"No religion is true, but some religion, any religion, is politically necessary. Law and morality are insufficient for the large majority of men. Obedience to the law and to the morals are insufficient for making men happy. […]Law and morality are therefore in need of being supplemented by divine rewards and punishments."
My agency last year provided holiday assistance meals to 55 families and complete Christmas' for 110 kids. I work regularly to get mentally handicapped adults into care facilities when their families can no longer provide for them. I dont talk about the populations...I work with the populations 7 days a week. You can think that means I make the services a passing thought. The reality is....without the fiscal resources NONE of those services are rendered. That doesnt at all change the human side of the problem and I'm sorry (not really...but its what we say) but I will ALWAYS see a system that promotes and enables dependency as the exact opposite of 'compassionate'.
And yes...I DO tend to focus on the debt aspect of this when the discussion is where the services should reside. Its critical. Social spending continues to climb in every state and in the fed. If people dont start addressing it as a real and legitimate concern, it will all become irrelevant. But can you show me where I have suggested needed services should be cut? All I have stated is that under the current system the debt will threaten ALL services and the instances of fraud keep services from getting to those who truly need the services. Make that mean what you want. I get that I can be kinda crass and direct. Im a realist. If that translates to "I dont care"...well...you couldnt possibly guess how much.
I dont know about your state...but in most states election involvement is dramatically lower than during the federal elections. It is far easier to get involved with party caucuses at the state level. It is not at all difficult to get on your state representatives calendar. Its very easy to get involved in community. I am the past chair of the county DV coalition and am a current voting member of the state DV Counsel. We meet with the governor or Lt Governor once a month and once a year hold the meetings at the state capital specifically to discuss state legislation. Its just not that hard to have a voice at the local and state level...especially when your organization includes newsletters, cameras, and recordings of meetings.
THAT we have spent several generations turning over responsibility to the Fed is undeniable. Its all we know. But what we know...is it is not working.
Council, dammit...Council. I hate when I do that. And married to an English professor...
Trends With Benefits | This American Life
Very interesting. The number of people on disability has skyrocketed due to a loophole states have found in the welfare reform act in the '90's. I haven't had a chance to listen to it all. The state pays companies to get people off welfare, which the state pays for, and onto federal disability. I have no reason to doubt the veracity of this information. Maybe you know something more about it or another poster knows. It's an unintended consequence of putting welfare on the states.
If this is true, I feel more strongly about this post you responded to. States will find a way to get out of paying what they can and without strong support for people who need assistance due to no fault of their own.
Also, I think it's clear the fed needs to crack down on this practice. That would be a start.
I'm just trying to understand your argument. I see that there is a demand to give states these programs, but then it's the fault of the Fed when states weasel out. Putting more people onto the Federal disability rolls is self-defeating to your last sentence.
Now...the answer. Because the fed CREATED that system and we LET them. The problem with that system is obvious...no direct responsibility, no responsible oversight, no constrictions on spending, and an infinite money pool by tossing any excesses or overages onto future generations in the name of deficits and debts. The ONLY reason for people to reject state responsibility for their own social programs is a desire to remain fiscally irresponsible. Large problems in our state? No problem...let the fed handle it. Fed cant handle it? No problem, let them run a deficit, borrow against our grandkids future...out of sight, out of mind. Its just wrong on every level.
Early voting in Georgia. On the 20th of October this old Goldwater conservative voted against both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton by casting my vote for Gary Johnson. Neither Trump or Clinton belong within a million miles of the Oval Office.
That is not the only and most serious reason to reject states responsibility for social programs. The first is the ability of states to just ignore people who are not a priority to the state. They include the most vulnerable amongst us. The physically and learning disabled and the poor who have mental health problems. Getting help for either, even if the funds already guaranteed, is nearly impossible. Giving the state sole responsibility would be a travesty.
I don't see how it's the Fed's fault for the states doing what they are doing.