People who profess to care

[tender boundary]

Subject: Re: people who profess to care
Date: Thursday, March 01, 2001 

 

Hello, 

 

    It's actually not all that bad up here. We really didn't get much snow and the rain wasn't all that bad either. No ice, no slush. Just a little nippy, but every four days or so it warms up for a day, so it isn't that bad. In fact, I would hazard an unscientific guess that even the sun has been out more than most winters, so it hasn't even been particularly depressing.
  
 I numbered your points below, so I could make sure I address them all. Here goes...

 

1. a. The federal government has not really grown all that much in the area of wealth transfer programs. Where it has grown is in regulatory agencies and tactical assistance for operations (such as research teams for the agencies...which have seen more growth than the actual bureaucracy itself in sheer percentage). This means, the government is spending its money sometimes bankrolling things that do not immediately fulfill a direct governmental function...and maybe these areas can be cut, maybe not. For instance, the General Services Agency had a humongous budget for the Presidential Transition, offices, staff, etc.--but why? It's never really been needed in the past and probably isn't needed now.

 

1. b. Hmmm, I doubt class envy is all that much worse now than it ever was, adjusting for the fact that the middle class was stalled in its expansion for 20 years (approximately 1971 to 1991). Here's the funny thing that people seem to forget, we used to have huge booms, followed by pretty bad busts every 20 years throughout this nation's history until pretty much World War II. So, we lucked out and only had a recession in 1970, about 25 to 28 years after the country pulled out of the last buster. And even since 1970, for 20 years, we only really had about 18 months of truly bad times (in the middle of Reagan's first term)--so, you can argue we got anywhere from 5 to 8 extra years out of the first post-WWII period  (dating either from 1942, the effective end of the Depression by the implementation of  the War Economy, or by the end of the war itself in 1945, and ending in 1970) that we normally wouldn't, but didn't get much more than 11 years out of the second. If we use 1981-82, the bad period in Reagan's term, you could say we have managed to eke out 20 years since then, and would be due for the fairly normal big downturn if we were still under the historical boom-bust cycle.
    Leaving aside whether the Internet has created a New Economy of some kind, thus screwing up the ability to use historical patterns as a template, I would argue that one of the big differences was the utilization of Keynesian policies in these periods. Of course, Keynesian policies do tend to  favor the have-nots in bad times, but they don't do much one way or the other in good times.  And this is a good time...even our current dip in the market is only a deflation back to fairly robust normal levels after the economic equivalent of a crack binge.
    If we went back to the 1980s and the first couple years of the 1990s, it might be a feasible argument that people were pissed off. A whole generation -- MY generation -- had grown up in a period of negative growth and it seemed like the government wasn't going to use its economic levers to do much to help the middle and working classes out. If anything, it appeared to be helping the rich get richer at the expense of the middle class, whether this was particularly true or not. God knows that slashing assistance programs, setting up lavish S & L bail outs, and decreasing tax brackets for the rich while increasing them on the middle and working class sure as hell looked like a screw job.
    But now, things are good. Still, people are arguably tense. So, class envy must be coming from somewhere else.
    My thought on it is that it has always existed and always will because, by and large, the wealthy do tend to take control of the reins of power in society, and they, by and large, defend their interests first and foremost above everybody else's interests. If you look back through American history, it's not a new thing to hear the voices of Average Joes and even Fairly Well-off Joes being upset by what the wealthy do.  So, I think class envy is not a matter of the size of the bureaucracy or the amount of governmental expenditures per se, but is stoked when the government is seen as a puppet - or at least the heaviest and most effective tool - of the wealthy, rather than when it is acting in the interest of the people as a whole, and the least fortunate in particular.
    When the highways were built, or the lights were turned on, or when schools were built, or when money was spent on the space program, most (average income, non-paranoid about the Commies) people weren't pissed off. These are things the government should do and can do better than anyone else. Since we have the 144 years of our nation's history (from 1789 to 1933) to look back on, we can see all the stupidity that comes from letting private business perform governmental services.  Reform movements have arisen periodically (1800s, 1820s, 1840s, 1860s, 1890s, 1910s; looking at the list, almost every generation in US history) because of the outrages in private enterprise.
   
1. c. What does all this have to do with the provision of social services? Well, just that social services are a part of what a government should be involved with.  Maybe not down to the microscopic level, so to speak, but at least for 3 reasons: i. Private enterprise looks to the bottom line. ii. religious organizations and charities tend to draw lines around who they will and won't serve that aren't tied to the need of the individual for survival in society. They look to extra-worldly goals that often mean sending someone in need packing because that person isn't going to be able to be "saved," or is "evil," blah blah blah. iii. Families and individuals sometimes mean well but just can't support themselves. Barriers can exist that are beyond their control (for instance, a periodic bust cycle wipes out the family's life savings).
    Since the people - all the people - are to be served by the government that is created by them all  and for them all, it has to step in and do the right thing when they can't do it for themselves or when other sources of assistance won't. 

 

1. d. This last point of yours is problematic...because it does seem like some people are looking for an undeserving hand-out. But how do you explain rich people whining about the so-called death tax, corporations begging for special exemptions in the tax code, middle class people utilizing their mortgage deductions every year, and farmers getting subsidies? Under a strict pull yourself up by your own bootstraps theory, none of these things, along with welfare payments, are kosher.
    I tend to think of each one of these as having their own logic, some of which are actually decent and worthwhile, while others are just a big waste. Welfare, in particular, I do not see as one of the wastes of money per se, though there may be wastage in the programs themselves. Because there are people who actually depend on it to survive...and would not be able to without sinking to Dickensian levels.
    [I do want to point out that I was a caseworker and have some personal knowledge of that which I speak...my best clients were the crippled-up, little old ladies who's kids had died, and they had no one to depend on, and couldn't work enough to pay for their medicine and their food. They would be filthy beggars or simply dead if they didn't get some kind of "wealth transfer" (usually food stamps). Since we are a wealthy society and we've seen what terrible conditions can happen when there is an unreal dependence upon one's own (or one's family's) capabilities in the past, why would we want to waste our time with such a crappy model? Is it really such a terrible thing to have one more way to be civilized...because most people, even poor people, don't go on welfare? Most of the poor in our society do try to find another way of maintaining themselves. In fact, I would argue the major reason why a lot of my cases were so frustrating was that my clients had waited until they had nothing to come into the office, but it takes time to process a case, and the people would get mad because the whole process is designed to be terrible and unhelpful. Yet this was their last resort...when they were worn down and tired of trying to finagle their way around complicated systems.] 

 

2. a. Who says the point is to eliminate poverty? That's stupid. The point is to alleviate the suffering of poverty. In 1998, when I left welfare work, in Kentucky, a woman with a child and no husband, who had no other income - such as child support or wages - could only get $268/month in temporary assistance. They'd probably get some subsidies on their housing, if they could find housing. And they would have a medical card for the child. They'd probably get about $120 (if I remember correctly) in food stamps.
    This is not a lot to work on. Let's take a look at the fabulous welfare lifestyle:
    You couldn't have a car, so you'd have to ride the bus. Sure, you could buy a monthly pass for $23, but that is about 10% of your income right off the top.
    You wouldn't get reimbursed for non-specified foods, so you couldn't buy things for your children to reward them, let them experience new things, or to relieve the tedium of poverty unless it was on a list. If you did, that is money out of your pocket.     You wouldn't get subsidized for things like clothes or diapers or toys or thermometers or cribs for one's child. 
    Your time would be wasted in trying to get around while looking for a job - because you are only able to not work for so long before you are penalized! - and you would also have to pay for your child care if you couldn't find a family member or friend to give you a freebie.
     Of course, you have to buy stuff like clothing, shoes, etc. for job interviews or for going to work, so that comes out of your pocket.
    If you get sick, you are shit out of luck unless you rack up enough bills that you can get limited assistance or you are so sick that you can qualify for disability.
    You can't even buy a freaking Bible because you know how expensive those things are, I am sure.
    Plus, you are hassled by social workers and case workers right and left, even when you are doing everything on the up and up. The questions are intrusive and not always geared towards provide a service (I was sure some of them were purely to make the person feel ashamed, so I flat out did not ask them). The workers are underpaid, overworked, prone to crabbiness, playing games with your paperwork, and generally unhelpful (as a rule; of course, each caseworker was different).
    It really sucks. But, it is better than hooking or selling dope or stealing. This is a particular blessing for those who also are either stupid or unskilled for our modern economy. They get to make sure their child is taken care of and maybe find a way to save up and get out of welfare. 
    When I left casework, the average person was on temporary assistance approximately 6 months. They basically asked for a loan of $2500, plus a medical subsidy. The state can recoup its losses in two ways: 1. securing child support from the absent parent and 2. continuing to hold down the pay of the caseworker. The doctors get paid either by the state or the feds, and if they still have outstanding payments, they can write those off as a business loss. The public as a whole takes a gamble that welfare reduces crime to a certain extent, reduces later medical costs (by giving early child care and preventative treatment), and some people are employed as the bureaucrats who might otherwise not have the pay and benefits.
    Is this really evil? Nope. And it helps a person in need out. They are still poor but they aren't destitute.  

 

2. b. You know, you are probably right in some case, but it's the people who aren't success stories that I worry about. Some people, such as the little old ladies I mentioned earlier, just need help.

 

3. a. Yeah, yeah, it wasn't the government's money to start with...big deal. The people who don't want to share their resources should live outside of society if it upsets them so much. Because the social contract begins without anyone's consent. It's just a gamble that you are avoiding more serious loss, but our country doesn't have the degradations and social unrest other places do.  So, it seems to be a good gamble so far.

 

3. b. Bureaucrats are working Joes just like anyone else. Some are pretty good and some are terrible. Usually, though, the common characteristic is that the bureaucrat just isn't paid what they are worth by comparison to equivalent jobs in the private sector. So, why would they be particularly invested in the job if they know they can get paid better somewhere else? I'd say it is because they are either lazy or committed to the idea of public service in some manner. But, either way, I don't know how this translates into some sense of entitlement that is peculiarly different from the same sorts of feelings of needing to belong and yearning for job protection  that exist in the private sector.

 

3. c. Uncle Sam has impoverished people, sure, but usually not because they gave them a welfare check. The real problem is that Uncle Sam is Charlie McCarthy for the ruling class. Individual government workers try to do the right thing all the time but then find they are stymied by laws that were badly written by politicians, who are slurping at the feeding trough of corruption. Well, that was a series of badly enjambed metaphors...but the point is that bureaucrats don't decide one day that they are just going to, for instance, punish poor people by pushing them willy-nilly off the welfare rolls. Some fat cat in Washington whining about welfare Cadillacs and how the 60's was a cultural Gehenna decided that, then he gave a check to his running dog, and some garbage was cobbled together as a piece of legislation.

 

3. d. You know, this last point is somewhat correct. I don't disagree that social programs are designed to make reduce the problems people have in life, thus reducing the tension that might be used for mischief or revolution. But, I can't say that somehow social services turns people into Stepford Citizens. If anything, from my experience, people continue to be wily and self-motivated when on welfare. I think its a waste that some of the time and energy used in keeping the welfare rolling in can't be redirected towards art or entrepreneurship, but welfare folks aren't the depressed slugs that are depicted in the conservative press.

 

    If anything, though, as I have said before, something has gone wrong before they have made it into the office. Sometimes it is a crappy family life. Of course, are we supposed to punish people for the sins of their parents? Shouldn't we try to nurture them if possible, esp. if they aren't finding support at home?

 

    And I will end with this last point, I really think most people who bitch about social programs just don't give a shit about other people outside of their particular social circles. I'm not saying that they are heartless or evil, but that can't really imagine themselves in the other person's place. They think someone who has suffered deprivations of various kinds are 1. going to act just like the group (for example, welfare recipients) acts, despite the nature of the particular deprivation(s) experienced by that individual, and 2. that person is going to act like they (the person who doesn't give a shit) themselves would act, often using the economic model or religiously-motivated model of human behavior. Except that, usually, the whiners are completely wrong about one or both of these points...and thus, they are wrong about why a social program might be necessary.
    Consider this last point a variant of the "mean spirited" argument, except that I think it comes from a lack of empathy rather than any willful malice.

 

Take care...

 

RE:

 

  1. After all of the world class wealth transfer programs of the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, the only things that have grown are the a. Federal government, b. class envy, c. a sense that assistance is what the government provides not individuals or families and d. the demand for even more entitlement programs.

 

  2. a. Wealth transfer but force will not eliminate poverty. Never have, never will. b. The success stories that play so well on 20-20 or NPR are generally told about people who have the will and drive to make it under any circumstances.

 

  3. a. Tax cuts do deprive the organs of government of their largesse, but it wasn't theirs to start with. b. The bureaucrats have a far larger sense of entitlement that any single mom with three kids. c. Uncle Sam and his assistants have systematically impoverished the bottom end of the economic scale, d. keeps them nice and dependent.