Posted on 12/06/2018 8:09:45 AM PST by george76
"Let 'em starve in the streets" proponents cannot be found outside the world of Democrat strawman polemics. There are some people -- and in a country as big as ours, quite a few people -- who need assistance to maintain a passable level (however defined) of food and shelter. Some of these are sympathetic cases, suffering from conditions beyond their control. Others are thoroughly unsympathetic. But either way, they are there. The question is, how best can we render assistance?
I am all in favor of work requirements for able bodied unemployed recipients.
I am all in favor of a phased withdrawal of means-tested benefits as low-income people get jobs and begin to work their way up. Phasing benefits out gradually as income rises, of course, means that substantial benefits flow to low-income working people. We can debate the phaseout schedule separately.
But again, given that some people will require assistance, what is the best way to provide it? I generally like vouchers, whether for public schools, Medicare and Medicaid, housing subsidies and nutritional assistance. Vouchers encourage integration with the private economy, which is the direction in which we want poor people to be headed, as opposed to carving out the poor as members of a special, highly visible government supported caste. Vouchers also are much easier to adjust downward as incomes rise. You can gradually reduce someone's SNAP/Food Stamp benefit as his income rises. It's a much more difficult proposition to throw a single mother of three out of her public housing apartment because she took a part-time job and is now making $575 a year too much to keep her apartment. With a housing assistance voucher, we would reduce her benefit check as her income rises, and expect her to make up the difference with earned income. She will find incentives to move out of the government housing project as she approaches market rate in terms of out of pocket rent payments. And getting her out of the projects yields many ancillary benefits.
The best "voucher", of course, is cash, ideally earned in return for work. The problem with simply giving cash grants to welfare recipients, however, is that the cash gets misspent. They are penniless before the end of the month, and often after the first week of the month if the underlying problems include drugs, gambling or other expensive vices. Food stamps are simply a categorical voucher which can be used only for the designated purpose, which increases the odds of making it to the end of the month. An educational voucher would work the same way: the mother of a public school student would get a rather substantial credit -- in DC, almost $30,000 a year, which is what the DC public schools are spending per student -- to be used only for tuition and expenses at a qualifying school. The amounts are lower in other cities, but here, an educational voucher using currently available revenues could substantially exceed the tuition at all but the most expensive private schools. Health insurance should work the same way: here's your voucher, now buy your own insurance. (There would still need to be direct assistance for the completely uninsurable.) In general, give the poor agency and an incentive to use the money wisely.
If you don't like vouchers for nutritional assistance, what would you propose instead? Government run soup kitchens in every neighborhood? Government checks for social services vendors (the Charity-Industrial Complex)? Direct commodity distribution like the old government cheese program, with distribution centers in every neighborhood?
I prefer a voucher, and letting them go to the grocery store.
I am all for assistance to those who are truly needy.
When I was a kid we had neighbors who had four kids. He was an auto mechanic and she was a homemaker. He was killed on the job during a brutal robbery. She was a career homemaker with no marketable skills and a high-school education. She was forced to rely on help, at least for awhile.
She has passed away, and her adult children are not on assistance.
And that is exactly how public assistance is supposed to work. No one begrudges this kind of help. The problem, of course, lies with those who settle for life on the dole and pass the disease along to their kids. It’s the ancient problem of the deserving vs. the undeserving poor.
End SNAP. In fact, only allow people to be on the dole twice in their lifetimes but only for six months. After that, too bad, not my responsibility.
Yeah, this is old news.
Are there any updates?
TWB
Forget SNAP.
The big deal in the bill is legalizing dope.
We voted for Trump and he seems to have turned into Teddy Kennedy.
TWB
And sadly was offset one-for-one by an increase in SSDI claims; the moochers don't go back to work or move, they just find a new angle. But it is a good start, eventually eliminate all the angles.
Don’t you just love the Swamp! They got $ (OURS) FOR EVERY DEAD BEAT IN THE COUNTRY, ILLEGAL OR NOT!
Ethanol is covered by the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, under Energy and Commerce.
Ethanol is funded every year, on a massive scale, via the farm bill.
Refer us to the line item, please.
“The welfare folks would have to add up their SNAP, WIC, TANF, housing and other benefits and pay taxes “
This would result in a 70% or more democrat vote for the presidency.
Not excatly, there are lots of parallels between the ACA and SNAP.
The ACA didn't result in government taking over one hospital, clinic, doctor's office or insurance company. It's just that people are required to buy insurance (on the private market).
There are restrictions on what kind of insurance they can buy, just as there restrictions on what can be bought with food stamps.
They’re is one of those “communities” south of Branson Missouri. I have been tempted to go there and see it.
https://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article169607787.html
Ah! I see.
The Farm Bill has some alternative energy money for experimental stuff and wind energy. These are scams mostly, but are vanishingly small sum sums compared to he fuel ethanol mandate that is not part of the Farm Bill.
The Farm Bill is 80% food welfare, and around 15% crop insurance and conservation programs. Even in the bloated Farm Bill, that doesn’t leave enough to support the billions blown on fuel ethanol.
Interesting to know how they found 73 commies willing to pull their own weight for a duration. I’m thinking they commercialized their “special status” and ain’t what they profess to be.
I was employed as a front end cashier in El Mirage, AZ for about a year.
What I resented was when a customer’s benefit card ran out, they expected the cashier to make up the difference on that transaction. I was making $9 an hour working 33 hours a week, which was considered full time at Walmart.
A lot of cashiers helped their customers out, it was a well known secret.
I’ve never been on food stamps.
Walmart really doesn’t care about their employees.
IOW, the workfare requirement is a problem because too many people went back to real jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.