Issue 65 Testing Welfare recipients April 29, 2013

 
If you have been watching and learning about different types of reforms to welfare (as I obviously have) then you have probably heard about how the State of Florida has altered their system. In their case they now test for drugs before they allow a person to receive any welfare. This has come under fire by some as they believe the policy is discriminatory.

How it works: The plan is simple, test the applicant to see if they are a drug addict. If they are a drug addict, then they are denied welfare. If they are clean then they get the benefits offered by the State. Here is the catch; those applicants must pay for the test themselves. Some of you may think this is outrageous, but the State of Florida pays the people who successfully test as clean back. So they get there money back any way. This little quirk was designed to force a welfare applicant to choose to be an addict (if they happen to be one) or to choose the money they need to hopefully get out of poverty.

What if they have Kids?: If children are involved, then things work a little differently. In a two parent home, if either parent tests positive for an illegal substance then they are denied benefits. But, if a third person who will act as the guardian of the money and the child comes forward and they test clean, then benefits will be given. However, the parents of course will receive nothing without that third persons consent. Simple right, if the parent screw up then it is up to grandma or some other relative or friend to take over.

Is it discriminatory?: I can see why it would look like discrimination. You are testing all applicants for drugs and they all happen to be asking for welfare. However, that view is narrow. Sports teams are tested before they are allowed to play. Teachers, police and other people are tested as a condition of employment. In the case of welfare, it is a condition to receive benefits in the same way that welfare recipients are means tested based on income to see if they are eligible. So it is not discriminatory, it is just an insurance policy to make sure the States money is not abused.

Conclusion: I fully support replicating this form of testing in all parts of the United States and around the globe. No government can afford to have people abusing their welfare systems or even the people’s money for that matter. Let us never forget that welfare is a form of government charity not a right. It is a privilege to receive that money as people are trusting you to spend it on what you need to live and get your self out of poverty, not sink further into the muck. Of course, if implemented different standards of how much drugs can be in a persons system and what those drugs are may vary. Colorado has legalized "pot" in all its forms so they may allow weed as an exception. But this is all about curbing the abuse of welfare. This is most certainly a step in the right direction.

Issue 64 Radical Welfare reform April 26, 2013

This issue builds off of "Issue number 63 Welfare to work April 25, 2013." In this case it goes one step further in altering the welfare system. I actually originally heard of this idea on an episode of John Stossel by one of his guests the day after I learned about welfare to work at an event hosted by the Manhattan Institute. Stossel's episode also covered welfare to work, but his guests went a step further.

The radical reform: The ending of all cash welfare including food and housing assistance with the sole exceptions being the welfare for the elderly and the physically and mentally disabled. Yes, the guest wanted to switch the focus of all welfare to a "welfare to work: program for all able bodied Americans.

How it would work: To make it easier for companies to higher these individuals with less job skills, the money that was going to the cash based welfare system would instead go to companies. Essentially, the same amount of money would still be dished out, but instead it would come from an employer for the work you did. Additional money could be granted of course by the employer for how well the person does. Once the company can afford to pay for that employee due to the company being able to expand for the cheap labor (compliments to government paying their wages) the person will be kicked off the welfare roll and completely supported by their own efforts and the company they are working for. This is another form and much more comprehensive version of welfare to work that for the most part I agree with. A person who earns a check is less likely to abuse the welfare system than a person who is given free cash every month.

But what about if there are no open positions?: To back up the other part of the reform, when there is no available job in the area, the welfare recipients are put to work in other capacities. This part of the idea comes from the Depression Era's "Work Progress Administration." Its role will be exactly the same as when it was originally created, getting people to work and earning a pay check. In this case, these people will help build and maintain parks, clean streets, refurbish bridges and other similar jobs. The salary they would get would pay for the basics like food, clothing and shelter. The main thing though is that this will be an earned income and not some artificial hand out. To ensure that these people will want to move up in the world there will be no option for retirement. Or, at least, there will be no opportunity to unionize and get a pension. They are there to gain job experience and work for a hard days pay until they find something better. This of course will be using the basis of welfare to work to aid them in finding a better job.

The part I did not like: For those who refuse to work, but have children the children will have to be taken away. I don't like the idea of ever separating a family, but the issue comes down to a parent refusing to work. This is the equivalent in this system of saying I will not feed my kid. As a result, the child would be sent off to the orphanage and be adopted by any willing family who passes through the qualification process. In the interim between adoption and being taken away, government funded institutions operated by volunteers (properly vetted to ensure they are not bad people) and religious organizations will care for the children as a form of non profit. Children must be kept safe and that is the logic behind this part of the reform. Though, I would defiantly include a window of opportunity for the child to be reunited with their parents.  If the parents are working toward improving their lives and trying to make enough money to support them and their children then they should be able to get their children back. If this is the case the institution will not allow for the child to be adopted but rather have the child as a long term guest until the parent(s) can take them back home. This would be the only way I would accept this part of the program.

Conclusion: Overall, the idea is radical especially for America and Europe. There are people and institutions that make a lot of money off the cash based system we have now as well as people who in general fear change. I however, support any change that gets people out of welfare and become self-sufficient. This is an idea to try out and see if it will work. If it does, use it and change the system, if not see if anything can be changed to make it work and if even that fails then put the idea out to pasture.  Remember the elderly and the mentally and physically disabled are not affected by any of this.  The only ones affected are those people who are able bodied and are capable of working.

Issue 63 Welfare to work April 25,2013

What is welfare to work program? Well, it is a welfare program designed to get people off welfare by finding them a job. The approach is straight forward and relies less on government and more on the jobs market to have the poor get jobs suitable to their skill level. From there they move up in the company as they gain skills or move to a new company with the work experience they gained, thus increasing their income.

Jobs first approach: The program has no long term training programs. At most those in the program should only spend a week in a class room. There they learn all attributes and skills needed to land an entry level position. This includes their appearance, their résumé, and proper speaking and even how best to show up on time. Using these skills (the basic skills people use at every job or to get a new one) the applicants are placed in the entry level position of a job that has an opining. From there is all up to the now working individual to keep the job until they are ready to move on to a new one or advance in position. It is really just that simple.

We can use private companies: Instead of using a mass of government workers to facilitate the welfare to work programs, we can use private companies. This of course is cheaper as you only have to pay them for their successes and not their failures (let alone their wages and retirement). How it would work is as simple as the jobs first approach to the program. Here, the private company would receive requests from other companies looking to fill various positions. At this point the private company administering the program would request any new applicants to the program and then match them to the appropriate job. They have the applicants go through the basic training (the welfare to work training plus any additional training the company making the request hires them for) and then are sent off to their new job. If the applicant manages to complete the probation period, then and only then will the private company be paid. This insures no corruption at any level of the process.

Conclusion: This same approach was used under Mayer Giuliani of New York City. Needless to say it worked very well as the amount of people impoverished decreased. He coupled this program with one to have more police on the streets and interact with the community more. Part of that was bringing the homeless to homeless shelters (if they have not committed a crime as a portion of the homeless in the city have. Those brought to the shelters had access to the program and thus both crime and poverty decreased in New York. Giuliani created a success story to say the least. So it becomes a why not moment in our history and the history of any nation with a welfare system. Let’s get them out of poverty and get them working.

Issue 62 Should we help Syria April 24, 2013

As most of you all know, Syria is in a civil war. The Arab spring uprisings turned violent when Syria's President (dictator) Assad cracked down on the protesters and thus sparked the violent conflict. From that point on the world watched as the conflict escalated with Turkey on the brink of all out war should the conflict spill over into their country and possibly risk the Kurds taking the opportunity to succeed. And just recently, there are reports of chemical weapons being used (however these chemical weapons are most likely ones not listed in the chemical weapons ban treaty, for if they were then the international community would be allowed to go in and crush Assad). Needless to say this situation is a complete mess.

Pros of going in: One of the main reasons to go in is to remove a dictator. Assad while having the title of President is not a true elected leader. As with most countries that wish to fake a democracy they have rigged elections and systems to keep certain specific people in power. This is despite Assad trying to appease the protesters pre civil war with constitutional reform.

Another reason to go in is that if the rebels win, there is a chance that a democracy (a real one) will develop. These rebels seek the rights and privileges that are granted to people in most free countries and they are willing to fight for it. If we help them, then it allows a possible future alliance in the Middle East (America will no longer just have Israel to rely on). In addition, once Syria is changed over to a new government, old ties with countries that may be against our countries interests may cease (as in the case of America versus Iran). Syria is a puppet of Iran in the region and Iran flying in troops to help Assad is proof. Iran is a rouge nation (at the moment) and removing an ally may help suppress their ambitions.

Finally, some of the rebels are foreign fighters from other countries. Unfortunately, some of them are radical Jihadists. If we help in some way then we can surgically remove these elements from the rebellion, or even use them as cannon fodder to do the dirty work while leaving the moderates safe to later rebuild the country based on freedom and democratic principles.

Cons: Everything listed in the Pros section can back fire. The new government of Syria once the conflict is over could be worse than Assad (case in point Iran after its revolution). So world may get an even more violent and dangerous rouge nation. Ties even with Iran may even strengthen, and the country may become a training ground for future jihadists. If we aid the rebels, we may just be giving weapons to the jihadists themselves which could increase violence and blood shed throughout the entire region. On top of that, Iran and other nations may become emboldened and develop nuclear bombs faster and then follow that up by giving the bombs to their allies. All of this is a dangerous proposition.

But we also have to remember that America is war weary. The last two wars we fought and the small brush fire conflicts in Lebanon and Yemen have stretched American forces thin. America cannot be expected to win a war for its allies and neutral nations anymore (at least not at the moment). Also, our involvement may make the situation worse as some of the rebels seeing that we are backing their comrades may see those same comrades as puppets of the American government. This could result in the rebels fighting each other both during and after Assad is removed from power.

Conclusion: For now we watch. We must look at the conflict carefully and only give support on a needs based bases whether that be a show of support on television to a small arm drop so the rebels can take out enemy tanks. All support must be focused to only those rebels that we trust, and even then how they got those weapons must be kept secret so as to prevent any sort of negative influences that may destabilize the situation more than it already has. From there we have to put our faith in the rebels that we helped to set up a country that is friendly to the U.S. Also, once the civil war is over, the U.S. and other countries should offer aid in rebuilding (such as electricians, plumbers or even experts in writing constitutions). We can get involved, but it must be selective and it must be secretive. The rebels must win, but only the ones who will not want to kill us after.

 

Yes I am a libertarian and I would prefer that the U.S. stay out of the conflict. But unfortunately, libertarians are not in charge so my conclusion is based on the U.S. getting involved because it is almost certain that both the Republicans and Democrats will push us into the conflict thinking it is our moral duty to do so. Though I think they forget that it is our moral duty to avoid sending our soldiers into harms way in the first place.

Issue 61 Blades on Planes April 23, 2013

Recently the U.S. Department of Home Land Security scaled back its restrictions on edged items such as scissors, knives and the like. But is this a wise decision or inviting another terrorist attack like that of 9/11.

Pros: An argument for allowing such items back on planes most likely concerns their overall lethality and the current security procedures used. For one, the cockpit is closed off from the rest of the plane preventing the pilots from being threatened directly. This only leaves the flight attendants and passengers at the mercy of a knife wielding terrorist or psycho path. However, many of these flight attendants have been given extra training since 9/11 to protect themselves and the passengers. How good that training is though is not the clearest as we have yet to see it tested. Then there is the fact that we have Air Marshals riding in the planes now as a deterrent. These Marshals are armed and trained (much more so than your typical flight attendant) to deal with this sort of situation. And finally the passengers are not the same complacent people they used to be. No one wants to be a victim so passengers are much more aware and ready to act. For instance, think of the "underwear" bomber, passengers took him down first. Adding knives into the equation allows passengers and crew to carry a deterrent to make a terrorist think twice (a psycho will just go nuts anyway however). Not to mention blocking people from carrying nail clippers and small scissors seems a bit unnecessary. To make a fatal blow with such a tiny blade a person would have to sever their main arteries in the neck or find a way to hold the other persons wrist long enough to slice it open. Aside from that, maybe the eyes are vulnerable (though in any close up fight with or without a weapon they are subject to damage). It takes a blade of at least a full 1 inch in length being plunged into the body to make an actual almost guaranteed fatal blow. Sure no one wants to be cut, but when you consider the alternative then you would prefer the small flesh cuts to a burning wreck.

Cons: The flight attendants and pilots are most defiantly against the change in security policy. For them it is an unnecessary risk as such small blades (if you really want to bring your scissors with you) can be carried in the luggage compartment. They don't want people to have access to such potentially deadly tools in their carryons. You can't exactly not feel for them, as they will be in the line of fire first and foremost. It is their lives that are in danger first. For a terrorist, sure they may be deterred from trying to take down another plane as current security procedures will prevent that from happening, which is if everything goes well. The nightmare scenario is what these pilots and flight attendants fear the most and who can blame them. Not to mention the fact that people should not be even bringing out such items as nail clippers during the flight. No one wants to see some one cut their nails as it is plain disgusting.

Conclusion: I personally see nothing wrong with allowing blades under a specific length back, like tiny scissors and nail clippers. Also, I see nothing wrong with blades over a specific length like a sword or axe (never know what a person is going to bring home) so long as it is too unwieldy to be used in the confined space of a plane. In addition, flight attendants should be allowed to arm themselves with any weapon they see fit that will not endanger to plane such as combat knives or small fire arms that will not penetrate the hull of the plane. So for me, a balance must be made between protection and freedom. Thus a list of items that can be carried as carryon’s should be made, with the rest of the items that are not allowed to be possessed as carryon’s riding in the luggage compartment. From there it comes down to a good screening process to protect people. I feel the pros out weigh the cons on this issue, but never should the feelings of the plane crew be dismissed from this sort of decision.

Issue 60 Death to Text Books April 22, 2013

Today we separate a little from hard core politics and reform and talk about education. In this case, we talk about text books and there future in our schools.

For the developed world: Text books have long served as reference tools for many generations of school students. They even had text books prior to the United States coming into existence. But today’s text books are overtly political. For the United States, the text books to be used in schools are based off what text books are to be used in Texas and California school systems. The reason being is that their governments decide which text books are to be used in all of their schools. As such, the rest of the country is subject to them due to it being cheaper to make a text book acceptable to their school system rather than make unique ones for each individual school or State.

Political Text Books: What people probably don't know is that the content of the text book is also defined by government. If they want more Black Americans represented, or Hispanic Americans represented then the governments at the State level will debate how much representation of each group will go in. From there the governments decide which people in history from those groups will be put in. Feminist groups try to make text books less masculine by trying to have words removed like "Fathers" from the "Founding Fathers", and other little things like that. There are even rules that define what cannot be placed in a text book. Such things as a picture of a mouse or a rat are banned because people may be afraid of them. Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds. Our text books are overtly subjected to politics and interest groups, and even then the text book may still get facts wrong. So what is the point in keeping them around in the age of the internet?

Digital Text Books: I advocate the complete removal of traditional text books from the class room. They have become politicized to the point that our school children (here in America at least) have lost any and all interest in them. In affect they have become boring due to the overt politicalization of the text book. What is needed is a switch to original source documents like the U.S. Constitution, the writings of Frederick Douglass and Dr. King Jr. If we want to learn hate, then we have to simply find a document expressing those feelings from the time period such as during the civil war. Children are not stupid, just impatient and thus they need something interesting to capture that interest. People regurgitating information in text books fails to due that. The traditional text book should be abolished and instead use an online data base filled to the brim with every aspect of human knowledge for students to choose from (looking at you Library of Congress). Why waste money buying a text book when a school can so much more cheaply educate their students with the original document like the Federalist Papers.

I do understand the argument that some of this information from original source documents can be a bit hard to read, but with a teachers help those more difficult parts can be made clear. Otherwise most of the documents themselves are fairly easy to grasp. I was afraid to read the Federalist Papers and my Constitutional law text book (contained actual case documents) because I feared not being able to grasp the concepts and writings. I read them though, and I understood them. When I had a question, I simply asked a question to my teacher. Learning became fun (note: I read those documents outside of regular class work as I was tired of being told what to believe with respect to politics and history).

The undeveloped world: For places without access to the internet (such places are vanishing quickly) text books in the traditional form will still be needed. For lets face it, a text book is a tool just like the internet, except that the internet has the ability to be a news source, a library and a communication device all rolled into one.

Conclusion: Math, and for the most part science (non-political parts) are non-controversial. History on the other hand is always controversial because everyone has to put their opinions in, and thus my advocating of online text books. Even work books can be online so long as the information can be sent to the teacher for checking. Publishers will however try to block this process every step of the way because it is what makes them the most money. But unfortunately for the publishers they are fighting a losing battle as budgets get tight, schools will have to look to other ways to save on cash and that may mean killing the text book as we know it today. The only way for the publishers to survive is to make online text books that schools will have to pay access to, but the traditional problems of politicalization will still be there (not to mention, why pay for information that you can access for free somewhere else). So lets hope that the government stops its protectionism soon so that our students can get the education they deserve not the political trash being shoved down their throat.

 

 

Issue 59 Did you know!? Welfare April 19, 2013

I first saw this corruption on a Fox News special hosted by Sean Hannity. The show was called Boom Town 2, and it was all about the corruption in the United States welfare system. So now I present to you some of that corruption.

Getting rich off the poor: Did you know that when the U.S. switched over to electronic food stamps that three private companies run the system on our behalf. The special mentioned two of the three and they are JP Morgan and Xerox. These companies save the taxpayers money by running the programs for us, but there is a catch. For each person on food stamps these companies make $2 per month. They are literally getting rich by having people be on food stamps. To make matters worse, these companies lobby the federal government (not just the politicians but the different departments in charge of the rules for welfare qualification) to reduce the qualifications to get food stamps. Thus, with less qualifications needed to be able to apply and receive welfare these companies can obtain more money as the number of people on welfare increase. This is corruption at its finest.

Corrupt businesses: Another little televised fact is that businesses such as super markets take a cut as well. However, their cut is illegal. Some shop keepers are ringing up groceries at twice there value to get more money. To make matters worse the welfare recipient is complicit. They let the shop keeper do this to get some spending money on the side. Investigators only inspect around 1,500 businesses per month, but the number of businesses who accept food stamps exceeds 20,000. Also, as some of you may well know, a food stamp recipient may not buy cigarettes of alcohol with food stamps, but again the corrupt business steps in. They ring up the cigarettes as an entirely different item. It is very disgusting.

Corrupt recipients: Did you know there is a cash back feature on food stamps. You probably didn't, but there is. When I used to work at a super market the food stamp recipients would buy what items they could with the card and then get cash back to buy booze. To add insult to injury, many of these people on welfare were wearing fur coats, diamond rings, expensive shoes and some even drove away in some real nice looking cars. Last I checked food stamp money is not actually a welfare recipient’s money. We gave it to them through our tax dollars to help them buy food, not get intoxicated. Hell some of these recipients use the ATMs in strip clubs, and others use the money they take out to buy drugs. It is a sick and twisted system we are in.

Conclusion: Right now about half the United States is on welfare. It has become part of the U.S.'s death spiral adding to the nation’s debt. Two States in our country, New York (my home) and California have more people on welfare than people paying into the system. This is a bi partisan issue that must be addressed, but isn't. The reason is that most people associate food stamps with black and Hispanic Americans. Yes it is true that a large percentage of each of those communities in America is on some form of welfare, but when you put all the demographics together there are way more white people on food stamps than black and Hispanic combined. Politicians and interest groups use the black and Hispanic communities as scapegoats to expand welfare in their districts to gain more votes. Thus, we have more corruption than we can shake a stick at. America's welfare system is broken. It needs a massive overhaul along with our tax code, and our government bureaucracy a whole. I don't know why countries bother posturing with America as all they have to do is wait for us to collapse from the inside (at least if we continue down this path to insolvency). To my readers from around the globe, be careful you do not end up in the same position we Americans are in now. As to my readers here in the U.S., if you want change, be prepared to be called a racist and a bigot, because no one wants their free stuff taken away. Maybe we should be like Mexico, they don't have a single form of welfare and yet no one has ever starved, because unlike some of western civilization the church and other private organizations aid the sick and needy in place of a corrupt and soulless government.