#social do-gooders
3 messages in this thread
Gee, I don't recall myself demanding "immediate 100% success" in welfare
reform. To the contrary. I've said the current system, flawed as it is,
probably will never go away entirely, because it's the cheapest system
available overall, which makes it a winner among politicians of all
stripes, no matter what they would have you believe, never minding its
serious down side.
As for the corrupted work ethic: it's not just the result of
declining personal and family values, but also declining institutional
and, yes, corporate values. Businesses dump long-standing workers in the
interests of efficiency and then expect those hopelessly unemployable
middle-agers to keep a stiff upper lip and to believe in the system, while
local economies adjust without pain.
Air traffic control is like broadcast regulation. Because of the nature of
the technology, you either do it on a macro scale or you don't do it. Air
control is actually an international system, run in the US by the FAA.
Same with broadcast regulation, which is international in scope and run in
the US by the FCC. Same with communications satellites. If states ran air
traffic control, we'd have lots more crashes. If states could place and
operate communications satellites, we'd have satellites crashing into one
another.
The NRC is a flawed organization, in part because the DOE was all goofed
up by its contradictory need to oversee nuclear weapons development, but
to suggest private ventures could run nukes without some oversight agency
is to flirt with disaster. I used to work for a company that runs two
nuclear power plants. Those plants had among the best and safest operating
records of any nuclear plants in the world, and yet the NRC inspectors
every so often found serious operating or security violations.
Beyond that, the NRC *depends* on states to help carry out its mission.
States are already licensed by the NRC to handle some
radiation safety; my brother is a state worker who drills to handle
nuclear plant disasters, which work is overseen by the NRC. The NRC even
pays for his training, but he's a state worker. However, states by
themselves probably could not afford to monitor nuclear safety; nor would
a state by state regulatory system be very comforting. What say if
Mississippi legislators decided to skimp on the state nuclear regulatory
budget one year?
Similarly, if we had a national system of AFDC payments, we'd cut down
enormously on wasteful welfare migration. Wisconsin, for instance, pays
higher (though still poverty-level) child benefits than, say, Texas. So
all other things being equal, a smart and logical welfare recipient in
Texas would in his or her enlightened self interest immediately move to
Wisconsin or some similar state. And, indeed, there is a certain amount of
welfare in-migration to states that pay higher benefits. Further, some
low-benefit states actually encourage out-migration. This is a lousy
set-up.
States' rights are all well and good, but principle is a poor excuse for
paying no attention to common sense goals and pragmatic approaches.
Ron,
and you shrug off quite a bit in passing, as usual. It is NOT the
cheapest system overall. The cheapest system would obviously (albeit not
obvious to you) return as many workers as possible to the work force as
soon as possible. True, there is a certain segment, which you address
later on, namely the cyclicly unemployed, that is immediately re-employed,
but you are willing to permanently relegate the rest to the welfare system
forever. It is a mix of the two that you are addressing, while I am
seperating the two groups.
The cyclically unemployed (57%, or so, of all welfare recipients, btw)
appear on the welfare rolls and disappear withing 1 1/2 to 2 years. The
rest are stuck in the AFDC/Housing/Food Stamp trap. By attempting to try
to link the continuous reciptients to those that are cyclical, you show
your own bias. _We_ all know that they are NOT the problem. Even the
marxists agree on this (which is where I got the above stat, btw).
Demographically, the breakdowns are the cyclically unemployed, the
rural Appalacian families, rural America in general, inner-city
permanently unemployed, and inner-city unemployed AFDC reciptients. We
can't do anything with the first two groups, Lord knows it's been tried,
so that leaves the 30% left. In any case, support for the first 70% are
inherently considered as a cost of doing business. So what do we do with
the remaining 30%? They are the problematic area in Welfare policy.
As I indicated, we can alleviate at least 50% of the lack of job skills
in this area with proper training, and, yes, childcare. After a while,
these people are able to stand on their own. You may not want to face
that fact, but it has worked here. Anecdotal evidence being not
sufficient, I have overheard welfare mothers on AFDC talking about their
job prospects and it is currently better than mine. One is about to be a
Dental Technician, the other, a Paralegal. In both cases, the cost of the
child care is more than offset by their tax contributions and fees
assessed. There is hope. Not as much as many conservatives admit, but it
is there. The rest will continue to be assessed as a cost of doing
business, but don't expect it to last long.
Given the trend towards ever increasing job-skills to obtain and/or
maintain a job, we are going to be facing ever increasing numbers of
permanently unemployed. The European countries (ever the Liberal's model
of how to cope) haven't dealt well with this, come to think of it, given
the riots, haven't dealt with it at all. We do have a pattern to follow
here. Retrain the worker to new job skills, whether he/she likes it or
not, and give child-care and health-care during the interim period. It
may require two years, but we will recover the investment over the next
decade. The welfare model of Riverside County is a positive proof of
that. BTW, many corporations are already implementing this program on
their own. It is far cheaper to retrain an existing worker (by $50K or
so) than to train a new worker. The former is already trained in terms of
corporate policies, the latter is not. Also, federal government
requirements for benefits beyond any reasonable number of workers further
push corporations in that direction, although I find them rediculous.
Re: Air Control. I assume you will advocate a similiar system in the
not too distant future for our freeways, highways, tollways, and streets?
There is a limited amount of roadway available and there is an ever
increasing amount of traffic demanding the use of same. Actually, they
should have been regulated first, not the air traffic ways. Accidents on
the ground kill 45K or more people per year. What is the death toll for
aircraft? Perhaps 500, if that. Where is your call for traffic
regulation of the roadways?
BTW, it is quite easy and cheap to incorporate a radar avoidance system
into every airplane. Indeed, similiar systems for ships cost under $10K.
For an aircraft, they might cost $50K at most. Come to think of it, it
isn't very costly for an automobile either, and it comes with GPS
navigation for all three, as well. Part of the basic system, don'tcha
know. Come back to me when you regulate the highways. (IOW, get real,
please!)
Re: NRC and States. The same organizations that regulate insurance
activities are not competant to regulate nuclear activities? Interesting.
Perhaps they are not competant to regulate any activity, including
Insurance, Nuclear Reactors, or Air Traffic Control. Shouldn't that tell
you something? The order of complexity is far easier in the reactor case
than either of the other two activities. Wishful thinking to the contrary
will not change facts. A statistic, be it an airline crash, reactor
meltdown, or collapse of an insurance agency (the most difficult to
regulate, by far!) will come along and bite you in the ass. Examples
abound, especially from sunny Southern California, where nuclear plants
are shut down, ATC is miserable, and insurance companies are going bust,
all to salvage one political career.
Ah yes, the old bugaboo of welfare migration. Anyone tell you that it
ain't real? The statistics quite discount it. When you bother to adjust
for cost-of-living, the order of which states are best for a 'welfare
queen' changes dramatically. Alaska and Utah come out on top. Hmmm…, I
guess that either 'welfare queens' aren't economically rational (fat
chance), or perhaps, that the states that they would do best in are
somehow inimical to their sort. I'd lay money on the latter, not the
former. Go back to the data and try again. BTW, Texas, California, and
Wisconsin down't come off very well, when adjusted.
Principle is everything. If one abandons one's moral compass for the
convienance of the moment, or the fad of the moment, is completely
morally, and ethically, bankrupt. I live by a few ideals, and I don't see
that we are sharing very many of them. Your last line says it all. Give
up everything in the name of pragmatism, it matters not what it is. It is
completely obvious from the data, to any but a complete idiot, that the
current system makes absolutely sure that any particular family WILL be
kept in utter poverty forever. The rules for AFDC, Housing, and Food
Stamps ensure such. If you accumulate any funds whatsoever, you will be
penalized immediately. Not only for the amount of the funds, but a
penalty of three times the amount you accumulated. This is an absolute
formula for continuing poverety. If you don't believe me, just look at
recent H&HS and HUD cases.
I know. I grew up in it and I'm living it today. I'm the prototypical
H&HS family member. Broken family, unsuccessful career, disability, ad
nauseum. I know the hoops. Try it for a while before you get on your
high horse and state as fact assertions which you have no knowledge about.
I'm digging my way out, and hopefully that of my family. At the least,
I'm lucky. I've got an understanding bunch of bureaucrats. I hope I can
keep them for a while. Otherwise, more games will occur. The ever
circular dance of Savings, Rent, Education, and Housing. That is the only
point where I deviate from the Libertarian party line. There is a certain
point whereby you deviate from the original goal of totally free-markets.
In this case, I am trying to make it.
So, Ron, frag off and peddle your warez elsewhere. You don't have a
clue about the bottom end. Yet another weekend liberal.
The Four Seasons of Southern California:
Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and Riot.
Highway traffic is pretty heavily regulated by states and local
municipalities, with fines and even prison sentences for various offenses
thought to cause a burden on the public. Users of this system are even
required to carry identification/proof of operators qualification, and
possibly a certificate of mechanical health for the vehicle. Some places
even require highway users to buy insurance, and even require insurers to
insure drivers who they don't consider profitably insurable (they pool
these assumed risks and share the cost with everyone else).
This byzantine system is why the american highways are too expensive and
inefficient, and even now cost-conscious companies are building their own
roads on private property where they don't have to submit to these absurd
regulatory abuses. ;->