town with one stop sign 50 miles from I-25 in Wyoming - and that's fine. They are free to make that decision but the government doesn't have to support them in it. If they really want a new start, then they can have one by filling out a form, getting on a bus and actually starting over.
Add a Comment (19)
Email This
Message Author
Very few New Orleans residents were "on" welfare, since access to welfare was restricted by "welfare reform" under Clinton, with strict time limits and work requirements.
They were members of a COMMUNITY already which pieced together unemployment, brutally low-wage jobs, veteran's benefits and workfare, and this COMMUNITY was destroyed, deliberately if by inaction, after hurricane Katrina in a trail of tears.
To imagine that all these folks will learn anything other than further humiliation by becoming the servants of rich white SOBs is barbaric.
Their COMMUNITY was stolen out from under them by real estate speculators. The Organization of American States and the United Nations need to investigate the destruction of this community, which resembles the forced relocation of the Cherokee nation to Oklahoma.
The genocidal treatment of the American Indians was also dressed up as something that would educate the Indians and make them "the right sort of people", that is, servants.
It seems absurd because Americans have long been encouraged to believe that welfare recipients are lazy bastards who refuse to work. While examples can be found, there is no evidence that this is a fair description of any more than a tiny minority. The vast majority of these people are like the rest of us. They want to have a good life and a future for their children, and they are prepared to work hard to achieve it.
It makes us feel better to believe this myth because we can then bitch about the need to cut our taxes. That is an easy promise for politicians seeking election.
A sufficient but not generous federal funding for exhausted welfare recipients would be about $7.5 billion/year. This is easily affordable. For that we could lift millions of worthy Americans above third world living standards. If you don't think we have places that are in the third world have a look at how the poor have to live in the Mississippi delta and other high unemployment areas. With some wise public policy we could harness this resource and give them self respect and worthwhile employment.
The tax reform desperately needed in the USA is to find a way to get the wealthy to pay their share. This administration has been low taxing for the obscenely rich - not for the rest of us. W's cutting the tax on dividends from investments was a massive income boost for those with millions invested. It saved them about 20 times that reasonable federal welfare budget. So I would look there for the real welfare spongers.
You don't get out much, do you! Most welfare recipients are just like you, we finally agree on sometime.
I have never received welfare support, but I have been involved in distributing it. If you have never been there it is easy to think the way you do.
It is a complex and dull subject, but if you understood the first thing about welfare policy, even you would be able to see through the popular image of the poor to the underlying causes. Most of them are decent people who can see no way out and eventually give in to despair.
It is fine to be critical but first you need to learn how to properly think critically using your own mind and powers of reasoning.
I don't think this approach would work for a variety of reasons. First, there would be no regulation for consistency if a community were sponsoring a family. There really is no criteria by which the cut-off or continuance of welfare can be benchmarked. On that note, it would be very easy for a community with grievances or negative opinions of that family to cut them off. Even the selection process for which families would become sponsored is problematic. To me, it will likely result in some form of profiling or racism. Communities would want to "invest" their money in a family likely to return value and will profile candidates to match that criteria. It's a process that screams of social-norming; forcing the sponsored family to conform to particular criteria [beyond seeking employment] in order to get aid.
I guess it would be possible that communities would act in this way, but I don't think it is probable. Two good examples are Habitat for Humanity and Extreme Home Makeover. In both cases, large numbers of people volunteer their time/effort and expect no "return on their investment" other than the fulfillment of doing service.
Speaking of Extreme Home Makeover, that would be a great way to fund the project: make the program into a TV show. Advertising would provide the funding, thus removing any push for the community to get a return on their "investment." I know capitalism usually gets a bad wrap, but the ability to "pass the buck" on to corporations in this way sure is a plus.
Also, making the change from the current form of welfare would be straightforward. After learning what there is to learn from the relocated Katrina victims, a few pilot programs could be opened and then expanded from there. The bigger the program gets, the more money the government saves.
I took note of something you mentioned about Amish Culture in your welfare plan, and e-mailed Dr. Donald Kraybill. He is a sociologist and professor at Elizabethtown College here in PA. He's also a noted scholar on Anabaptist culture. He repied to me in an e-mail that he knew of no instances where an Anabaptist had ever suffered from starvation because the Anabaptist culture is such that their biblical beliefs tell them they are to care for each other when they can't care for themselves. All without government intervention.
While the Elders in the Amish community *did* accept the outpouring of monetary donations after the tragic shooting last year, IIRC the families took only enough to cover the medical bills, and the rest went to the family of the shooter.
I wish I had an online link, but I read an article some time ago discussing the education of Amish young. While they only attend school to the 8th grade, by the time an Amish male is ready to marry, he has the equivalent of a 4-year degree in Agrarian Science.
One of the books by Dr. Kraybill that I want to read when he finishes it is "From the Buggy to the Byte: How the Amish Tame Technology". I saw a program on a local cable access channel where he discussed some of his research; it was quite fascinating. For example, A hay baler takes a tractor to operate it because it requires the engine of the tractor to turn the equipment. The Amish and certain orders of Mennonite use mule/horse and wagon, so they attached a diesel engine (those are ok--they burn natural fuels) to a wagon to power the baler and pull the wagon with their mules/horses. Not only that, but he even said that frequently, the senior person on a project might not be the oldest male present, it could well be a 15-16 year old because by that time, they've been working with their fathers in the business.
All without government intervention.
I think that one sentence (fragment) sizes up a central point you've missed.
When the Amish "care for each other when they can't care for themselves", that is government intervention. The point you miss is that the US government is us. This isn't a monarchy, where the government chooses to bestow its benevolence on the miserable poor - that's not what our welfare system is, though that's how detractors like to portray it.
The welfare system is intended to be exactly the society at large helping to care for the individuals who can't care for themselves. The Amish reject the real world in favor of living in a self-induced delusion of a sixteenth century idyll - that's not a virtue, it's a failing.
Society is about humans living together. We have neighbors, and we have wants and needs that are going to come into conflict. Governments - especially democratic governments - are the "executive" arm of society. They're how societies get things done. The Amish are simply saying "fuck you" to the larger society - they refuse to participate whenever they can get away with it.
The only reason they can get away with it is that they live in the middle of the country. If they lived on the border with Mexico, they'd probably be extinct - long overrun by bandits while we "English" "respected their wishes" to remain apart.
I think our welfare system is pretty screwed up. But the "effectiveness" of the Amish system only comes because of their extreme xenophobia. It's easy to care for someone who believes exactly the same things you do - because you'd throw them out in the cold if they didn't. It's much harder to care for a wealthy white Christian man in central Iowa to care for a poor black Muslim woman in east LA - but that's the American ideal, the self-indulgent fantasy world of the Amish is not.
When the Amish "care for each other when they can't care for themselves", that is government intervention.
Aren't you splitting hairs a bit fine there Scott? We the people (non-Amish) have nothing to do with taking care of those who belong to the Anabaptist enclaves. If they choose to reject many of the trappings of the modern world, so be it, that's their choice. They harm no one by doing so, and in fact, contribute their goods to the world--food, quilts, and and other goods. Also remember, it's not just the Amish, but also their are Mennonite groups as well who reject the trappings of the modern world. They live in the middle of the country because they are an agrarian society; the border with Mexico would do them no good. In a sense, it's government intervention--but their own government; not us.
The welfare system is intended to be exactly the society at large helping to care for the individuals who can't care for themselves.
Exactly--but many *are* able to care for themselves, they simply find it easier to let the rest of us care for them.
but that's the American ideal, the self-indulgent fantasy world of the Amish is not.
Self-indulgent? That's a bit harsh, don't you think? It's no more self-indulgent than the ethnic communities in larger cities who band together as groups.
We at least agree on one point: Our welfare system is pretty screwed up. And while you are right in your saying that Amish wouldn't support non-Amish (actually they do--they DO pay taxes after all), I think the rest of us could learn from that--care for our communities. Let the person in Central Iowa care for another Central Iowan; and the poor black Muslim woman in East LA be cared for by the community in East LA.
In one sense, Hillary Clinton was right back in the 90's--it does take a village.
Aren't you splitting hairs a bit fine there Scott? We the people (non-Amish) have nothing to do with taking care of those who belong to the Anabaptist enclaves.
No, I'm not. You've missed my point.
The Amish, in rejecting the larger culture, haven't eliminated government. The "government" in their enclaves is their church leadership. Furthermore, my guess is that there's relatively little effort for the membership of one Ordnung to support those in another when they've fallen on hard times - certainly far less than there would be for one of the "in" group.
So to characterize their "solution" to the welfare problem as being accomplished "all without government intervention", is simply incorrect. They've substituted their own internal government intervention for that of the larger society, but it's their government that organizes and delivers the aid. No different than in the larger society. We just have a more difficult logistical problem.
They harm no one by doing so, and in fact, contribute their goods to the world--food, quilts, and and other goods.
Those farms would be dozens of times more efficient if they were worked as modern farms instead. The market for Amish goods just isn't significant - it would hardly be missed if it went away entirely.
They live in the middle of the country because they are an agrarian society; the border with Mexico would do them no good.
Again, not my point. If the arable land they lived on wasn't trivially easy to protect - who the hell would invade Pennsylvania first? - their rejection of American society simply wouldn't be tolerated. If they were on the perimeter of the country, instead of in its heartland, we'd have ejected their sorry asses years ago.
Exactly--but many *are* able to care for themselves, they simply find it easier to let the rest of us care for them.
Easy to assert, but hard to prove. What fraction of the people dependent the welfare system are actually able to care for themselves? I doubt you can lay your hands on any meaningful number - you're working from anecdotal evidence. Elsewhere on the site, Occam has asserted that in actually working for organizations that distribute the welfare assistance, he's seen anecdotal evidence to the contrary - and at least his is a first-hand report.
It may be that the number who are "cheating" the system is so small that eliminating them costs more than the cheating does.
Self-indulgent? That's a bit harsh, don't you think? It's no more self-indulgent than the ethnic communities in larger cities who band together as groups.
Nope. Those ethnic communities still interact with the larger culture - they have to, as their communities are typically only a few blocks across. The Amish cite Bible verses (2 Cor 6:14, 2 Cor 6:16, and Rom 2:12) as an excuse specifically to avoid such interaction wherever possible, and they can actually accomplish it to a much larger degree.
And I don't think self-indulgent is too harsh at all. Instead of living in the real world, they've chosen to live in a fantasy world.
Nor do I much like many aspects of those ethnic communities. As I've said before, if you want to come to America, fine - but you left home for a reason, so quit trying to turn America into a copy of your old home. But that's a different issue.
And while you are right in your saying that Amish wouldn't support non-Amish (actually they do--they DO pay taxes after all)
I didn't mean through taxes. I meant that if a Yankee on a neighboring farm was going through an economic hard time, he couldn't look to his Amish neighbors to support him the way you've characterized their approach to social welfare.
I think the rest of us could learn from that--care for our communities. Let the person in Central Iowa care for another Central Iowan; and the poor black Muslim woman in East LA be cared for by the community in East LA.
Doesn't that beg the question as to whether the community in East LA can care for her? The distribution of wealth in the country is uneven - East LA is poverty ridden, with more than a quarter of its residents below the poverty line.
Hurricane Katrina wiped out the homes and livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of people, and all across America people offered aid (forgetting for the moment how badly that aid was managed). But there are ten times that many people who were already living in poverty. There are at again that many who were already homeless. Where's the mass outreach for them? That's why we have a welfare system.
Bland aphorisms about banding together to help our neighbors are meaningless noise. At least the welfare system does help some folks. Sure, there are some who are "helped" who shouldn't be, but there are almost certainly others who aren't getting help who should.
We at least agree on one point: Our welfare system is pretty screwed up.
Well, I actually have a proposal.
I think we should have government-run soup kitchens (presumably contracted out). Anyone who wanted to could show up and get fed. The food would be far from gourmet - the only goal being that you'd be able to get the 2000 nutritionally balanced kilocalories you need to live on, and we do it as cheaply as possible. Soup, bread, cheese, a few veggies, that sort of thing.
But here's the gimmick - absolutely anybody can go. From the beggar on the street to Bill Gates. We don't even try to ensure that only the "needy" take advantage. If you want good food, go to a real restaurant, but if any food will do, welcome. View it as simply a right we think Americans should have - every American has the right not to starve to death. Not the right to steak and lobster - if you want those things, get a job.
I think it would be an interesting idea, and I don't see any really obvious reason we couldn't do it for a cost roughly similar to what we're already paying people not to work. (Though I admit, I don't really have any way to judge either of those numbers.)
Those farms would be dozens of times more efficient if they were worked as modern farms instead. The market for Amish goods just isn't significant - it would hardly be missed if it went away entirely.
And just as much contributors to global warming as other 'modern' farms. As you have said, you believe man has caused global warming---and farming is one of the biggest contributors. Are you also aware that agricultural runoff from 'modern' farms is the number one watershed pollutant?
Personally if the Amish (or any other group of people for that matter) want to live their lives away from the modern world, let them. It's their choice, and how they find their happiness.
The market for Amish goods just isn't significant - it would hardly be missed if it went away entirely.
Yup..and it would completely destroy the economy of Lancaster County, PA if it did. Already, large numbers of Amish have been moving to Ohio, selling their lands to developers and buying much larger tracts in Ohio. There has been a measurable loss to the economy of Lancaster County, which depends on tourism and a couple of outlet malls.
Well, I actually have a proposal.
An interesting proposal--and with it, you've addressed the food issue..what about housing? or are you saying you'd build dormitories for them as well--how would you handle family units? how about clothing? or would you put them in jeans and t-shirts?
But here's the gimmick - absolutely anybody can go. From the beggar on the street to Bill Gates. We don't even try to ensure that only the "needy" take advantage.
There is actually a program much like this---though there is a 'cost' involved. It's called' Angel Food Ministries. There is no income guideline for participating; for $25.00, you get food enough for an average family of four for one week. It's also not 'old' or 'dented' can food, either. They also offer frozen meat packages as well. Oh, but it's usually run by a local church.
As to your Katrina comment--there was a LOT of failure there at all levels. There still is. There was a lot of NIMBY attitude about the housing trailers by some of the people in the more affluent areas too. Katrina is a major embarassment to us. We cleaned up Charleston, SC after Hugo faster than we have with Louisiana and Mississippi.
And just as much contributors to global warming as other 'modern' farms. As you have said, you believe man has caused global warming---and farming is one of the biggest contributors.
I've also said that I don't believe that trying to return to some kind of pre-industrial world is any kind of meaningful solution.
It's their choice, and how they find their happiness.
Yep. Same with monks. But they don't deserve praise for it, and they're not getting it from me.
An interesting proposal--and with it, you've addressed the food issue..what about housing? or are you saying you'd build dormitories for them as well--how would you handle family units? how about clothing? or would you put them in jeans and t-shirts?
Hey - it's a concrete, cheater-proof proposal to address a significant part of the problem. Shelter is another problem, and it, admittedly, doesn't address that - it wasn't intended to do so. I don't see clothing as a particularly substantial issue - it doesn't appear to be an existing problem that homeless people are wandering around naked. Though I suppose the same sources we use to supply the military with fatigues would probably address the issue, if necessary.
I'm not even sure that shelter - for nights, and inclement weather, and such - is that insurmountable an obstacle, if we really wanted to address the problem. As I see it, the main difficulty is that whatever space you use for it will be pretty much trashed. Ensuring that those who use the space don't abuse it (litter, graffiti, urination and the like - not unauthorized use) is the hard part.
My goal here isn't to do anything more than to try to meet minimum needs. Food and shelter seem to be the primary problems. I don't see the goal as trying to "improve" their lot in life - that's their responsibility. I see it as improving the society in which I live.
It's called' Angel Food Ministries.
It's not possible they could scale it up to be anything more than the usual meaningless sop to religious conscience - more useful as a recruiting tool than for actually addressing a social problem.
It needs to be available to everybody, or it doesn't work.
It needs to be available to everybody, or it doesn't work.
It is available to everyone.
No it isn't. It may be that nobody is prohibited from participating, but the program doesn't exist in every town and city in the country.
Point taken, but even our welfare system requires you to travel some distance to get to the office. There is no office in the town where I live; it's about 10 miles away in York.
However, Angel Food Ministries shows that a system like yours *could* work. Serve good, solid food--nothing fancy.
Of course, the US Welfare system is more than food. It encompasses programs for Women, Infants, and Children (commonly called WIC), HUD payments for housing, help for utility bills, child care, etc. etc. etc. It's an all-encompassing system, noble in cause, but poorly administered--much like many programs where you have the government involved, sadly.
Also, you're correct on the subject of system abuse--for every one person I can cite that is a system 'abuser', I can also probably point to 3-4 more who aren't. I wish there were a way to eliminate all of the abuse, but your assertion that it would probably not be cost effective rings true.
We both agree there is a problem--and you provided one facet of a solution; but I think it would be better as a community-run program rather than a government run program. Funding and oversight on the part of the government, but run by non-government entities.
Point taken, but even our welfare system requires you to travel some distance to get to the office. There is no office in the town where I live; it's about 10 miles away in York.
I don't think it could really work unless people (on average) don't have to travel much more than, say, twice as far as it is to the nearest post office.
Fortunately, the demand for the service in small towns is correspondingly tiny. If there are only a handful of meals to be served, almost anybody could handle the subcontract.
However, Angel Food Ministries shows that a system like yours *could* work. Serve good, solid food--nothing fancy.
My guess is that their food is probably even better that what I'd propose. The only requirement for my system is that the food be nutritious. It doesn't have to be anything anybody would otherwise seek to eat, since the whole thing is intended as a last resort. Nor does it require any variety - it can be the same vegetable soup and bread every day.
but I think it would be better as a community-run program rather than a government run program. Funding and oversight on the part of the government, but run by non-government entities.
The government has historically done it, and effectively, feeding the military. But today's government doesn't seem to run that way. My guess is that it would be contracted out - the government specifies nutritional standards and such that have to be met, and then lets the lowest bidder do the actual work.
I thought that the first part of the blog about Amish society made a lot of sense. Although I believed in the premise of this information, there were no facts stated. I was happy to see that someone had consulted a scholarly source to back up these claims. This made me wonder that if the Amish can manage without government assistance, why do so many people require help? I'm not saying that people on welfare are bad people, but they are definitely NOT "like us" as some of the responses claim (by no means am I claiming that ALL people on welfare are lazy). By this I mean that they have either fell on hard times, cannot find a adequately paying job, the welfare system has failed them, or they "mooch" off of the government. The main point is that the welfare system is flawed. We need to find a way to get "moochers" out of the welfare program. This is the biggest problem. People can always find ways to bypass the system so they can receive welfare. We need to modify welfare so it can help the people who are willing to work hard only. I think the biggest way to fixing this is to stop giving out "free money". In other words, welfare should be a government job placement program to insure that people truly work for the money they deserve.
RSS
Interesting idea by Kevin1 :: NR0 :: on 10 October 2006
So your program is to completely eliminate all forms of transfer payments and substitute them with a one time relocation subsidy?
What would that subsidy include?
I think the barrier here would be to eliminating the system of transfer payments, although I am all for it in principle.
RE: Interesting idea by Brandon :: NR9 :: on 14 October 2006
I don't know enough about the current structure of welfare to say concretely that there wouldn't be any payments left, but I agree with you that would be ideal.
The relocation subsidy wouldn't include much other than money to rent a moving truck and get it to the new location, perhaps. The hosting community would take care of the rest (e.g., a home loan, a first job, friendship, etc.).