Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label welfare. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Joe Lieberman, Jon Huntsman Call for Throwing Even More People Off Welfare

Today, former Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman and former Utah Governor Jon Huntsman unveiled 60 different policy proposals that they say have the support of the great majority of the American people. Many of them seem worthwhile, but many others don’t go nearly far enough when compared to the spirit of the New Deal. The overriding principle is getting rid of the national deficit. Unfortunately, one of their proposals involves throwing even more people off welfare who they deem to be too lazy.
Our greater concern ought to be about what the debt level -- now topping $19 trillion or about $150,000 of debt for every household in America -- means for our future. Interest on the debt is the fastest growing item in the federal budget.  The U.S. spent an astounding $223 billion in interest payments last year. That number is projected to reach $1 trillion by 2020, “a lot of money,” one analyst observed, “to be spending on something that doesn’t do anything for you.” It’s a lot of money that won’t be spent on repairing America’s aging infrastructure or investing in our children’s future.  
If you go to their website, www.nolabels.org, you can view all 60 of their proposals. Here is the proposal on welfare:
Receiving welfare or other forms of public assistance should be conditioned upon recipients actively looking for employment if they are able. Tightening welfare requirements could also help fix the “welfare cliff” that can discourage people from working or accepting better-paying jobs for fear of abruptly losing benefits.
Supposedly, 82% of Americans support this proposal. Their About Section says that these ideas were polled:
*Polling data derived from three national surveys conducted by Cohen Research Group in February and March 2016. Each survey had a sample size of at least 1,000 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%.
Cohen Research is a company which does data research for corporate clients.
First of all, what we find is that people tend to respond to polls depending on who is doing the questioning. For instance, people are much more likely to give a conservative answer is FOX News is doing the questioning, for instance. Secondly, this proposal to kick people off welfare is totally antithetical to the Second Bill of Rights that was part of the New Deal:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
If we don’t make having a good job with a living wage a basic right, then kicking people off welfare doesn’t make sense. No Labels lamely acknowledges the problem of people who are long-term unemployed:
For example, Gov. Pete Ricketts of Nebraska unveiled a plan last year that provides one-on-one training and counseling for unemployed workers, along with individualized “re-employment” plans that work with local employers to match their needs. Nebraska estimated that 6,800 new workers were added into the workforce as a result and hope to add more over the coming years.
Congress should allocate more funding towards nation-wide projects that mimic local efforts already underway in states like Nebraska.
To reduce chronic unemployment, Congress should require long-term unemployed persons to participate in a reemployment or vocational training program that provides the advising, skills and credentials necessary to become employed or reemployed. This process could be further reinforced with partnerships in industry.
This helps, but doesn’t go far enough. For instance, how much would it cost the worker? Would they have to go into even more debt just for the possibility of getting a job? What would be the consequences for not participating in such a program? This ignores the fact that many people who have jobs nonetheless are still on welfare. For instance, Wal-Mart tells people who want more money to go to the nearest welfare office. 
And even assuming that 82% of Americans are on board with this plan, the Constitution is designed to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. It doesn’t do any good to stigmatize one’s fellow human beings by refusing to provide full employment on the one hand and then turn around and call people who can’t get a job lazy when they are among the unlucky ones left out in the cold.
And what No Labels omits is just as telling as what they propose. They sweep the problem of race under the rug. It is just like the administration of Grover Cleveland, who tried to pretend that the problem of race didn’t exist anymore and that we were now a colorblind society. The reality is that racism is alive and well in this country. The May 17th Washington Post reported that schools are now actually resegregating, suggesting that two causes of long-term unemployment are racism and lack of opportunity. 
Mr. Lieberman and Mr. Huntsman may be right that we have a Constitutional obligation to pay off the interest, but what we found was that when the economy performs strong enough, as it did under Bill Clinton, when we created 20 million new jobs, the deficit will be wiped out on its own. The deficits came back when George Bush put in his infamous tax cuts and committed war crimes costing taxpayers trillions of dollars. 
Our first priority has to be to create a society with full employment by fueling growth industries that both create jobs and protect us against climate change. That would mean pushing more wind, solar, and geothermal along with phasing out coal and fracking. We can also resurrect the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration as well. Our next priority has to be to identify and fuel other such industries. We can cut our military spending by two thirds and still maintain the strongest army in the world. Then, we can stop all the tax evasion by breaking up the big banks, getting rid of corporate tax inversion, and cracking down on the practice of offshoring. The Panama Papers merely scratch the surface of what is available to us. That, plus cracking down on waste, fraud, and abuse in government will give us all the money we need to fuel a New Deal for the 21st Century.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

A Moment with Mike -- Retaining Small Businesses

The tradition of “throwing paper in the air” brought an end to the first session of the 96th General Assembly at 6:00 p.m. Friday evening. It is difficult to describe that mixture of feelings that include relief, fatigue, disappointment, pride, satisfaction and patriotism as you ponder the reality of the many bills, initiatives and ideas that have either passed through the process or failed, but will have an effect on the citizens of Missouri for years to come. The cumbersome process is frustrating at times but also adds some protection from ideas and regulations that may seem progressive and necessary by some and redundant or harmful to others.

A bill only becomes law after it has gone through a number of steps in both the House and the Senate. Getting agreement throughout the process without having things added to the bill that are undesirable is difficult. These steps guarantee that anything that passes and is sent to the Governor for one more step has been vetted appropriately. That does not mean that we all agree but each Representative or Senator tries to represent the constituents in their part of the state and hopefully most things passed represent the over-all good for the state.

We started session with a pledge to live within our means, keep taxes low and balance the state budget. I believe we have accomplished these priorities and have passed measures that will positively affect Missourians in all walks of life. One top priority was to create an atmosphere to attract and retain small business and we successfully passed legislation that will reduce regulations and cut down on frivolous lawsuits for small businesses and family farms.

We continued to represent Missouri taxpayers by requiring drug tests for welfare recipients, if they are suspected of abusing drugs, so we know our tax dollars are used to provide a hand up and not a hand out. We went after the worst of the worst by toughening penalties on those who attempt to facilitate human trafficking and we took a strong stand for the unborn and defined what a viable life in Missouri actually is. We passed a reasonable fix to Prop B that will improve the safety and enforceability of animals and bad actors, but also protect our agriculture industry and we made several changes in the “right to carry” laws including the extension of these rights to 21 year olds which makes us consistent with the other states around us.

Two pieces of legislation approved by the General Assembly will appear on the November 2012 ballot for voter approval. One will be to protect and clarify the rights of Missourians to pray in public places and the other will determine the need for a photo ID to vote.

I was pleased that we were able to extend the MO Rx program that benefits over 200,000 senior citizens and we funded the Area Agencies on Aging to enable them to continue the “Meals on Wheels” program that provides a service to those who cannot provide well for themselves.

One of the more difficult initiatives that took a lot of time and consideration was the passing of a redistricting map that would establish the boundaries for the 8 congressional districts in our state. This was completed with a historical override of the Governor’s veto and this will be in law for at least the next ten years.

These are a few of the initiatives that were passed this session and I will give a more detailed overview of some of these in the coming weeks. Right now I am looking forward to staying in the district and seeing all of you at the parades, carnivals, dinners and other events throughout the area.

If you have questions, you may reach me at my Capitol number 573-751-9465, at the local district number, 660-582-4014, by email at mike.thomson@house.mo.gov or by mail at Room 401B State Capitol Building, Jefferson City, MO 65101

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Opinion: What Would Jesus Cut?

By Dr. Shawn Ritenour
That is the question asked by the left-leaning Christian organization, Sojourners, in its campaign of the same name. It is a most appropriate question given the battle over the budget and given this time of year, not long after the most holy holiday of the year for Christians.
Sojourners claims that, despite record budget deficits and national debt, reducing subsidies for things like vaccines and bed nets in Africa, school lunch programs, early childhood education, and income maintenance in the United States is immoral. Indeed, such subsidies, Sojourners says, “are dollars we can’t afford to not invest.”
What are we to make of these claims? Certainly we are called to love our neighbor as ourselves and this love, when directed toward the poor and needy, must manifest itself by providing real material help to those who truly need it. It is not enough merely to wish a suffering soul to be warm and well fed. We must be willing to put our money where our mouth is.
It is a mistake, however, to treat as materially poor those who merely have lower incomes than others. For example, the average officially “poor” American has more living space than the average person living in Paris or London. Sixty-two percent of officially poor American homes have satellite or cable television and nearly 75 percent own an automobile. In the United States, what passes for poor certainly does not imply destitution.
Most important, we need to remember that the ends never justify the means, especially for the Christian. Good intentions are never enough to establish an action’s ethical validity. Scripture not only ordains ends we are called to pursue; it also guides us regarding the means that are acceptable to use in achieving those ends.
We should keep these principles in mind when considering Sojourners’ campaign. The campaign correctly notes that societal righteousness is not measured by GDP or military spending; also one of the good works demonstrated by righteous people is charity to the poor. This is all true.
Yet, a fundamental problem with Sojourners’ program is the assumption that what "we" do must be done by the state. It is a large and not logically necessary leap from "We are called to be charitable to the poor," to "A righteous society will have an extensive welfare state." Consider:
In the first place, it is not clear at all that the programs mentioned above have been proven effective. There is much literature documenting the ineffectiveness of foreign aid in producing sustainable development, which is the best way to reduce poverty in less developed nations.
Domestically, the link between welfare programs and personal development is so tenuous that even Bill Clinton thought that welfare reform was wise. Like it or not, institutional entitlement payments to the poor encourages idleness, one of the primary reasons that many households earn low incomes. Along with an absent father, one of the main reasons for impoverished children in this country is parents who do not work much. Subsidizing idleness through the federal budget is not going to solve this problem.
The message from Sojourners also errs by assuming that money spent on these projects is investment. In fact, the money spent resembles government consumption. Investment is the voluntary directing of saved income toward capital accumulation and the employment of that capital in its most productive use. Calling government spending “investment,” when that spending is funded by coercive taxation or monetary inflation, is doing violence to language.
For that matter, forcing taxpayers to pay for such programs, even if worthwhile, likewise does violence to the citizenry. It is a violation of the Christian ethic of property and, hence, cannot be accepted as a truly Christian approach to ministering to the poor. If Christ wishes us to adhere to the ethics He has revealed to us in Scripture, perhaps Jesus would want us to cut a lot more government spending than Sojourners assumes.
A better solution would be for the church to be the church. Local congregations should fully fund their diaconate and charge them with earnestly ministering to the needs of the poor as they become aware. The diaconate should be pro-active and eager to minister. However, they should be wise in their ministration, so as not to promote the very problems they seek to alleviate. More importantly, the church should preach the Gospel to everyone, making disciples of all people.
This two-pronged approach will minister to both the material poverty of the poor, and, more importantly, the spiritual poverty of those who do not know Him.
Dr. Shawn Ritenour is a professor of economics at Grove City College, contributor to The Center for Vision & Values, and author of "Foundations of Economics: A Christian View."

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Missouri's governor proposes education budget cuts, welfare increases

Missouri's governor has proposed budget cuts exceeding nine percent for public higher education for the fiscal year that will begin in July.

Primary and secondary education would see a four percent cut under the governor's spending plan he presented to lawmakers Wednesday night. Administration officials had been warning for some time that deep cuts would have to be made in the state's budget because of reduced federal funds.

The state's Medicaid program, which provides health care coverage for the lower income, would enjoy one of the biggest increases under the governor's plan -- $490 million more, or slightly less than a 7.5 percent increase.

In his State of the State address to legislators, Gov. Jay Nixon made no direct reference to the specific education cuts. He did talk about the general cuts he has had to make in Missouri's budget during his two years as governor and the ability to avoid tax increases.

"All across state government, a leaner workforce is doing more with less. These decisions are never easy, but they are necessary. And because we've been frugal, we have money to invest in the things that matter most to Missourians: jobs, education, health care, and law enforcement," he said.

GOP leaders in the legislature withheld criticism of the Medicaid increase, agreeing with the administration's budget director that he new federal health care law restricts the state from making cuts in Medicaid.

Medicaid coverage is a major component of the federal law's objective to assure health care coverage.

"I think a lot of that Medicaid coverage is undoable," said House Budget Committee Chair Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City. "The federal government has taken a lot of our ability to control that program over."

While withholding criticism of the welfare increase, Republicans did criticize the governor's approach to the education budgets -- particularly his suggestion that local school districts avoid spending some federal funds this year in order to make up for potential state budget cuts in the next fiscal year.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

A welfare drug ban advances to Missouri's House

A measure to require drug testing of welfare recipients is one of the first two bills before the Missouri House when it returns on Tuesday (Jan. 18). The measure would require drug testing of either a recipient or an applicant of "Temporary Assistance to Needy Families" (TANF) whom the department suspects of being an illegal drug user. Legislative staff estimates the requirement would cost the state more than $2 million in the first full year of implementation based largely on the estimated costs of conducting the tests. A positive test would result in a one-year ban in TANF benefits. A similar measure cleared the House in 2010 but stalled in the Senate Health Committee.