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.

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.

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.

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.

Sadly, nobody seems to realize that “them” is “us” until it is too late.

God Bless America, God Save The Republic.

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.

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

God Bless America, God Save The Republic

Read Milton Friedman or Alan Sheehan for more.