Welfare (in USofA) - opinion

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

The US's welfare system came up in another forum, and it got me thinking about it again.

Sometimes, I think I'm in the minority about it.

Most folk, who I discuss it with, seem to be of the opinion that most welfare recipients are "lazy" or "freeloaders" or abusing the system.

They talk about those unfortunate enough to be on/in the welfare system as if those folk could actually DO something about their situation-- as if all they needed was a swift kick in the !ss.

That may or may not be.

But, I don't look at it like that at  all.  I suppose it's my "Enlightened Self Interest" approach, but I look at the total picture, and not the individuals.

What, exactly IS the total cost of the welfare system, to an individual such as myself?

That is, how does this safety net affect ME personally?  That is the bottom line, is it not?

And the facts are, that the individual cost of this program are pennies a year.   The welfare system is a very tiny part of the HUGE budget that is the USofA's financial obligation.

So, I turn it around, when someone says, "Look at that free-loader. Buying steak on food stamps." I say, "So what?"  And I go ON to say, "Who gives a friggin' lark WHAT they buy with their foodstamps? And furthermore, WHO CARES if they are 'working' the system?"

"We, as a RICH Country, can WELL AFFORD a tiny percentage of our population to be freeloaders.  You think those folk are HAPPY?"

Moreover, what, if anything, is the Alternative?  What would these folk be DOING if they were not freeloading on the rest of us?

Close examination of the sorts of folk who are content to be freeloaders, demonstrates that if we DIDN'T hand them some sort of income, they would likely 'scrounge' for that in less savory ways.

And, believe me, it is MUCH cheaper to give them foodstamps than to house them in jail. Or to clean up the results of their actions - for illegal drug-culture is one of the many ways many of these unfortunates turn to, when they are cut off.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

But, let us also look at another aspect of the welfare system.

What about the majority of those who use the system (reference: the welfare bureau, from late '80's and my sometimes-spotty memory) and then return to the workforce?  I seem to remember the rates were better than 70% - closer to 90%? That is, the rate of people who used welfare for a short time 6mo to 2 years, and then returned to the workforce.

What would THESE folk have done otherwise? Turned to crime, most likely.  A few would simply have starved to death, but it's a rare human who won't turn to stealing, when their babies are hungry ...

It's a cheap solution, in my opinion, to help these poor folk out for awhile.  VERY cheap, I think.

And, SO WHAT if they need to return to welfare in another year or three? Again, it is CHEAPER to YOU, as in individual, than the alternative.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I have ignored completely, the compassion side of the argument - mainly, because I can not count on others' to HAVE compassion.

But, I CAN count on other people, like myself, to have their OWN SELF INTEREST in mind.

And I do not mean to be cynical, either - just practical.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

What are YOUR thoughts, if any, on this subject? 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

And, here is a Newsweek Article that is VERY topical.

It is about a study of children, and their attitude about "unlucky" people.

WELL worth your time to read, I think.

[Sibling Chatty]

Well, ya know ol' Ronnie Reagan told us all about those Welfare Caddilac Mothers that were all living in their rented mansions with their bought-with-foodstamps Caddilacs, and that was Saint Ronnie, so we ought to believe every word he said.

Welfare no longer gives an applicant the ability to get off and stay off. The Clinton administration, vowing to "end welfare as we know it" did a heck of a job. Where previously, a 'welfare mother' (most recipients are single women with dependent children) could apply for assistance, and have a social worker helping her into training progran\ms, and getting daycare for the time she's in training, the new rules only allow for minimal job training, because of the LIFETIME limit.

The average recipient needs remedial educational work. A woman with barely an 8th grade education will NOT be a success in a program that pretty much needs a HS diploma to understand. So, now we have to take her from where she is to that 'starting point'. If it takes her only a year to progress the four years of education she needs, we have one more year to train her for a job that will provide a living wage for herself and her children. (As a working individual, her children lose Medicaid.)

Speaking of her children, if they get sick, the 'doctor's office' they'll go to is a clinic where you line up and hope to be one of the lucky ones to get a "today" appointment. That means the kid is running a high fever or is actively bleeding. Otherwise, it's a lottery and a waiting game that can take several days. What about Mom's training? She's missing it, thus proving that she's irresponsible and unable to hold a job...even if she calls in, the instructors don't understand the Medicaid clinic set-up that might take 3 days to see a kid with an earache or bad chest congestion. And, no, she can't send the child back to daycare, because there are other kids to worry about infecting.

So, Mom misses 3 days of training to see the doc, and two more days to get the kid 'sorta' well enough to go back to daycare, and then she's a week behind. She's talked down to and reprimanded for missing, for being irresponsible enough to have a sick kid, and for having kids in the first place. (Of course, no 'normal' kid ever caught something at daycare.) Then, when she's already feeling bad enough, she's thrown back into a program that's moved on without her for a week.

Do we begin to see a problem?? Add to that the problem of inadequate training or support for a good job, and there's a complete set-up for failure. Two years and off, remember? So if the job ends and there's no job available...quite often now the whole bunch ends up on the street or in a shelter.

There is a woman with 2 small children living at night in the handicapped restroom down the hall from the ER at the hospital in a town near here. They're in a car or one of the waiting rooms by day, and they sleep in the restroom at night, on pilfered blankets and things she keeps in the car, a 1978 Pontiac. She went through her 2 years of welfare and had her older child hospitalized with a congenital illness almost 1/3 of the time. If she wasn't with her at the hospital, Social Workers tried to take the child away because the mother was neglecting her. But, she couldn't go to her job training AND be at the hospital with her child at the same time.

The social worker accused her of only wanting to keep her daughter because they got extra food stamps to provide the specific diet the child needs. Anyway, her 2 years was up, and the welfare stopped. The resources that might help aren't available. They weren't funded. Someone gave her the barely running car as shelter, and the hospital is her best source of warmpth and cleanliness. She's hoping that there will be space for her at the family shelter soon. She's missed several openings because she doesn't have a phone where they can reach her. (Hi, I need to live in your shelter. Call me on my cell when you have an opening, K??)

Monday night when I was there, I had $7, and I gave it to her. (My 3rd trip there in 2 weeks, and one of the cleaning ladies told me about her, that she'd not take the kids in and put them down while I was in the waiting room if she saw my cane, so I hid it.) That was all I had, it was all I could do.

MAYBE IF THE POOR VOTED MORE REGULARLY, WE WOULDN'T EXPECT THEM TO STARVE OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. OF course, you really need an address to vote. "Old Pontiac in the far hospital parking lot" doesn't cut it.

But that's OK, because it balances out. Well to do working Moms are leaving the workplace and their much-education-required jobs will be open http://www.alternet.org/stories/45557/?cID=403149#c403149
AND the CEO for Goldman, Sachs got a $54.3 MILLION bonus. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/business/stories.nsf/0/C78AD9870B3F06C68625724B0013BF74?OpenDocument

See?? Balance.

Of COURSE the poor are poor because they deserve it. If they had any sense, they'd have been born middle-class at least, and definitely white or at least well-educated. Stupid things chose to be born to POOR people.

Hmmph. And they want US to bail them out. No, make that YOU to bail them out, because i'm poor, too, dammit. I chose to be terribly, terribly ill, and have multi-millions of dollars in medical expenses. And I had NO SAVINGS!! Well, OK, I did, but it took about 3 weeks to burn through them...so it's MY fault for not saving more, right??

Merry Christmas, y'all.

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

They have a policy up here that really bothers me: if you own a house, you are ineligible for social assistance.  If you need welfare, you must sell your home first before you see a dime.

Of course, if you live in a rural area (i.e. 80-90% of the province), you don't generally have rental housing available near you.  This means you have to uproot your family to the city, leave your support network behind, become one more unskilled labourer in a giant pool of unskilled labour, and pay through the nose to live in a crap-hole apartment.  Bah.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

That's atrocious!

I personally don't like welfare, for a fundementally selfish reason: It's my money. They need to make their own, period. Why should they benefit from my labor, while doing little or none themselves?
Charities seem a better way to go. They can adapt much faster the the needs of the people.

[Aggie]

That's atrocious!

I personally don't like welfare, for a fundementally selfish reason: It's my money. They need to make their own, period. Why should they benefit from my labor, while doing little or none themselves?
Charities seem a better way to go. They can adapt much faster the the needs of the people.

So, when misfortune befalls you, and your money runs out, who will feed you?  There's a reason it's called Social Insurance....  something paid into to wipe our collective butts when sh!t happens.

There is and always will be something fundamentally wrong with society until EVERYONE has enough to eat and a warm, safe place to sleep, and EVERYONE WORKING 40 hours a week can provide these things for themselves at a level above those who aren't. 

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

I personally don't like welfare, for a fundementally selfish reason: It's my money. They need to make their own, period. Why should they benefit from my labor, while doing little or none themselves?

Where to start on that one... 

Reason 1 is summed up in an old saying: "there but for the grace of God go I."  It's only blind dumb luck that has kept most of us out of the gutter, not because those who are employed are intrinsically "better".  The idea that welfare recipients are lazy people who just don't want to work is one that has come out of political spin and is not generally grounded in fact.

Reason 2: selfishness.  I believe that the costs to society are much, much less to help someone out who is in need and get them back on their feet than it is to leave them to either scrape by or die.  Unfortunately, many modern welfare systems don't actually acheive this goal, but it's the ideal behind them.  If, for a small initial investment (in the form of their taxes), someone who's destitute can be made a "good consumer", then Adam Smith's butcher and baker get a customer for life, which means they make slightly more money (which generates more taxes, both from the former welfare recipient and from the butcher and baker).  The government putting the "seed capital" into a welfare system like this is no different from attracting businesses through tax cuts or grants - it's a payment made with expectation of later gain.

Reason 3: IMO, it's morally wrong to leave people to starve.  Everyone has the right to the bare necessities of life.  In our society, these rights are best protected by the government (and, out of necessity, paid by taxes).  Simple common decency (and justice) says that we don't sentence people to death for being unlucky, or, at the very worst (and at the least frequent, IMO), lazy.

Reason 4: The government allocates its money based on perceived need, and taxpayers can't pick-and-choose where it goes, even if it doesn't mesh with their own particular values.  If things did work this way, I know many pacifists who would see to it that their countries' defense departments would not get their money.

Side note: the question you ask works from both the left and the right, and it could also be asked of the folks who live off the share dividends of the companies that hire labourers: why should they reap the rewards of labour without doing anything themselves?   

While I think the majority of charities are noble, I've seen "charities" that were little more than fronts to line the pockets of the directors.  I don't think they're the only answer. 

Also, I think most charities, while they do good work, need government help to actually combat the root causes of the problems they address; last weekend I saw the head of my local Habitat for Humanity chapter speak - he said (roughly) that he hates the fact that his organization is necessary, and looks forward to the day that it's disbanded because it's no longer needed.  As crappy as government is sometimes, they're often the only agency that has enough size, power, and money to effect real, lasting change.

[Aggie]

Reason 2: selfishness.  I believe that the costs to society are much, much less to help someone out who is in need and get them back on their feet than it is to leave them to either scrape by or die.  Unfortunately, many modern welfare systems don't actually acheive this goal, but it's the ideal behind them.  If, for a small initial investment (in the form of their taxes), someone who's destitute can be made a "good consumer", then Adam Smith's butcher and baker get a customer for life, which means they make slightly more money (which generates more taxes, both from the former welfare recipient and from the butcher and baker).  The government putting the "seed capital" into a welfare system like this is no different from attracting businesses through tax cuts or grants - it's a payment made with expectation of later gain.

I forgot that angle, but when you consider the money that goes into policing alone to deal with problems related with extreme poverty (including those arising from homelessness), it starts making dollars and sense.

One aspect that could be better addressed....  if welfare systems allowed recipients who are not able to work at full capacity over the long-term (single mothers, the disabled, etc) to be employed part-time or at a reduced capacity without losing all benefits, then we may see reduced dependence on handouts. If one can't improve one's situation by working, there is no motivation to work.

Up here (in BC at least) there are some very good programs that allow special needs people to work and earn money at their own capacity while supporting other programs - my mom is a special needs worker for a school lunch program which prepares bagged lunches for children who might not otherwise get anything to eat, gives their 'clients' (special needs people) something constructive to do in a supportive environment and a chance to earn money, and keeps the costs of running the lunch program reasonable (because two programs are being subsidized at once).

[Sibling Lambicus the Toluous]

One aspect that could be better addressed....  if welfare systems allowed recipients who are not able to work at full capacity over the long-term (single mothers, the disabled, etc) to be employed part-time or at a reduced capacity without losing all benefits, then we may see reduced dependence on handouts. If one can't improve one's situation by working, there is no motivation to work.

I agree - that's one problem we've got here.  Parents get child care and full health insurance* while doing job training, but they lose these when they go back to work, even at a part-time minimum wage job.  The result is often that even though their take-home pay may be more than their welfare cheque, they just can't afford to be employed - even if you gamble that your kids will stay healthy and don't get supplementary insurance, your job often won't pay enough to cover the child care that you need to enable you to work.


* contrary to what might be thought in the US, Canadians don't have all their health care paid for by the government.  Trips to the hospital and family doctor are covered, but not optometrists, dentists, or prescriptions, and things like prosthetics and wheelchairs are only partially covered.

[goat starer]

If I were asked to come up with a measurement for the maturity and ethics of states it would probably be a function of the number of welfare claimants and the development of the welfare system.

To me a truly mature state would have comprehensive safety nets for people who fall through the cracks but would have the creative opportunities for individuals to thrive such that welfare was not the most attractive option. As long as states fail to give adequate opportunity to the most vulberable and poorest to do anything valuable and worthwhile there will always need to be a robust welfare system. Even if equality of opportunity and welath of opportunities existed there will always be some who for any number of reasons find themselves in real social and economic trouble.

[Aggie]

* contrary to what might be thought in the US, Canadians don't have all their health care paid for by the government.  Trips to the hospital and family doctor are covered, but not optometrists, dentists, or prescriptions, and things like prosthetics and wheelchairs are only partially covered.

Yes, the $1200 I just laid out to Blue Cross will attest to that, and THAT doesn't even cover all of my dental.

[Sibling Chatty]

The concept that charities can meet the needs of those in need is--unrealistic, uninformed and, bluntly ignorant. The costs of sheltering and feeding and caring for the poor and needy is a MINISCULE amout of "YOUR MONEY" that goes to taxes.

Watch THIS

http://www.truemajority.org/oreos/

(Transcript for the video impaired.)
http://www.truemajority.org/fun/oreotrans.php

Now, about YOUR money...you want more of your money in your Libertarian pockets?? No problem. Off the internet. Taxes helped pay for the development. No driving on public roads. Don't call a doctor!! Medical schools are underwritten by public funds. So are hospitals, even "private" ones. No police, no fire department, and you'd better improve all those pioneering type skills fast. Learn to live without most commercial products: the transportation of most of what you buy is also partially at public costs.

Just hope your job doesn't depend on any public funding, even indirectly.

Sorry, hon, but that application of Libertarian is just a polite word for GREED. The man who told me that?? Michael Badnarik.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Badnarik

(I'm a resident of the Texas 10th District, in which he supposedly ran for office. He made ONE actual appearance, near Austin, for a seat that covers a 150 mile long area. Way to be taken seriously...)

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

What could I add? My siblings have covered everything that I thought of, and more.

It's also a "warm fuzzy" feeling that I'm not alone in thinking that a welfare system is MUCH cheaper (in MY taxes) that what would replace it-- increased crime is only the beginning. 

When I read your FIRST response/post, Chatty, I had to quit internet forums for an hour or three - I was so upset by what I'd read.

It's even worse that what I thought it was. 

*sigh*

BTW, did anyone read the newsweek link I had for the 2nd post, in this forum?

Here it is again: News bit about Welfare

What'yall think?

[Sibling Chatty]

Michael and Denise had to be at the hospital for testing today. The woman was in the old car with the kids, as it was raining, so they couldn't be out in the park across the highway. She recognized my van (they're driving it until they can get a new used tire for their car, after the 3rd) and waved, then realized it wasn't me, but them. She got out to see if Michael was OK, or if they were coming back to the ER again.

Some of the hospital employees had brought shelf-stable foods that she could keep in the car, and a group of dietary aides have started putting an extra tray on each of two carts that have to go past a place where they can hide the food for her and the kids when possible, then sneak them out the door while the patients eat, and pick them back up on the way back to the kitchen.

The dietary aides have put in a good word for her with their boss, and she'll be interviewed for the next opening. It's a minimum wage job, it requires that you have 3 sets of scrubs and proper shoes, but they're gathering up what they can spare to provide her work clothes, and one of the dietary workers is going to get her mother to keep the children while she works. (The mother has 2 of her other daughter's kids during the workday, so it'll just be two more.)

The people at the shelter told her MAYBE, after New Years, there might be a place.

Please understand, this is in a place that's considered to have some of the better social services in the state.

Denise cried because there wasn't anything she could do, or anything she could give her to help. But, today, we took apart the couch and went through pockets and doublechecked drawers for gas money to get Michael to dialysis tomorrow and Sunday. There is no more to give.
Gas money for dialysis until the third is going to be interesting. Prescription money for now until the third will be, too.

<font=irony>It's a shame that these lazy, benefits sucking people don't just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you know??</font>

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I think I'll address Chatty's arguements first.

First: I disagree.
Charities don't function as wll now as they ought due to lack of funds in my view. I give when I can, personally, even though it's a tiny amount.

IF we had the Libertarian flat tax, there would be more money for all. Therefore, there is more to give, if one so chooses. This is where I deviate from the total flat tax folks, I support write offs for individuals and companies who donate to charity. I know plenty of people who give to schools and charities to prevent the government from getting their grubby mitts on their money.

Second, forgive the cherry-picking as Bob called it: Throwing money at schools will do little to help. It needs a fundemental re-organization, putting most of the power back into local and state hands, IMO.

Third: Police and Fire are part of the government's reponsibility as part of protecting the people. In my view, the only responbility of the government is to protect the people from those who violate the most basic laws (commiting fraud, arson, etc,) and from outside forces, like terrorists and foriegn powers.
Although I wonder if fire ought to be private owned. It seems to be fairly efficient now, though I have little knowledge of that area.

I will finish my responses later, since I apparently have things to do,and I'm loathe to retype all of this. Apologies.

[Sibling Chatty]

http://www.ssireview.org/pdf/2005WI_Feature_Reich.pdf

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v18/i14/14005301.htm

Projections that trillions of dollars will flow to nonprofit groups over the coming decades as the World War II generation dies have also buttressed the notion that charities can afford to do more than in the past. Yet in truth this bias toward charity is a befogging illusion created more in service to ideology than to society.

While Americans are a very generous and caring people, the combined yearly contributions of individuals, philanthropic foundations, and corporations to all causes except religion are considerably less than the annual allocations the federal government makes to deal with social services, the arts, education, the environment, and other causes where nonprofit groups work — and that is not counting medical payments, tuition assistance, welfare, and other money that goes to any American who is poor enough to qualify for aid.

Charitable contributions would have to grow more than 30 times faster than usual to make up the difference if government spending on social causes were eliminated. And that assumes that all increased spending by nonprofit groups and foundations to offset government cuts would go to help the neediest — not spread thinly among the wide range of causes where charitable organizations focus their attention.

Strikingly, even if foundations gave away every last dollar in all of their endowments, it would do little more than cover this year's federal deficit with a fraction left toward the next one. And that is just the operating deficit, not the national budget or the debt. Furthermore, the projections for a transfer of wealth have been so slow to materialize it is increasingly doubtful that trillions of dollars will be bequeathed to nonprofit groups.

The last time political leaders tried to severely cut the federal government's role in caring for the needy (remember Ronald Reagan), cash-strapped governments abandoned mentally ill people to the streets — and the homeless began sleeping on America's sidewalks.

The calculus does not work today either, and nonprofit organizations need to understand that fully and to find better ways to educate their constituencies and the public about fiscal realities.

The entire 'charity -funded' canard is being fueled by support from the Faith Basd Initiatives crowd. They're encouraging it as a way to set Faith Based Funding as the "middle road" alternative.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

This is the text of an executive order signed by Bush on June 1.

On September 22, 2003, the White House announced new rules making $28 billion available to religious charities that proselytize and discriminate in hiring. Susan Jacoby, director of the Center for Inquiry in Metro New York claims "The White House has taken what may be its boldest step yet to blur the constitutional separation of church and state." While the White House announced these controversial new rules, the media hardly paid attention.

While religious charities receive billions of dollars, federal programs are experiencing funding cuts. The largest federally funded after-school program, the $1 billion-a-year 21st Century Community Learning Centers program is threatened with a budget reduction of $400 million for the Fiscal Year 2004. The resulting cuts in Washington D.C. alone could eliminate after-school services for 2,902 District children.

As reported in the Washington Post, Congress has ordered more than $3 million in grants since 2001 earmarked for respected former Redskins cornerback Darrell Green's Youth Life Foundation, with the goal in part of opening more Green learning centers here and in other cities. But his center is directly serving only 38 kids, in a city where 35,000 live in poverty.
From Church and State editorial, March 9, 2004:

    The Corporation for National and Community Service has allocated $324,000 in Americorps funding for staffing at four daycare centers run by the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence.

    But The Children's Crusade, a mentoring program that has won national honors, lost all its budget of half a million dollars. The group had hoped to partner 35 young adults with poor minority children. That won't be happening now.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has been following Bush's Faith-Based Initiative since he assumed the office of President. They have filed lawsuits, and their magazine, Church and State, has many important, in-depth articles.

From Americans United, August 17, 2004:

    A new study of the "faith-based" initiative raises troubling questions about the Bush administration's disregard for constitutional and civil rights protections, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

    The report issued today by the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy lists the many executive actions President George W. Bush has taken to fund a wide range of religion-based social services. The sweeping changes in federal policy, the report indicates, have come without congressional authorization.

Philadelphia Church That Endorsed Bush Gets $1 Million 'Faith-Based' Grant
Wednesday June 23, 2004

    "The Rev. Lusk endorsed candidate Bush, and wound up getting a $1-million faith-based grant from the Bush administration," [Barry] Lynn said. "Now there's a heavenly payoff."

"Faith-Based Fiat," January, 2003, Church and State:

    "On Dec. 12, speaking to over 1,000 religious and charitable leaders gathered at the Downtown Marriott Hotel in Philadelphia, George W. Bush launched another major offensive in his drive to implement his controversial "faith-based" initiative. Circumventing a reluctant Congress, which has refused to enact the administration's scheme, Bush announced a sweeping package of executive actions to encourage churches and other religious groups to apply for billions in government contracts to help the disadvantaged."

"Faith-Based Foray," From Church and State, October, 2002,

    "Not willing to let a skeptical Congress delay its plan for government-funded religion, the Bush administration is moving ahead with the faith-based initiative anyway."

"Faith-Based Victory," Church and State, May, 2003, brings good news! A powerful coalition formed in the U.S. Senate to derail President Bush and U.S. Senator Rick Santorum's efforts to pass legislation making it legal to discriminate in employment. As a result, the final legislation is nothing like the Bush/Santorum plan. This 'good news' article affirms the power of coalition building in the Senate.

"Faith-Based Failure," Church and State, November, 2002, highlights a report documenting major problems with the Faith Based program that has been implemented in Texas for the past five year

"The Bush 'Faith-Based' Orders: Dangerous Decrees, Church and State. On Dec. 12, 2002, President George W. Bush issued two executive orders putting into place his controversial "faith-based" initiative, February, 2003. (So far, I haven't been able to find this article on AU's newly reformatted web site -jb) more

Faith-Based Sex-Education

Sierra magazine, January-February, 2004, has a feature article on abstinence-only education in the public schools. Federally funded programs are based on fear and end up proselytizing. A Louisianna state judge has ruled that the proselytizing must stop or the programs risk defunding.

    "For Louisianna seventh graders, abstinence-only education appears first and foremost to be about terrifying diseases: suppurating boils, endless rashes, sterility, cancers, and the physical and psychic morbidity with which they are to be punished for having sex before marriage."

    "Hundreds of federally funded abstinence-only programs are run by faith-based groups. The Louisianna American Civil Liberties Union found that ... thousands of dollars went to programs that included prayers as well as continuous referrences to God, Jesus Christ, and the spiritual repercussions of sex before marriage."

Faith Base Lock Up
In Lawtey, Florida, Gov. Jeb Bush dedicated what is being called the nation's first religion-based prison.

    A North Florida prison will be converted into the nation's first faith-based lockup. Critics say public money shouldn't be spent on religious programs.

"This is a clearly unconstitutional scheme," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. "A state can no more create a faith-based prison than it could set up faith-based public schools or faith-based police departments."

Americans United filed a lawsuit to block a similar state-sponsored fundamentalist Christian project operating with public funds at a prison in Iowa. That case, which challenges state support of Charles Colson's InnerChange program, is pending in federal court.

How the the InnerChange Prison Fellowship program cooked the books so that the program's failure looks like a success. To read about Americans United current litigation, click here.

Faith-Based Parks

    Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a non-profit group that represents park workers and public employees, charged in a release last week that the National Park Service is hell-bent on removing images of anti-Vietnam War demonstrations, pro-choice marches and gay rights marches from an eight-minute video tape located at the Lincoln Memorial covering historic gatherings that have taken place there and on the Washington Mall.

    "The park service leadership now caters exclusively to conservative Christian fundamentalist groups," stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch in his group's release. "The Bush Administration appears to be sponsoring a program of Faith-Based Parks."

"... morality conservative groups have a special entree with decision makers at the Park Service and the White House."

The federal government lost a lawsuit when a federal court ruled that a program crossed the line between church and state. From the Washington Post July 6, 2004: "America Corps Loses Suit on Religion:"

    The federal agency that oversees AmeriCorps must stop financing programs that place volunteers in Catholic schools, a judge has ruled, saying it unconstitutionally crosses the line between church and state.

Faith-Based Coercion

    Increasingly--and more often than not, with the explicit cheerleading and support of dominionist groups--there is an emphasis for reliance on "faith based" initiatives, such as "faith based" rehab programs, "faith based" disaster aid charities, etc. Unfortunately, this is often turning into a chance for faith-based coercion--often on what is, quite literally, a captive audience. more

Compassionate Conservatism
Marvin Olasky, a Reconstructionist influenced professor of Journalism, has served as a close advisor to Bush. Olasky's book, Compassionate Conservatism, creates a justification for Bush's policies on faith based giving. Bush wrote the forward to the book published in 2000. Olasky is a compelling writer who shares his philosophical ideas through heart-wrenching and inspiring human interest stories. He makes a strong case for faith based giving. Evangelical Christian charities succeed, according to Olasky, where government fails. Olasky sees no problem with government funds going to missions that proselytize. The fact that someone who is hungry and vulnerable might have to undergo a religious conversion to get food and shelter doesn't bother him.
The Problem with Proselytizing

Bill Moyers program, NOW, (the first of a two-part series) aired on PBS September 26, 2003, makes clear the problem with proselytizing. The TV show focuses on one program that trains church volunteers to help lift people out of poverty. At first, the whole concept looked truly wonderful. A volunteer family infuses a young, struggling mother of three with love and a sense of caring -- which is very moving.

Then the pressure begins to join their church. This "loving" family is all the support this young mother has in the world, and she feels deeply conflicted about joining their church. When she was asked by the interviewer about joining the church, her face froze in what looked like silent terror. She hadn't wanted to join, but appeared to be terrified of losing the love and support of her sponsoring family. The sponsoring family told the interviewer that they're taught not to invite the family to their church for the first month, and that they never told the woman that she had to join. But it's clear that the invitations to go to church would not let up.

That look of frozen terror on the young woman's face illustrated dramatically the dangers of government funding for church sponsored charities. Millions of young, vulnerable mothers and struggling families will feel coerced to join the "correct" evangelical churches.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

One quick note: why is it that the budget of defense is several times bigger than welfare?

Because you know that building Tomahawks (currently @$1.3M) makes more sense than paying for foodstamps...

[Sibling Chatty]

I know we're certainly more secure here, knowing that all those missiles are out there, enough to destroy the planet thousands of times over, while we keep the house at 62 degrees so that the elecric bill isn't so high we can't afford food again.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I never really liked the faith-based initative thing.
Anyway, I still think there would be more money to give IF taxes were lower. I didn't see where those excepts address that, do show me if I missed them, though.
Didn't Regan totally shut down those horrors where they were keeping the mentally ill? My father said he'd never understand why Regan did that.
And I never really included the mentally ill in my opinon. They're much harder to care for, and the ones I know constantly need to be reminded to take their meds. Hmmm...food for thought, I suppose.

[Sibling Chatty]

Reagan shut down almost ALL care for the mentally ill. He started the 'mainstreaming' thing on the premise that it would be "better" for the clients and the community to have the mentally ill/mentally retarded/choose a name in "the community". Not HIS community, certainly, but someone's.

Problem is, he shut down what WAS working as well as what wasn't. And, funny thing, the institutions that were closed down and emptied first always happened to be sitting on what had become VERY valuable real estate. Oh, sure, in 1937, when in was first opened as The State Hospital for the More than Slightly Barmy, it was out in the middle of nowhere, but by 1981, there was a HUGE need for that area, and ESPECIALLY those grounds to become Westwood WoodTerrace Part III, and the new 18 hole golf course that the WoodWood Corp put in ALL their Lovely Masterplanned Communities, adjacent to the freeways...

This, unfortunately, is STILL going on. Richmond State School, in growing (sprawling) Fort Bend County sits on about 250 acres that are beautifully wooded, right in the bend of the Brazos River. The developers are drooling over it. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/RR/sbr1.html
There used to be photographs on line of the campus, and the Christmas Display that the volunteers do (or did) every year. When the parent of so many of the residents got older and unable to keep up the physical labor of putting up the cartoon character cut-outs and lights and such, the volunteers from Jade Buddha Temple took to helping. They, in association with the Parents and Guardians Group, have fought to keep the school open. http://www.jadebuddha.org/English/charity.htm

Across the entire country, the same thing happened. This was disguised as a humanitarian effort, but what it was...was a land grab of enormous scope.

The (my age) daughter of a friend is in Richmond State School. She was one of the earliest residents. When Gladys was barely pregnant with Linda, both of her sons had measles. (Rubella) That means

An unborn baby of less than eight weeks' gestation can experience a combination of multiple abnormalities if exposed to the rubella virus. The effects normally relate to the developmental stage the baby is at during the time of the infection and can include:


Being mentally handicapped
Being deaf
Being blind, or severely vision-impaired
Experiencing heart abnormalities
Having inflammation of the brain, liver, lungs and bone marrow

For Linda, all of the above.

So, when her husband left and Gladys was trying to raise this child and her two other ones...you can imagine how welcome the State School was. Gladys (and a lot of other people) have put in countless hours trying to keep these places open, because "mainstreaming" someone in Linda's condition doesn't work. Gladys has also assumed guardianship for a number of other people at the State school. A place with someone that can help dress, feed and care for these people on a one-to-one basis, with secure buildings, etc. is needed. No matter WHAT the 'government' thinks.

Linda is mostly blind, mostly deaf, extremely severely retarded, has seizures, sensory issues...and her family was involved enough to prevent them 'mainstreaming' her out. The problem with mainstreamed MR clients is often abuse. That over 60% of the female clients that were 'sent to their communities' to be mainstreamed were sexually abused either in the group homes or on the streets if they wandered away (no close supervision, no secured facility, remember?) wasn't the problem of those that set up the concept. They GOT what they wanted...real estate.

Some places were horrors. Some were the best way to keep the mentally retarded (choose your terminology, but that's the medically appropriate term), especially the profoundly MR, safe. The mentally ill are a whole 'nother facet, as well.

Rubella's not much of a problem in the US anymore. Some of Gladys' other 'kids' at the State School are "thalidomide babies", unfortunately, not as lucky as some of the ones pictured here. http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/thalidomide/first.html
One of them, mentally within the normal range, was placed there because his stepfather was selling him to abusers for as little as a couple of beers when he was 5 years old.

Unfortunately, in order to "punish" the parents for refusing to allow the state to sell their area schools and put these people in unsecured group homes, they've taken to not taking any more medically sent clients, just criminally convicted druggie burn-out types (often abusive ones), and the general population suffers for it.

One of my VERY least favorite topics.

(Since Gladys' husband died a few monts ago, and her oldest son died about 3 years ago, Gladys can't take Linda out by herself anymore. Now, Gladys is a Christian woman, but not a Religious Right type. Her new help, that comes with her every other Saturday to take Linda out for a ride in the car, and then to her assisted living apartment, to eat Spaghettios--Linda's favorite food--is a family from the Jade Temple. When she was in China on one of her trips over, she met a young man that was trying to get into a US university. She helped him get here, through school, and into medical school. He, or one of his sons/daughters/inlaws and now grandkids, has been helping her since she and Ben couldn't do it alone. They're Buddhist, she's Baptist, and they're all involved together.)

Yes, you need a community to care, but no, the institutions do not have to be horrors. One way to make sure they aren't is to fund them properly. Stop and consider the strain on any family if all care for a severely retarded person was left to strictly the family. 24 hour supervision, physical therapy to prevent spinal curvature, respiratory therapy, proper bathing facilities...

Individual care for someone in Linda's condition, not in a facility, but in a home or grouphome situation, was estimated (1998 costs) at $83,000 a year, prorating the needed construction and equipment over a 10 year period. That's prohibitive. In the State school situation, bathing and therapy spaces are shared among 12-16 clients, dining facilities among 60-90. The facilities are upgraded as needed, but it's still MUCH less expensive to house and care for those of similar problems together.

Before the welfare and "social spending" programs that so many Libertarians want to stop NOW, these people were kept like animals, and 'encouraged' to die young.

Ach, all this reminds me, I need to get the next legislative calendar from Gladys. Even though I don't live in that district (i'm now closer to Brenham State School, which isn't under as much pressure as Richmond) i'll still need to be ready to go testify to the legislature again. there are some things you don't stop doing, ya know?