A modest proposal on Medicare/Welfare

[m000]

I am an ideological follower of Jefferson, and I agree when he said: On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.

Quite frankly, I don't see a Constitutional mandate for many of the Federally implemented programs that Democrats champion. Remember that the Federal Government is granted specific powers, with everything else reserved for the States, as they are considered more accountable and closer to the will of the People.

My criticism of both Medicare/Welfare, on practical grounds, is that the premise of both are: send all your money to Washington DC, and we'll divide it fairly amongst you.

Certainly the first clause in that happens. On the second I am doubtful. We definitely send our money to Washington DC. But like any mismanaged charity, I see that money going into a black hole to line the pockets of the people who are supposed to oversee it. And quite frankly, our Welfare and Medicare programs are giant one-size-fits all hammers, and they just aren't equipped to do their job across a country that spans thousands of miles, with every sort of terrain and industry imaginable.

Another fact that is useful to consider is that the "red" states take in more federal dollars than they contribute to the systems. In a very real sense, the blue states are supporting the red states. It is the red states who are sucking at the teat of government. As Democrats why would you continue this?

My proposal is a simple one. Return all taxes that would be going to Medicare/Welfare to the states, in the exact proportions which they were collected.

California and New York should NOT have to support the rest of the country.

For states that choose, they may implement their own Medicare/Welfare programs with the surplus. These can be tailored to the specific communities, who can look around and see exactly the results. If the people don't like it, State governments are far easier to influence than the Federal. State governments are more accountable, and closer to the will of the people.

Also, different types of coverage might make sense for different states. CA might be more concerned with coverage for a specific class of medical issues, while for Maine it might make sense to be concerned with another. Welfare can be viewed in the same light. Ohio might want to focus welfare on unemployed factory workers, while Vermont might want to give local agriculture a boost. NY might want to help the inner city working poor, while Maryland might want to extend unemployment insurence. Why would a uniform national program be a better fit than many local ones?

Other states, who are less inclined to implement such programs, can merely write a check to each citizen in the form of a rebate, or do whatever they wish.

When you think of my proposal, consider carefully what the citizens of your state would prefer.

The problem currently is that States have little to no economic power to determine the fate of their citizens, because it's the Federal Government that gets all our earnings. I challenge anyone in light of recent events to claim Federal Government is spending the monies wisely. So why keep giving it to them, when State Governments are more accountable?

There is often talk of creating a separation between the red and blue states. Then why are blue states tax dollars going to red state welfare, when those states don't even want it?

If you really want power back, as Democrats, champion State's Rights. Get as much money as you can flowing back to the states. Implement the programs you want free from the mismanagement and compromise of Federal Government. The alternative is letting half of the nation suffer under unwanted policies of the other half, depending on who is in power.

There is a reason the founders reserved everything not specifically granted to Federal Government for the People. Wisely, they had a great mistrust of a ruling body so far removed from the people it governed.

I have seen every sort of railing imaginable against Federal Government on this message board. So why do you give them all your money? Why do you strangle your State Governments who more closely represent you, by sending all your money to Congress, who clearly does not?

[undergroundpanther]

1. People are afraid

The IRS is legal extortion.It has gone on so long it is "normal".It's a good system to share wealth as long at it is not corrupted by the rich who can NEVER take enough.And since we have no accounting of where our money goes to..Corporate welfare costs american people way more money than citizen welfare.Corporate pigs are not suffering they never worry about food or medicine or rent.They do not deserve ANY public assistance.Yet that's where our taxes go feeding pigs and propping up thier insane greed,thier horrific want for control,colonialist war mongering.
But also the IRS controls alot more than who gets what,they can make tax refusal a living hell for dissidents,who have mortgages rent or kids to feed.And so they extort .People in diure straits need help.since people do not take care of each other voluntarily anymore and fear the homeless and poor instead of helping them.Welfare does what communities fail to do for each other.And we have no one but our own selfish bigotries to blame.

The state( which is in service to the rich corporate fascist pigs who own it) has it's fingers in everyones life,one way or another..Notice cops will serve the rich pigs even when they think they do justice,The poor neighborhoods are not protected while rich ones are protected. Beaurocrats who do not empathize with the poor serve the rich pigs when they help the pigs go after average people who are tax dissidents,simply poor ormade an honest accounting error and help the IRS terrorize them financially when the superiors tell them to.The soldiers who do not bother to question thier superiors motives and corruption and just obey unethical undemocratic orders and help opress citizens who protest the government or corporations because they are told to,keep the American public in shackles together.

Tax evasion will hurt the poor before the rich ever feel it.
The poor and desperate will be sacrificed to keep the rich well funded so they can run businesses in the ground and commit fraud while the IRS looks the other way because the rich say they are above the law..
The poor will be used as a scapegoat to incite the nervous and greedy middle class to fight the poor on behalf of the rich's desire to take more from everyone.Don't forget to factor in that dynamic when you think evading taxes is a good idea.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[grease_monkey]

14. "promote the general welfare" clause in the constitution preamble

that authorizes use of income taxes. Clearly all taxation should be through progressive income taxes, as shown by the example of the western European countries where the highest standards of living are found for the general population, as that is where income taxation is more pronounced.

[happyslug]

3. People Forget the history of Welfare.

I will not go into the early history except to point out that the big push for Separation of Church and State in the 1780s and 1790s had more to do with cutting loose people who was receiving aid through the State Church (And thus cutting costs of the State) than for real ideological reasons to "free" the Church from the Control of the State". Once you Separated The Church from the State, the State no longer had to pay the Church the costs to provide for widows, orphans, disabled or other needly people. The Change was much like the 1990s "Welfare to Work reform", often supported by Conservative who were more interested in cutting costs to the State than any ideological belief in the Separation of Church and State or in moving people from Welfare to Work.

Now once the State had "Freed" the Church the Church had to point out to its members its fund were limited. The poor people were told to go to the state for assistance, and the States told the people to move west and take lands from the Indians. Thus the big push west from 1780 to 1815. Poor people having no other way to provide for themselves homesteaded on lands in the West and pushed the Indians away. This system worked till the West was Settled (effectively 1850 through Homesteading continued till the 1890s when the "Frontier" was finally marked "Closed" by the Department of the Interior, please note the Homestead Act itself was not repealed till the mid-20th Century).

Anyway with the closing of the Frontier, poor people had to go somewhere to find employment, and ended up in the growing Industrial Cities. These Cities started the present "Welfare" System. The big start was in the 1870s when do to the terrible economics of the time period the Cities became ripe for rebellion (The General Strike of 1877 has been called the first Marxist revolt, it was massive, forcing the use of Troops to contain the Strikers, and extensive, from Baltimore to St Louis).

Out of stresses of the 1870s came out two policies, one was to suppress any "riots" (This called for the design of wider streets in most cities for better to use cannon, and the placement of Armories in the Major Cities to be used to put down a similar revolt). The Second was to ease the pressure on the poor by providing them "assistance" (And to cut off this "assistance" if they should join in any "Riot" or if a "Riot" should occur).

This two punch policy continued till the 1930s when the Cities could no longer afford to pay for the people on Welfare (This can be seen when you have film of people thanking Al Capone for the Soup Kitchens he opened up at the start of the Depression, something the City of Chicago could not afford to do).

Anyway, the Federal Government entered into the Welfare program in the 1930s. The Cities had become unstable, the poor were demanding benefits. The Bonus Army scared Washington into thinking another "General Strike" was on its way (And Britain had had a "General Strike 6 years earlier). The Communists were recruiting from this mass of disillusioned people. Something had to be done and only the Federal Government had the resources to pay for Welfare (Many states ha "Balanced Budget Consitution and thus unable to deficent spend to "kick=Start" the economy. which even economists of the 1930s knew was needed).

Thus as part of the Social Security Act, Congress agreed to use Income Taxes to help pay for the Welfare Costs of the States (This is the Start of the 50% co-share, the Feds will match Dollar for Dollar whatever a State pays their welfare Recipients up to the "Standard of Need" which is $564.00 in 2004).

The Feds also started the Public Housing Programs to improve housing in poor neighborhoods for such housing was causing many of the Health problems tied in with Mal-nutrition and the raise of the Communists in the 1930s.

This Federal Support for Welfare was increased by WWII. One out of Eight Draftees had to be rejected do to problems related to Mal-nutrition while the draftees where children during the Great Depression. During the war, this finding caused Congress to increase Welfare payments (and to encourage the state's to increase welfare payments) to lessen the number of draft rejects. With the Coming of the Cold War and the peacetime Draft, this policy continued. In effect Welfare became a Federal Government program to pay the States to improve the Quality of draft age men. Public Housing also increased during WWII for to provide the materials needed for the War Effort industry needed workers, and workers needed housing. Someone had to provide it and that was done by increase funding for Public Housing during WWII.

In the 1960s President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ) tried to improve people again with his "Great Society Program". This was both to minimize the program of the inner City riots AND Rural unrest (among lower income people in rural areas especially the Appalachians). This was LBJ's efforts to improve the life of the poor. LBJ once remarked that NOTHING gets done in Washington without someone lobbying for it. Thus when LBJ set up his Great Society Program he wanted to set up people and groups who will lobby for the programs (and thus indirectly for the poor, a group that really had no one to lobby for them prior to LBJ). These group that LBJ had set up has been the biggest obstacle to the GOP's push to end Welfare (and the other Federal Programs for the Poor. Under LBJ you finally had someone to Lobby for the poor for the first time since the States disestablished their State Churches in the 1790s.

When Nixon became President he wanted to end LBJ's Great Society and transfered it to a Cash grant to the States (Thus making it easier to cut and kill). Nixon wanted to destroy LBJ's program but LBJ had thought out what was needed and LBJ's new Lobbyists were able to defeat Nixon's plan. Nixon did get "Block grants" to the States, but also had to accept from Congress the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program (which covered people who can not work but are NOT eligible for Social Security Disability and have no assets or income) and the change in the Public Housing Program from a Program for Industrial Workers to one for the poorest of the poor (Prior to 1974 it was common for people on Welfare to be rejected from Public Housing do to an inability to pay rent, the PHA's preferred people who had steady jobs to people on welfare. In 1974 Congress told the PHA's they had to give a preference to extremely low income people over people who could afford regular housing).

Reagan cut back on the amount the Federal government paid for the Various (surviving) Great Society Programs, killed a couple of them and left the states cut Welfare payments. This policy continued under the GOP Congress from 1994-2000 (With its "Welfare to Work" policy which is more accurately should be called "Welfare to starvation Program"). W. Bush has continued this policy.

Just background on the History of Welfare, as you can see the Federal Government has been involved in Welfare since the General Strike of 1877. Until the 1930s the Feds support was indirect (and tended to be Military in Nature) but in the 1930s the support became direct. This support INCREASED during WWII and the COLD WAR, but since 1970s has been on the decline. The Justification for it can best be based on Military peace (It is easier to buy someone off than to Fight him in Combat) or improvements in the Military (The better feed poor Children are, the better physical shape enlistees will be).

Thus Welfare is justified on maintaining internal security more than any other reason.

[Kenneth ken]

4. Interesting question - Thanks!

I like the way you think. I'm starting to think in terms of referencing questions to how they conform or not to the ideas that shaped the US Constitution, though for me that's a relatively new process. So far, I like it, so will probably continue on.

A couple quibbles with specifics of what you posted:

My proposal is a simple one. Return all taxes that would be going to Medicare/Welfare to the states, in the exact proportions which they were collected.

- adopting that idea, I think it would be better to simply cut that portion from the federal tax collection, and leave it to the state, rather than have the Fed collect, then refund it.

Another fact that is useful to consider is that the "red" states take in more federal dollars than they contribute to the systems. In a very real sense, the blue states are supporting the red states. It is the red states who are sucking at the teat of government. As Democrats why would you continue this?

- Part of that may be(probably is) military and/or pork-barrel projects which would be due to which party controls Congress, so controls where that portion of spending gets spent.

Now then, on to the thrust of your question.

My concern is that it would produce wildly different levels of social safety netting from state to state, and that might cause a large demographic shift as people move to states which are more closely aligned to the level of social safety netting they desire. This shift would result in reallocation of Congressional power at the Federal level due to census reapportionment of seats.

Greedheads would wind up in states with the worst safety netting, since they would be least willing to pay for it. Presumably liberal-minded job creators would want to lure good-paying jobs to their states to A) help alleviate the need for social safety netting, and b) also to help provide the tax base to pay for said safety nets. (Possibly not, since the general trend seems to be to move jobs out of the country.)

Taken far enough, I can envision the same sort of schism and factionalism that led to the 1st civil war, as the greedhead states lose federal influence due to an unwillingness to provide good-paying jobs or a social safety net; thus leading to an exodus of population, and so reduced Congressional representation.

I'm pessimistic enough to to see a 2nd civil war coming out of the (apparently inevitable) collapse of the US; I don't know if this idea would hasten, or forestall it.

I guess that's enough for one post - pretty wordy for me! :D

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[oscar111]

6. Strike of 1877- can anyone tell how long, what cities, and end results?

i never had heard of this! in all my years of education, never mentioned. It is doubtless important, so can anyone flesh out some details?

Mentioned in happyslug's re: --- number 3. BTW, ignore the original post that started the whole thread.. nothing worth reading there.

[happyslug]

7. Some information on the General Strike

Here are some cites on the General Strike of 1877. When people read history they tend to forget the Severe Depressions the US has suffered under over the years. The First was from 1785-1800. The second was in the late 1830s. The Fourth was the 1870s. The Fifth was in the 1890s (Through this was minor compared to the Depression of the 1870s and 1930s), the Sixth was in the 1930s. The 1970s can be called the Seventh one (Through like the 1890 Depression mild compared to the ones in the 1870s and 1930s).

The Depression of the 1870s was the driving force behind the General Strike of 1877. You had THREE recessions since the end of the Civil War 12 years before. Those downturns lead to the General Strike.

http://www.socialistappeal.org/uslaborhistory/great_railroad_strike_of_1877.htm

http://www.plp.org/labhist/wlpittsb1877.pdf

http://www.pittsburghaflcio.org/rrstrike.htm

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/a ...

http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/uen_1877.html

http://users.crocker.com/~acacia/text_gsif.html

http://archive.ncsa.uiuc.edu/Cyberia/RiverWeb/Projects /...

http://www.plp.org/labhist/rrstrike1877.pdf

[happyslug]

8. Duplicate by mistake

[happyslug]

9. Dupilcate by mistake

[oscar111]

10. Thanks! I will take a look at the links.

really interesting post. Keep posting.

[XemaSab]

11. Good post

Perhaps there could be a way to account for that? Some sort of federal guideline so no state could totally lack a safety net? But the states themselves would be responsible for collecting and allocating dollars?

And a provision for federal bailout in case of catastrophe?

Medicare and Medicaid together are around 19% of the budget, and other "social welfare" spending is around 6% of the budget. Together, about 25% of federal taxes go to social programs.

It's like the man said, states could engineer aid to target the people who need it, and also target who they're soaking the money from. On the state level there would be more accountability, and hopefully less craven resentment about sending wads of dollars off to the proverbial Chicago welfare queen.

As far as the public health aspect goes, states know which groups need help and could then target those groups for preventive care and early treatment.

Anyone have a source for which states have the most people on welfare (by number and percent), and who those people are?


Here's my source:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/guide02.html
(This is kinda old... note well they're still talking about a "lock box" and a surplus here....glory days.)

What I really want is a way to avoid paying the War Tax without going to jail....

[XemaSab]

12. Cobbled together some results...

....that don't make a lot of sense.

I figured out total welfare rolls, and divided these by population to get percent of the population on welfare.

Top 10 for percent of people on welfare are:

2.9864 District of Columbia
1.2661 California
1.2384 Tennessee
1.2044 Rhode Island
0.9219 New Mexico
0.9199 Arizona
0.8731 Washington
0.8365 Missouri
0.8312 Indiana
0.8043 Maine

Note well, these are a motley crew of states!

The sticks here seem to be better represented than the hood, but that's just a guess.

The top three states for total numbers on welfare are:

California 449,275
New York 145,627
Texas 117,532

California alone accounts for 22% of all welfare cases, while only comprising 12% of the US population, while Texas and New York are 7.6% and 6.5% of the population and 5.8% and 7.2% of the welfare case load, respectively.

Looking at all the numbers side by side, wow!

23 states have a higher % population on welfare, and the remaining 28 have a lower % on welfare.

Basically, the southeast, the intermountain west, and the great plains have fewer people on welfare than the percent of the population would indicate.

California is the big egregious violator here. Some other states have quite a few more people on welfare than the population would guess at, but we are the weakest link here. Us and DC and Rhode Island.

Seems fair for us to pay for it, no?

[happyslug]

17. Most of this depends what the state decides to spend.

The Federal Government since the 1960s used a figure (which is adjusted each year) know as the "Standard of Need". It is the lowest amount of money one needs to survive. In 2004 the amount is $564.00 per month. Under Federal law the federal government will match whatever a state pays a person on Welfare up to the maxi mun of the Standard of Need ($564.00).

To my knowledge only two states (New York and California) fully fund their welfare to the Standard of Need. This affects the numbers as to who is on welfare. For example Texas only Provides $64 for one person while California pays $564.00. If you are working (and most people on Welfare do work) your Welfare will be reduced by what you earn (after a 50% "disregard" which is another Federal rule). The "disregard" is to encourage "Work". Thus if you earn $300, you disregard 50% of that (i.e. $150.00) and than the Welfare grant is reduced by what remains after the disregard (the remaining $150.00).

If you are in Texas, the Welfare grant of $64.00 is reduced by the $150 (i.e. less than Zero so you get no welfare and thus "off" the welfare roles).

On the other hand if you are in California the $150 disregard is used to reduce your grant of $564.00 so you are still on welfare of $414.00 and you remain on the Roles.

Thus as a consequents of California paying more than Texas, it has more people on welfare (but may have less poor people). This is true of every state that pays more than other states, the more you pay the more people you have on the roles. The less you pay, the less people on the Roles. Note we are talking about the people on the roles, NOT the total of poor people.

Thus it is possible for you to have people who would be on welfare if they were in California, NOT to be eligible to be on welfare in Texas (and I am talking of people earning less than minimum wage of $5.15 per hour).

Thus you can NOT compare the welfare roles of one state to another without adjusting for the differences in the welfare grant and this report does NOT do that.
Texas only provides $64 for one person on Welfare:
http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/socwork/nrcfcpp/downloads/policy-issues/tanf/TX_state_fact_sheet.pdf

[XemaSab]

19. Thanks

Thanks for the education....

[jwirr]

18. In the 1960s-70s when the welfare programs

were shifted from state to federal control there were widely varying welfare programs throughout the country. Each state determined who was eligible and how much per month they would receive. Many of the states were discriminating against persons because of race, marital status or sometimes it was so bad that the local welfare board would refuse aid just because someone on the board did not like the family that was asking. I remember a board refusing medical care to a child because his father had medical care when he was a child. Each state was allowed to determine the level of support it would provide and many provided little more than subsistence living. In areas where blacks or Am. Indians lived they were often refused help because of who they were. I don't think human nature changes much at any level of power.

When AFDC was substituted for all these individual programs states were still allowed to administer and to some extent determine regulations for these programs but there was a % of cost of living that was required for determining payment and discrimination was unlawful across the country. That has pretty much continued until today. God only knows what bushie is going to do with this.

I also wonder if by shifting these programs back to the states we would not end up in paying more taxes to the states and still pay the same taxes to the feds for their wars? I doubt that bushie will ever make taxes less for the middle class and poor. They plan to keep everything they can get.

[grease_monkey]

13. "promote the general welfare" clause in the constitution preamble

Clearly, social democracies provide the highest standard of living the most people. Therefore our leaders are deficient in their appointed task of representing us. THe general welfare would be best served by a plush welfare state such as those in Scandanavia, France, etc.

[Krs216]

15. some people are simply unable to work

Granted, the system is taken advantage of, but we definitely need welfare. There are millions of Americans who are unable to work and care for themselves, the only alternative would be to let them starve to death.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

16. Ah. What a shame.

A totally serious proposal. When I saw the title of the thread I was hoping for something interesting to do with eating babies. Oh well.

Seriously, I think the proposal is a bad one, I'm afraid. I believe in the redistribution of wealth regardless of geography. I don't think that basing ones economic policy on favouring ones political supporters is moral.