I remember learning back in school about the basic necessities for human life: food, water, shelter, and clothing. While the latter may at times be a matter of prerogative, the former three are indisputable necessities. When these are not available to us, we become incapable of functioning within societal parameters. When whole areas are afflicted with a shortage of these necessities, society breaks down completely. Man reverts to his more primal nature, securing these necessities for himself and his family without regard to others, fighting for these things if need be. It is with this understanding of the fundamental importance of securing these necessities of life that modern societies have created for themselves a social safety net for those who are having trouble meeting these basic needs. It is an imperfect safety net, to be sure, but the fact that it exists is a testament to the rational empathy of humanity.
In the 2006 Federal Budget, the U.S. has allocated the following amounts to aid in the fight against hunger, poverty, and homelessness: Health & Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Social Security Administration have a combined total of $105 billion dollars, or 11% of all discretionary spending. (This does not include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid payouts, which are mandatory spending requirements in the budget.) By comparison, Defense receives $419 billion, or 44% of all discretionary spending. (This is not a complaint regarding defense spending. It is both necessary and important, but badly managed. But that is another discussion.) Energy and Justice each take about 2%, or $20 billion, and Education gets nearly 6% with $56 billion. The point of all these numbers is to show how much we are spending, financially, to help people in trouble obtain the basic needs of life. To me, $105 billion dollars is a lot of money. With that much money at hand, surely we could end hunger and homelessness, and maybe even poverty too. So why haven’t we?
It isn’t for a lack of effort, that’s for sure. There are thousands of private and governmental agencies whose stated mission is to assist those in need. However, despite them all, we have yet to conquer these problems. The poverty rate in this country is around 12%. The hunger rate, defined as “frequently skipping meals or eating too little, sometimes going without food for a whole day, due to a lack of food” affects nearly 10 million people. Each year, some 2 million people experience some degree of homelessness; increasingly these people are displaced families with children. And while poverty may be a tougher problem to handle, certainly hunger and homelessness could be eradicated.
As I see it, the problem is twofold: inefficient or ineffective management of funding, and attitude. With $105 billion dollars to work with, and remember, this is just federal tax dollars and doesn’t include the additional billions pouring in from state and private sources, we should certainly have enough money to address the problem. But when you come down to things, this isn’t about having enough money, and it isn’t about having enough compassion and desire. It’s about our societal ethic that values contribution and productivity and it’s about our attitude towards those who fail to meet these expectations of society. It’s about a bureaucracy that prefers to maintain the status quo for all the wrong reasons, and in the process, robs us of our taxes and deprives the needy of their dignity.
Truth be told, in today’s uncertain economic world, even the richer among us is just a heartbeat away from needing the help of our social services. Another stock market crash, a debilitating injury or illness, an outsourced job…any of these could befall us and send us packing into the street if we are not prepared. And let’s face it; most Americans do not have the cash reserves to weather a lengthy period of strife. Most barely have enough to make it through a few weeks without a steady flow of income. Yet, whether we admit it to ourselves or not, most of us who have never needed to rely on the social safety net view those that do need help as either inferior or just plain useless. In truth, it’s often just a matter of luck. This is not to say that there haven’t been and won’t continue to be people who are just “gaming the system,” but to paint all in need with this same brush is slander of the worst kind.
As I said earlier, part of the problem lies in our attitude towards those who need our help. Anyone who has ever had to deal with a government aid agency has probably experienced a great level of discomfort. If you think the Department of Motor Vehicles is a nightmare, try navigating through food assistance or housing programs or trying to collect unemployment. You can almost feel an underlying attitude of scorn or contempt. This bias displays itself in the attitudes of government workers as they shuffle through file after file, navigating the red tape of micromanagement, or in the wayward glance of the motorist who ignores the panhandler at the intersection. And the mountains of regulation created by politicians, which only serve as a barrier to those who truly need help, further expand this type of contempt. Obscenely enough, many of the programs that would provide assistance are created with this bias already in place, turning the safety net into a spider’s web that lures you in with a little assistance, and then wraps you up in regulations so tight that you suffocate and die. All the while, watching over you with an unfeeling eye, preventing you from escape, or in the real world, keeping you dependant.
When it comes to the efficiency of these programs, we must also ask ourselves if government is really the best administrator. In my humble opinion, it is not. Government’s propensity to over spend, over evaluate, and under perform makes it the least likely candidate for the job. Government excels at collecting funds and assuring an even playing field through legislation. It is a capable collector of goods, but a lousy dispenser of service.
An alternative structure could be something like this: the federal government would be tasked with collecting a tax specifically earmarked for social programs that assist those in need. The feds could not take any money out; they could only put money in. They would also be responsible for crafting general guidelines for allocating these funds. Private organizations would bear the responsibility of developing local or regional assistance programs. These organizations would submit plans and funding requests to a rotating, national citizens committee who would be responsible for ensuring that the funds were being properly disbursed and equitable distributed. This citizen panel would also conduct audits on both the organizations that provide assistance and the people who were receiving the aid.
We must remember that assistance is just that- it is meant to be temporary help while an individual gets back on their feet. Towards those ends, programs must be developed that not only meet the urgent requirements of shelter and food, but also must be geared towards returning a person back to productive society. Provided that recipients are not disabled, there should be ways for them to contribute while they are getting back on their feet and there should be training programs to help them avoid returning to the same status as before. In other words, we offer help to those who demonstrate their willingness to help themselves, so long as they are able to.
I haven’t addressed all of the root causes of poverty or hunger or homelessness, focusing here mainly on the structure of the aid itself. And it would be ridiculous to imagine that simply reforming our safety net could solve all these problems. Larger issues like costs and wages, improved education, employment practices, and healthcare are all contributing factors to these issues. But until we make the necessary adjustments to those aspects of our so
ciety, we will continue to deal with hungry children, homeless grandfathers, and poor families. And there is no reason that those in need should be subjected to the cruelty of government red tape. The least we can do is expect our safety net to be solid, efficient, effective, and to treat our citizens with dignity.
This entry was posted on Friday, April 29th, 2005 at 6:48 am and is filed under Government, Health, Life, Politics, Reform, Social Programs, taxes.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 29th, 2005 at 9:14 am
I’m not sure how you did your math, but I figured the 105 Bill divided by 48 million would be just over 2000 dollars. One million mulitplied by a million is a quadrillion, am I figuring this wrong? Maybe you should look over those numbers again, because to me it really doesn’t seem like all that much.
April 29th, 2005 at 3:44 pm
Moose- You are right, of course, and I have deleted that portion of the argument. My only excuse is that of doing the math late at night, and in doing so, misplacing a couple of decimals. In fact, that part of the essay had me tossing and turning trying to figure out if it really made sense. It seemed too simple, and although simple is often the right answer, in this case, it wasn’t.
That said, it’s even more imperative to make sure we put these dollars to good use. Assistance programs need to offer true assistance beyond the patchwork of bureaucratic red tape and dehumanizing attitudes of those who dispense it.
Thanks for checking uupp on the numbers.
April 30th, 2005 at 1:43 am
As a social worker, I’d like to address your charcterization of government services and those who provide them. I am not sure from your statements exactly who you blame within the blanket term “the government,” or to whom you assign a bad attitude. However, having spent over ten years in the social work arena, most of which has been spent in state and county agencies, I take issue with your description of us as “the problem, rather than the solution.”
How much direct involvment have you had with social services? The majority of the people I have worked with are caring and compassionate, overworked and underpaid, and perform their duties in the face of much difficulty. They are certainly not in it for the money, as it is a notoriously low-paying profession. They care about their work, and they want to help people as much as they can.
There is a ridiculous stereotype that social service agencies are swimming in tax money, and they give it away to undeserving recipients by the bucketful. Wrong. Budget cuts and shortfalls occur practically every year. Agencies are always short-staffed and ill-equipped.
Another mistaken perception is that social service agencies’ workers don’t do much. Wrong again. The caseloads are enormous and barely manageable. It is not scenario where a nice mom and a few kids wander through the office now and then to ask for a check. When you’re a caseworker, there are hundreds of emergencies occurring all at once that need your attention right now, and I am not using that as a figure of speech. I mean real emergencies of human tragedy and life-altering importance, day after day. No matter how hard we try or how efficient we are, we simply cannot save everyone all the time, every time. There are not enough of us to be eveywhere and do everything at once.
Which leads me to what you call the “dehumanizing attitudes of those who dispense it.” When one is faced with the issues social workers face every day, it becomes clear that one important tool is the ability to address them as quickly and efficiently as possible. This does not mean being rude or inconsiderate, which we denounce. It means that we are trying to help you, and a whole lot of other people at the same time, whose problems are as important as yours, and sometimes more so. Maybe in the private sector you’ll find social workers who can offer a shoulder to cry on for a longer period of time, but in gov’t agencies we are generally overwhelmed with workload and are trying to be as compassionate and attentive as possible, but on a grand scale.
Also, keep in mind that not all the people we deal with are happy-go-lucky, charming poor people. Those attitudes you describe exist on both sides of the counter. Along with the truly needy, we deal with people who are hostile, violent, mentally ill, or sometimes (gasp!) lying to commit fraud. But we help them all, nonetheless.
Another thing, gov’t agency social workers do see where inefficiency lies and often try to circumvent it, occasionally violating policies and placing themselves at risk to do so. I personally took a stand against government waste when I worked for the State of Arizona. The point is, “those who dispense” public assistance should be categorized according to the popular (and highly inaccurate) stereotype.
The economics are a two-way street. Many agencies have to work with private-sector service providers, and if they want to charge more money than the taxpayers are willing to pay, some hard choices have to be made, such as eliminating habilitative therapy services to developmentally disabled children. The list goes on.
I wish people could spend a year working in social services. The perception of us as unfeeling bureaucrats would certainly change.
Okay, that’s my rant! I hope this helps give some food for thought. It is not my intention to go off on you, Ken, or anyone else. Just defending the hardworking, compassionate, not-in-it-for-the-money social workers!
April 30th, 2005 at 7:24 am
(response)
SheaNC- Your comments gave me reason to reread the post a couple more times, and I didn’t get the impression that I am railing against the actual aid workers as much as the system in which they operate. In fact, I really only see one paragraph which focuses on the actual social workers, and that not even in its entirety. But I will admit that some of the remarks regarding the quality of service provided could fit under the heading of “stereotype.”
Primarily, I am implying that the problem lies within both the bloated bureaucracy and confounding regulations as well as an overall societal attitude towards those who come needing help. I am quite sure that many social workers do care, but I sometimes have to question the decisions they reach and the method with which they reach them, particularly regarding family matters, which in all fairness isn’t the topic of this post at all. And yes, I can empathize with the daily plight of dealing with people on the edge day after day after day. Simply being around so much despair must at times rub off, and perhaps this is when the “I don’t need this sh*t” attitude comes through.
I am fortunate in that I have not needed the services of the social safety net much in my life, save for a stint on unemployment. But I have plenty of vicarious experience through friends and family, and while this is undoubedly tainted by their perceptions, when a similar tale is told often enough there is usually some truth. Or maybe just incredible back luck for all those who have shared tales with me.
I still think that $105 billion is a lot of money. I think we can streamline many of the red tape type regulations that make people jump through so many hoops and waste money through now-necessary administration types who generally serve to complicate rather than assist in real solutions.
I never said that caseworkers don’t do much. I imagine that they deal with way more crap than I do, and that in itself is tiresome. I respect those who choose to help others. I just want to make their jobs easier to do by tearing down the walls.
Sure, many of the problems that lead people to the doors of social services cause them to be unpleasant and difficult, but this is partly due to the societal attitude and their lowered perception of themselves through the eyes of society. We need to do a better job of educating ourselves to the real causes of poverty rather than assume that all in need are just not trying hard enough.
I know there are social workers who try to expose fraud or inefficiency, but the cards are stacked against them in our entrenched system of government oversight. ( And I think you mean “shouldn’t be categorized.”)
As for the economics, public assistance should not be a for profit business to begin with. It is about helping those in need, not making a buck off their misfortune. Any public enterprise working in this industry should be concerned with covering costs, keeping costs in check, and providing the service for which they are tasked.
I appreciate your rant, and recognize the points you have made as being valuable. As an outsider looking in, I try to see where reform could be made, but I don’t have every perspective. Rest assured that I don’t take these criticism’s personally, but rather in the spirit I think they are intended: to inform and to remind that there are more than just one way to look at a problem.
April 30th, 2005 at 1:17 pm
Wow… another great post, Ken…
And great comments too!
On the surface, the answer to ridding the world of poverty is simple… eliminate GREED. There is plenty of money to go around in this world.
Then it gets more complicated – how DO we eliminate greed?
April 30th, 2005 at 7:53 pm
This is a deep and rich post Ken. Thanks again for broaching the subject. Do you have any thoughts on initiatives such as “Care, Not Cash,” in San Francisco? Gavin Newsom (formerly married to the effervescent Kimberly Guilfiole, and yet another hetero marriage gone ary…but I digress).
Having volunteered at a number of homeless shelters, the stories of the folks that occupy these locations all have very powerful stories. Depending on the type of shelter, there are varying degrees of drug issues (another sign we are not winning the war on that front either).
The solutions are, like the problem, complicated. But ultimately could boil down to one simple answer – what I call Capitalism with a Conscience. While I do believe in the merit system, some folks get their butts kicked by an unlevel playing field.
The field could be leveled and improved for those disadvantaged if businesses that reap large profits gave back to the community to a greater degree than they currently do.
I just saw in our local rag that there was a new Ferrari dealership opened, sparkily new in Sillicon Valley. Like the need a new outlet for premium purchases. Wouldn’t it be nicer if folks who could afford such items bought something say, about a 1/8th the cost and built one new, low income/ unit for a formerly homeless person with the remaining 7/8ths they would have spent on an automobile that they can’t even max out the horse power on the local streets?
It is time for the capitalist pigs to get their heads out of the trough and pony up, give back to the communities from which they extract their cash bonuses. I am not advocating the giving of cash outright, but certainly, affordable housing built is better than having folks relegated to boxes and tents in the local parks, no?
May 1st, 2005 at 2:23 am
Good post, it’s for this reason I’m in favor of doing away with means tested welfare and for replacing it with a simpler and cheaper (in the end) Basic Income Guarantee or Negative Income Tax.
Read Milton Friedman or Alan Sheehan for more.
May 1st, 2005 at 8:26 am
Good job as always.
I have posted a question I hope you will answer.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic
May 1st, 2005 at 10:14 pm
Thanks for not taking my rant personally. I sometimes allow my fur to get up after hearing too many disgreeable scenarios described in the media about welfare and its recipients. And, it’s amazing what one extra scoop of coffee in the grinder can do to one’s ability to color the imagery of blogger commentary! (Okay, maybe it was one-and-a-half scoops.)
What I should have added is that I really do appreciate your level-headed approach to reform on any number of issues that cry out for it
May 2nd, 2005 at 4:58 am
(responses)
Gun Toting Liberal- Thanks for dropping by again. I can only agree that naked greed is perhaps the largest barrier to overcome, not just with regards to poverty, but for many of the attitudes that engulf our decision making process. We must all have a little “me first” within us to grow and survive, but it must be balanced with our compassion for other people too.
The elimination of greed can be brought about through education and a shifting of societal values based upon the concept of shared prosperity. Or it could be brought about through harsh, punitive programs. But we all know that the latter is just another form of oppression. We can’t force the evaporation of greed through the promise of unpleasant consequences, but rather must work together to show that greed is not good.
Windspike- After briefly looking into the Cash, Not Care program, I think it could be a good step. Our cash society, where money is the beginning and end of everything, requires that people have spendable funds. But being down on your luck doesn’t mean being helpless. If the previous program of sending checks blindly was being abused, we should come up with a new plan. One size fits all never does though, so perhaps a program that looked at specific needs of each individual and tailored their receipts, either cash or in kind, to their needs. Again, this is where government muddies up the waters.
And what’s wrong with asking for those who come for help to also help themselves. Give them a chance to mentally recover from whatever misfortune brought them to their state and then get them involved in the process of helping themselves, and others too. Why can’t we teach homeless people soem construction trades and get them to help build not just shelters, but simple homes for themselves, providing them the material and financial help along the way? There is little pride in being shuffled through temporary shelters or subjugated to religious doctrine just for a warm bed and a decent meal. But getting involved in solving your own problems, even with help, can rebuild the spirit as well as the body.
Markkind- Thanks for the comment. I will have to look at their works some time.
A basic income guarantee is an interesting idea, but should at least be coupled with a basic responsibility guarantee from the recipient so that they are a productive member of society by giving back something of themselves. Stop by again some time.
David- Thanks, again. I’ll take a look at your post, and hopefully respond there.
SheaNC- Not that I’m trying to provoke a mutual thank-fest, but your comments were important for clarification from both points of view. Maybe it’s not the coffee, at least not entirely.
May 2nd, 2005 at 8:18 am
I have posted a message for everyone that answered my question.
God Bless America, God Save The Republic.
May 2nd, 2005 at 4:17 pm
You left out what I believe to be (by far) the biggest aggravator of the inefficiency problem-apathy. The cognitive dissonance that allows so many of us to ignore the dying and maiming in Iraq also appears to extend to allowing us to ignore the suffering here at home. Im much the same way that it is always “their” kids that wind up being blown to bits in the desert, it’s always “them” that wind up on the street.
Sadly, nobody seems to realize that “them” is “us” until it is too late.
May 2nd, 2005 at 4:55 pm
Incidentially, on SFGate today, there is an article reporting on some of the Care, Not Cash efforts. Here’s the link:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/02/BAGO2CIGMB1.DTL
And a slice:
One year after the Care Not Cash welfare reform program debuted amid furious opposition and fervent hopes, nearly 800 street people have been moved into supportive housing and general assistance rolls for the homeless have been slashed by 73 percent — developments that represent San Francisco’s most significant transformation in years in the landscape of homelessness.
Yet, there are shortcomings. The newly housed often keep panhandling, finding it tough to live on their slashed welfare checks of $59 a month, down from the former $410 maximum — and many have had to wait in shelters for as long as six months to get their housing.
May 3rd, 2005 at 5:06 am
Ken,
Liked the post and the government red tape criticisms which are well founded.
There are too many programs of programs that no one knows about, are not held to account, and may not even be known to the government. For instance, they are still finding Islamic charities linked to terror groups that have been in business for decades. The wheels turn very slowly!
If these programs were converted to a business model and run like a business instead of a bureaucracy, the vast majority of problems and waste would soon disappear.
Streamlining and Accountability are key. The bigger government gets the less accountable it becomes, making workers feel they too are lost in the red tape, and it becomes a vicious cycle.
May 3rd, 2005 at 7:28 am
(responses)
Jolly- Yes, apathy is at they heart of the matter to some degree, and I did touch on it a bit. The inability of people today to project themselves into the shoes of another person, even for a few moments, has removed our capacity for empathy to a large degree. Thanks for restating that point.
Windspike- Thanks for the lead. I notice that the article mentioned praise form both recipients of the new program as well as public officials. In fact, the loudest critics seemed to be those most entrenched in the status quo. Sure, any transitions will have some shortcomings, but it seems to be a step in a good direction.
Ottman-As long as the business model was one that put people and providing service over the desire to make profit over all else, I thnk this is the way to move- towards a publicly funded, privately run, publicly audited cooperative effort. Ensure that those getting help get more than a handout and you can begin to put an end to some of the cycles of poverty. Thank for coming back again.
June 3rd, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Firsty we have to start with a reasonable definition of poverty. We all seem to be on the same page here and we’re talking about people without homes food etc, but the official measure for poverty includes people with cars, garbage disposal, tv’s etc, that’s not poverty. Hence why the poverty figures are both shocking and very misleading.
I think that you are essentially right about handing over the distribution of aid over to privately run charities, they do the job properly and with efficiency, unlike the government (who are just as well meaning of course, but all too inefficient). Also, negative income tax is a great idea, it is far better than an unfair graduated system.