Tag Archives: culture

Some Welfare Reform Ideas

Posted on by
Reply

Convert our welfare programs virtually entirely to hand up programs instead of the handout programs that they are currently. There are a relative few folks who truly cannot make their own way and need the support of handouts, but these would be more easily taken care of were the present waste in the form of payments to those who don’t need the help eliminated. That’s even before the fraud and abuse—two virtually synonymous terms in this context—gets dealt with.

Those who don’t really need the help can be dealt with in the following ways. First is to recognize the everyone is capable of falling on hard times, whether through things beyond their control or through their own negligence or mistakes. Give them access to hand up programs, but those programs must come with expiration deadlines after which payments to individuals cease. Extensions should be possible, but they should be difficult to obtain, with the onus on the recipient to prove he still needs them and still is doing his best to meet the criteria for a hand up.

Additionally, hand up programs must come with means testing. Means should be based on the Federal Poverty Guidelines, which in the main, they are. However, currently, “means” generally has thresholds running from 200% to 400%, of the FPG. That has to stop. If a family’s earned income is above the Poverty Guideline, they are tautologically not poverty-stricken. They do not need Federal welfare, even if living just above the Guideline is uncomfortable.

There must be a work requirement attached to all hand up programs. Able-bodied individuals must be working, looking for work actively (not just tossing a resume over the transom once a week or sitting around a union hall), or in training or schooling for work (financial support for the training/schooling, if needed, must come from the State or local jurisdictions).

Finally, Federal welfare must be a last resort after local community, church, and charity capacities are exhausted, then city, county/parish government jurisdiction and larger charity capacities are exhausted, then State and regional charity capacities are exhausted. Particularly regarding the governmental jurisdiction from the city/county/parish level on up to the State, capacity must be limited to existing revenues, with no increases in American taxpayer fund transfers into the State or local jurisdictions.

These are not new ideas, but it’s long past time to implement them. Doing so not only would benefit welfare recipients and those who do not really need welfare payments, it would strongly benefit our nation writ large by reducing drastically Federal spending, with the resulting impact on our yearly budget deficits and our national debt, and by increasing our GDP through all those folks going back to work, improving national productivity.

We Want our Maypo®

Posted on by
Reply

HHS has terminated or canceled, as the case may be, some $12 billion in grants to the States for health-related programs, and a number of State Attorneys General, led by Arizona’s Kris Mayes (D) are suing to keep the dollars flowing.

Never mind that the grants were Wuhan Virus Situation-related, and that that pandemic is long since ended. HHS made that clear in the cancelation notice:

[T]he grants and cooperative agreements were issued for a limited purpose: to ameliorate the effects of the pandemic. Now that the pandemic is over, the grants and cooperative agreements are no longer necessary as their limited purpose has run out.

This is clear enough. Yet, the AGs perform their artificial hysteria. Here’s Mayes in particular:

By slashing these grants, the Trump administration has launched an all-out attack on Arizona’s public health system—harming the entire state, but hitting rural communities the hardest. These cuts target the very places that rely most on this critical funding

This is risible on its face. There is no attack, all-out or limited, on Arizona. The State’s governing personnel know full well that the pandemic has been expired for some years, and from that, they knew just as well that the Federal funding for that purpose would come to an end. Arizona, et al., have had plenty of time to (re)allocate State funds to those ends, to the extent each State thought those ends still necessary.

The States chose otherwise, and now they’re demanding their never-ending stream of Federal dollars to continue.

We want our Maypo®, indeed.

So Long, and No Thanks for the Memories

Posted on by
Reply

Law school students and new recruits think they should run the major—or even minor—law firms at which they sought work.

In the days since Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps and other elite firms cut deals with the president to fend off punitive orders, their actions have set off protests and recruiting boycotts among the next wave of top young legal talent. Georgetown Law students canceled a recruiting event this week with Skadden Arps. A group of students and lawyers is circulating a missive on social media and over email, urging students at top schools to refrain from applying to the firms.
Several Columbia law students who signed on to start at the firms this summer are asking whether they can pull out of those commitments, one recruiter said. Junior lawyers at some firms, meanwhile, are rejecting their bosses’ requests to interview summer associates.

I wouldn’t call these Precious Ones “top young legal talent.” They’re too self-absorbed, too ate up with their own importance. The law firms are better off without these folks on their payroll.

So: bye, bye. Good luck to you in your sole proprietor law firms, and in your new small partnerships.

Federal and State Funding for Abortion

Posted on by
Reply

There is a move afoot in Congress to remove from Medicare reimbursements for abortion, and there is a case before the Supreme Court that will impact States’ ability to remove funding for abortion from Medicaid reimbursements. The removal from Medicare, should it come to fruition, would be entirely consistent with the Court’s Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, which rescinded Roe v Wade and put the abortion question entirely in the States’ hands. Now many States are attempting to act on their newly restored authority—hence the case before the Supreme Court.

It’s true enough that it’s a fraught decision for the mother to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term, but my concern here is for the life of the baby. From this, I see two boundary cases that are especially difficult.

One is where the health of the mother is at risk if the pregnancy continues. In this case, the mother’s health must be weighed extremely carefully against the life of the baby. This weighing may need to occur—must occur?—in open court, with competent, well-trained lawyers speaking for the baby.

The other is a mother’s pregnancy as a result of incest or rape. Carrying the baby to term here is an especially terrible choice for the mother—the pregnant child incest or rape victim may be too physically young to carry her baby to term, in which case, see above. Even where the victim mother can safely do so, it remains an especially terrible choice to carry inside her body a constant reminder of the monster who did this to her. Carrying the baby to term isn’t a matter of the mother’s inconvenience for nine months as some extremists on the right claim—the emotional damage to the mother from that is real, extreme, and often irrepairable.

Conventional wisdom is to permit abortion in the these narrowly defined, and not so often occurring compared to “ordinary” unwanted pregnancies, cases of incest or rape. Conventional wisdom here is not a completely bad bit of wisdom, but I remain concerned: why should the baby have to pay with its life for the crime of another? The baby needs competent, well-trained lawyers speaking for him or her in these cases, also.

It’s also true enough that, while Republicans are attempting to do more to provide fiscal support for those mothers during their pregnancies, in the period surrounding birth, and in the early years after birth (here including adoption options), they need to do better at specifically identifying those needs and then providing for them—and to do so publicly. That shortfall, though, shouldn’t be allowed to impact whether the baby is allowed to live at all.

Say they Did

Posted on by
Reply

James Freeman, who does the Best of the Web column for The Wall Street Journal, has waxed optimistic about the Progressive-Democratic Party’s future, given a New York Times editorial he ran across over the past weekend.

It was a most pleasant surprise to see a weekend editorial in the New York Times of all places suggesting a step back from the progressive ledge. The Times is now urging Democrats to reconsider a number of the destructive ideas that party leaders embraced after reading about them in the New York Times. Let’s be optimistic and call this a great start if the newspaper wants to embark on an era of reform.

Per the Times, as Freeman quoted it:

First, they should admit that their party mishandled Mr Biden’s age. Leading Democrats insisted that he had mental acuity for a second term when most Americans believed otherwise. Party leaders even attempted to shout down anybody who raised concerns, before reversing course and pushing Mr Biden out of the race. …
Second, Democrats should recognize that the party moved too far left on social issues after Barack Obama left office in 2017. The old video clips of Ms Harris that the Trump campaign gleefully replayed last year—on decriminalizing the border and government-funded gender-transition surgery for prisoners—highlighted the problem…. [Elision in the original]
Even today, the party remains too focused on personal identity and on Americans’ differences—by race, gender, sexuality and religion—rather than our shared values.

Say Progressive-Democratic Party leadership and members do change how they talk about the issues us average Americans care about—which would include, for starters, actually talking about those issues. On what basis would we believe those persons have changed what they’d do were they restored to political power? The same persons who Freeman thinks should admit that their party mishandled Mr Biden’s age, and who he thinks should recognize that the party moved too far left, and who he says remain[] too focused on personal identity and on Americans’ differences would still be in place.

Why would any rational American believe these Wonders have suddenly shorn themselves of their most tenaciously held ideology?

Alternatively, consider these persons actually changing their core ideology. If they toss so readily and quickly that long-held central tenet in favor of a new central tenet, how could any rational American trust them not to toss equally readily and quickly their new central tenet in favor of yet another central tenet—or revert to that original, wholly divisive and otherwise dishonest centrality?

What’s really needed to restore us to a viable two-party political system is a wholly new and separate political party created out of whole cloth, difficult as that is to achieve—the last successful effort being the Republican Party in 1854. The Progressive-Democratic Party incumbents already have amply demonstrated their lack of trustworthiness.