Going into Afghanistan made a lot more sense than Iraq (other than bringing the oil in Iraq onto the market as UN sanctions were keeping most of it from being sold on the open market). The Taliban government was providing a safe haven for terrorist groups. Now it seems that we are muddled more in that country without making many gains, and more and more losing public support, both here and there. The biggest problem is trying to get the Afghan people to buy into our being there more. The more support we can get from the Afghan people, the easier job we would have in driving that faction out, but with each battle where innocent civilians die, the harder it is for them to accept us there as a positive thing. Especially when there seems to be no end in sight to the chaos and killing. So how do we change this?
I feel that Obama has to take the lead here. More important than increasing the troop levels there, he has to lead and not only sell it to people here in the US, he has to communicate and sell it to the Afghan population. I believe the biggest help he can give to the troops there in Afghanistan would be to convince the Afghan population to help by supporting us. The Taliban would have much less footing if they had less support from some of the citizens, and it would also be easier to get better intelligence from a more friendly population. And even though it would be a security nightmare, I feel the best way he could help provide that would be to go to Afghanistan and speak to the population.
First, he can tell them why we are there and what we are still doing there, that since we had to take out the old government, we have to stay and let a new government become established. That it would be right for us to just leave and let whatever group of people with the most guns decide what the government should be for everyone. He should let them know that we would want a government in place led by people of their choice, and that we are committed to leave as soon as their elected government is able to protect the citizens from bullying from armed discontents who want to impose their way on everyone by the end of their guns. He should give specific criteria to our leaving.
Second he really needs to convey sorrow for innocent civilians that are killed during battles, and convey that we are doing our best to avoid it. He then needs to try to focus some of the blame on the enemy for those deaths. They have hidden in civilian areas, and when they do so they are bringing the battle there in civilian areas. He then has commit to the Afghan people that he will not tolerate blatant soldier misconduct and will prosecute that.
If he goes to Afghanistan and speaks to the people, communicating those messages, I would think that would go a long way in the population having a more positive outlook about our being there. I think they would respect the fact that he went into a situation where he is taking a risk of his safety just to talk to them, and the unspoken message would be that they are important enough for him to come, risking his safety, and speak to them directly. And by providing specific criteria for our leaving could counteract part of the Taliban's claim that we are just trying to rule them like others have in the past, while associating some of the negative incidents in the war to Taliban actions and activities.
And while he was there, he should then take the time to talk to our troops, pledging to provide whatever help they need along with giving his support to them. He also should talk to them about making sure that they understand that they are ambassadors, and how the general population perceives them can influence the outcome in Afghanistan, and because of that, any blatant misconduct wouldn't be tolerated and would be prosecuted to the fullest, as it will have a negative impact on all soldiers.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monday, November 9, 2009
Welfare
The welfare system has been broke for quite a while now, but no-one really wants to address it. The way the system is now, it is slow to help people that find themselves suddenly needing it, like from a job loss, so they end up losing everything in the process. And it also creates public assistance "lifers". These "lifers" usually are uneducated so they can't find a job that would provide for them the same as public assistance does. They then find that they get more benefits if they have more dependants, so a lot of them have more children, adding more people dependant on public assistance.
The reason why this hasn't really been addressed is that there is no easy political solution. You can't just drop welfare. It is morally abhorrent to just do away with welfare and let children live on the street, starve, and have no real options for their future, and thus no politician would try to do away with it, although most complain about it. Nor should they try to get rid of it, but they need to fix it. Right now they are not getting much return on the money spent on public assistance, nor are they really effective in reducing the welfare rolls. To come up with a solution, we need to list the problems. Some problems with public assistance are as follows:
1) While no-one is going to get rich on public assistance, it does pay better than a lot of jobs that are available when you factor in the health care, rent help, and food stamps. The more dependants someone has, the bigger the difference.
2) There is no real incentive to take a lower paying job as you end up with less than if you stayed on public assistance, and one of the biggest factors/costs that prevent them from taking jobs is the fact that they will not be able to afford health care for themselves and their children.
3) There is not only no penalty for increasing the welfare load of your household, you get rewarded for doing so, meaning that you get more money for having more kids.
4) There is no real incentive for single women with kids on welfare to name the father of their kids, or some kind of penalty when they don't, to have them help with some of the costs of raising them. Also, that is a reason why men are more than happy to live with women on public assistance as girlfriends instead of as wives as it means that they get the benefit of public assistance too and get to keep their check to spend on "fun" stuff instead of on rent, utilities, food etc.
5) There not only is no incentive for most single women to marry, it isn't in her best interests to marry, because if the man they want to marry works, that means they will get less money and there will be more pressure to get off of public assistance.
6) There hasn't been any real effort to get some kind of return for public assistance.
7) People who grow up dependant on public assistance seem to have a sense of entitlement, that there is no need to work for things that you want or need. These kids with a sense of entitlement are more likely not to worry about becoming productive members of society, and are more likely to have less regard for other peoples values, property, etc.
8) Because of the financial incentives, a lot more kids on public assistance are in single parent families, with different male figures moving in and out. These kids are not learning that there should be a commitment by males to their family. These kids face all the difficulties of being raised by a single parent who also at times share some kind of commitment with another, who doesn't have the kids long term interests at heart.
So what do we do. We can't just throw everyone on public assistance on the street and let them just fend for themselves. And I am sure that anyone who has temporarily been unemployed is certainly glad there was something they could fall back on while they find another job. Here is what I would propose
1) Help people when they first lose their jobs retain their house if they chose. This part can be made where the cost of this help can be paid back by the beneficiary. Make this benefit have a limited time, as an incentive to become employed again.
2) For some kind of return on the money, insist on some sort of community give back. Adults can be evaluated for their skills and abilities and assigned tasks/jobs. This could mean park trash pick-up, or helping watch other adults children while they do some tasks. Time will be left for job searches and training. If there is no real effort into becoming employed, more time can be required for these tasks/jobs.
3) Make the public benefits such that it scales when they are working, instead of dropping. In particular, factor in and keep health care benefits for those that are underemployed. This is to encourage working even at part time or low paying/no benefits jobs.
4) Be in control of where public assistance individuals live. Make a tier system of housing and related benefits. If they are fully compliant in doing all that is required of them, and all children have their father accounted for, they can be in the top tier. If they don't do their assigned task/job, they drop down a tier. If they get pregnant (or get a woman pregnant) while on public assistance, they drop down a tier. If they don't disclose the father of their children to the best of their ability, drop down a tier. If it is proven that they are neglectful to their children (criteria can be established), drop down a tier. If they have a member of the opposite sex move in with them for an extended time without reporting it, drop down a tier. Here are some examples of tiers.
a) For the top tier they have some freedom to decide where they live, including potentially a house. Also as a reward they can get other benefits, such as cable, Internet, cell phone, and a larger allowance for clothes. Give food stamps as normal.
b) The second tier is either a loss of the extra benefits, or a loss of a choice to live in a house. They can be moved to an apartment complex.
c) The third tier is loss of both choice to where they live, and all extra benefits.
d) The fourth tier is moved into an apartment complex with families in similar circumstance, meaning, single women with children go to an apartment complex where only single women and their children are allowed. Single men goes to an apartment complex where only men and their dependants are allowed. Married couples go into an apartment complex for only married families. In the single apartment complexes, no visitors from the opposite sex are allowed.
e) The fifth tier is moved into a communal type facility. Families can have their own set of bedrooms/bathroom but no common living space. No visitors are allowed in their personal living area. They also don't get any food stamps, their meals will be served in a cafeteria in the communal area. Also no clothing allowance, all clothes can be either good second hand clothes if available, or generic clothing the government provides.
f) Provide whatever birth control desired to any that are wanting it (including the morning after pill but excluding abortion). This would be a sore spot for some people, but the reality is that people on public assistance shouldn't be having children they can't support. It is one thing to have the children and then end up on public assistance, it is another to have one knowing that you can't financially support the child. It is also unrealistic to believe that people won't give in to thier hormones and have sex (and for people without money, it is an inexpensive activity). Also, the people that are the most opposed to this also are the ones most opposed to the higher taxes needed to pay for more public assistance children.
5) All adults on public assistance have to give DNA samples. There can be limits to the uses of this material, but this sampling will be mainly used to identify parents (mainly fathers who aren't claiming their children) as a way to collect some sort of child support. Since public assistance isn't a constitutional right, and people have a right to find other ways to support themselves (beg mom and dad or anyone else to support them) this shouldn't be a problem.
6) Various training can be provided for people that are on any form of public assistance (including the underemployed).
We should be ensuring that we get the most for our public assistance dollars (our tax dollars), while providing a safe environment, making sure all basic needs are cared for, while providing the best opportunity and incentive for people to get off of public assistance. We also need to provide kids with a sense of accountability and for them to grow up without a sense of entitlement. We also have to give them a feeling that someone is watching out for them. With the housing under government control, there can be methods employed to ensure that all public assistance housing are monitored (non-personal space) for safety of all, with undesirable activity by residents (gang activity, drug use, etc) and proven trouble making non-residents kept out. Residents can be given a chance to be correct said behaviour, and if not corrected, move down a tier with more supervision.
This is where I suggest starting with reforming the welfare system. I am sure there can be tweeks and modifications as neede. Unfortunately there would be difficulties enacting this. There would be a high initial cost as the government would be needing to pay for some modifications to various housing to get it set up. Republicans would most likely oppose it because they would feel the rewards for good behavior are too generous and is too socialist like. I think those are unrealistic fools. Some of the politicians might even realize that it would cost less in the long run and would help reduce the amount of people on public assistance, but wouldn't want to get painted as giving more to those that don't earn it. A lot of democrats probably won't like it because they will probably believe that that these programs infringe on peoples rights. I would say to them that no-one is forcing them to be on public assistance, and since there is no constitutional right to public assistance, we can put requirements on their participation in those assistance programs.
The reason why this hasn't really been addressed is that there is no easy political solution. You can't just drop welfare. It is morally abhorrent to just do away with welfare and let children live on the street, starve, and have no real options for their future, and thus no politician would try to do away with it, although most complain about it. Nor should they try to get rid of it, but they need to fix it. Right now they are not getting much return on the money spent on public assistance, nor are they really effective in reducing the welfare rolls. To come up with a solution, we need to list the problems. Some problems with public assistance are as follows:
1) While no-one is going to get rich on public assistance, it does pay better than a lot of jobs that are available when you factor in the health care, rent help, and food stamps. The more dependants someone has, the bigger the difference.
2) There is no real incentive to take a lower paying job as you end up with less than if you stayed on public assistance, and one of the biggest factors/costs that prevent them from taking jobs is the fact that they will not be able to afford health care for themselves and their children.
3) There is not only no penalty for increasing the welfare load of your household, you get rewarded for doing so, meaning that you get more money for having more kids.
4) There is no real incentive for single women with kids on welfare to name the father of their kids, or some kind of penalty when they don't, to have them help with some of the costs of raising them. Also, that is a reason why men are more than happy to live with women on public assistance as girlfriends instead of as wives as it means that they get the benefit of public assistance too and get to keep their check to spend on "fun" stuff instead of on rent, utilities, food etc.
5) There not only is no incentive for most single women to marry, it isn't in her best interests to marry, because if the man they want to marry works, that means they will get less money and there will be more pressure to get off of public assistance.
6) There hasn't been any real effort to get some kind of return for public assistance.
7) People who grow up dependant on public assistance seem to have a sense of entitlement, that there is no need to work for things that you want or need. These kids with a sense of entitlement are more likely not to worry about becoming productive members of society, and are more likely to have less regard for other peoples values, property, etc.
8) Because of the financial incentives, a lot more kids on public assistance are in single parent families, with different male figures moving in and out. These kids are not learning that there should be a commitment by males to their family. These kids face all the difficulties of being raised by a single parent who also at times share some kind of commitment with another, who doesn't have the kids long term interests at heart.
So what do we do. We can't just throw everyone on public assistance on the street and let them just fend for themselves. And I am sure that anyone who has temporarily been unemployed is certainly glad there was something they could fall back on while they find another job. Here is what I would propose
1) Help people when they first lose their jobs retain their house if they chose. This part can be made where the cost of this help can be paid back by the beneficiary. Make this benefit have a limited time, as an incentive to become employed again.
2) For some kind of return on the money, insist on some sort of community give back. Adults can be evaluated for their skills and abilities and assigned tasks/jobs. This could mean park trash pick-up, or helping watch other adults children while they do some tasks. Time will be left for job searches and training. If there is no real effort into becoming employed, more time can be required for these tasks/jobs.
3) Make the public benefits such that it scales when they are working, instead of dropping. In particular, factor in and keep health care benefits for those that are underemployed. This is to encourage working even at part time or low paying/no benefits jobs.
4) Be in control of where public assistance individuals live. Make a tier system of housing and related benefits. If they are fully compliant in doing all that is required of them, and all children have their father accounted for, they can be in the top tier. If they don't do their assigned task/job, they drop down a tier. If they get pregnant (or get a woman pregnant) while on public assistance, they drop down a tier. If they don't disclose the father of their children to the best of their ability, drop down a tier. If it is proven that they are neglectful to their children (criteria can be established), drop down a tier. If they have a member of the opposite sex move in with them for an extended time without reporting it, drop down a tier. Here are some examples of tiers.
a) For the top tier they have some freedom to decide where they live, including potentially a house. Also as a reward they can get other benefits, such as cable, Internet, cell phone, and a larger allowance for clothes. Give food stamps as normal.
b) The second tier is either a loss of the extra benefits, or a loss of a choice to live in a house. They can be moved to an apartment complex.
c) The third tier is loss of both choice to where they live, and all extra benefits.
d) The fourth tier is moved into an apartment complex with families in similar circumstance, meaning, single women with children go to an apartment complex where only single women and their children are allowed. Single men goes to an apartment complex where only men and their dependants are allowed. Married couples go into an apartment complex for only married families. In the single apartment complexes, no visitors from the opposite sex are allowed.
e) The fifth tier is moved into a communal type facility. Families can have their own set of bedrooms/bathroom but no common living space. No visitors are allowed in their personal living area. They also don't get any food stamps, their meals will be served in a cafeteria in the communal area. Also no clothing allowance, all clothes can be either good second hand clothes if available, or generic clothing the government provides.
f) Provide whatever birth control desired to any that are wanting it (including the morning after pill but excluding abortion). This would be a sore spot for some people, but the reality is that people on public assistance shouldn't be having children they can't support. It is one thing to have the children and then end up on public assistance, it is another to have one knowing that you can't financially support the child. It is also unrealistic to believe that people won't give in to thier hormones and have sex (and for people without money, it is an inexpensive activity). Also, the people that are the most opposed to this also are the ones most opposed to the higher taxes needed to pay for more public assistance children.
5) All adults on public assistance have to give DNA samples. There can be limits to the uses of this material, but this sampling will be mainly used to identify parents (mainly fathers who aren't claiming their children) as a way to collect some sort of child support. Since public assistance isn't a constitutional right, and people have a right to find other ways to support themselves (beg mom and dad or anyone else to support them) this shouldn't be a problem.
6) Various training can be provided for people that are on any form of public assistance (including the underemployed).
We should be ensuring that we get the most for our public assistance dollars (our tax dollars), while providing a safe environment, making sure all basic needs are cared for, while providing the best opportunity and incentive for people to get off of public assistance. We also need to provide kids with a sense of accountability and for them to grow up without a sense of entitlement. We also have to give them a feeling that someone is watching out for them. With the housing under government control, there can be methods employed to ensure that all public assistance housing are monitored (non-personal space) for safety of all, with undesirable activity by residents (gang activity, drug use, etc) and proven trouble making non-residents kept out. Residents can be given a chance to be correct said behaviour, and if not corrected, move down a tier with more supervision.
This is where I suggest starting with reforming the welfare system. I am sure there can be tweeks and modifications as neede. Unfortunately there would be difficulties enacting this. There would be a high initial cost as the government would be needing to pay for some modifications to various housing to get it set up. Republicans would most likely oppose it because they would feel the rewards for good behavior are too generous and is too socialist like. I think those are unrealistic fools. Some of the politicians might even realize that it would cost less in the long run and would help reduce the amount of people on public assistance, but wouldn't want to get painted as giving more to those that don't earn it. A lot of democrats probably won't like it because they will probably believe that that these programs infringe on peoples rights. I would say to them that no-one is forcing them to be on public assistance, and since there is no constitutional right to public assistance, we can put requirements on their participation in those assistance programs.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Health care
Well the good news is that the house passed a health care bill. The bad news is that it probably won't pass in the Senate how it is. I don't understand why there is so much people against the government for setting up a system that will allow everyone the opportunity to get some form of health insurance. People complain that it will cost them more money. Who do they think is paying for the uninsured now? When people go to the emergency room to get basic health care because they can't get turned away, and can't pay that bill, who do you think ends up footing the bill? The hospital just charges everyone else more to make up for the loss. Who do they think is paying for the health care costs for people on welfare? If you pay taxes, then you are, already.
Here are some basic reasons why a health care plan is needed:
1) There are millions of people not insured as the jobs they have don't offer it, and they can't afford it on thier own.
2) Some companies do offer some health care plan, but the employee contribution amount is so high and their salary is so low, that if they paid for their portion of the plan, they couldn't afford rent, food, etc. along with health care.
3) There are some who stay on public assistance because if they started to work, they would lose the health benefits for thier family, as most of the jobs they find they would not be able to afford rent, food and health care.
4) There are a lot of people that are self employed and try to get insurance for their family, but can't as someone in thier family has a "pre-existing condition", or find that after the insurance company has taken thier money for years, when they have a substancial claim the insurance company drops them or deny payment for the claim because only then they will find something they will call a pre-existing condition.
Government is supposed to be "for the people". I can't think of anything more "for the people" than to try to ensure everyone has the chance to have affordable health care coverage. I have heard that universal health care is not a constitutional right. That may be true, but come on, are we as a people that callous that we don't care if some kids die or suffer because their parents tried to work as they didn't want to be on public assistance, but couldn't get a job that would provide affordable health care? Then they couldn't get their kids medical treatment until it was too late because they didn't realize they were that sick and couldn't really afford to take them to the doctor? Do people realize that we are also making public assistance "lifers" because they won't take the chance of that happening with thier families? How much do you think that costs you? I'll bet most of the people that bitch about paying taxes for a government health care plan will be one of the first ones bitching that the government didn't do enough for kids that suffer from a lack of health care.
Another big argument I have heard against a health care law is that government will screw it up..... and this arguments has even been made by some congresspeople. Government doesn't have to screw it up. It is the very people who are using that argument, who are trying to dilute it and tilt it to the insurance companies favor that are screwing it up. It will be easy to make the law include provisions that the premiums for the government version has to cover the costs, i.e. not subsidize premiums for people that make enough to pay for it, and they can offer subsidies for people making under so much a year for any plan they chose. That would not put a disadvantage to the insurance companies.
The disadvantage the insurance companies would have is that they would have to figure out how to compete with the government who wouldn't have multimillion dollar executives to pay, nor would they have shareholders they have to pay. I feel this is the main reason they fight a health care bill so much, they are afraid that they will have to accept that they might have to limit thier own salaries to compete and still pay their shareholders. And they fight by trying to spread some misinformation and scaring people into being against it. They can't fight with good numbers so they hired a firm to study only parts of the health care bill to try to come up with a large number for cost to scare people and then relay those numbers as an actual cost of the bill. Then they spend a lot of money to pressure congresspeople to dilute and fight the bill. It is just shameful
Here are some basic reasons why a health care plan is needed:
1) There are millions of people not insured as the jobs they have don't offer it, and they can't afford it on thier own.
2) Some companies do offer some health care plan, but the employee contribution amount is so high and their salary is so low, that if they paid for their portion of the plan, they couldn't afford rent, food, etc. along with health care.
3) There are some who stay on public assistance because if they started to work, they would lose the health benefits for thier family, as most of the jobs they find they would not be able to afford rent, food and health care.
4) There are a lot of people that are self employed and try to get insurance for their family, but can't as someone in thier family has a "pre-existing condition", or find that after the insurance company has taken thier money for years, when they have a substancial claim the insurance company drops them or deny payment for the claim because only then they will find something they will call a pre-existing condition.
Government is supposed to be "for the people". I can't think of anything more "for the people" than to try to ensure everyone has the chance to have affordable health care coverage. I have heard that universal health care is not a constitutional right. That may be true, but come on, are we as a people that callous that we don't care if some kids die or suffer because their parents tried to work as they didn't want to be on public assistance, but couldn't get a job that would provide affordable health care? Then they couldn't get their kids medical treatment until it was too late because they didn't realize they were that sick and couldn't really afford to take them to the doctor? Do people realize that we are also making public assistance "lifers" because they won't take the chance of that happening with thier families? How much do you think that costs you? I'll bet most of the people that bitch about paying taxes for a government health care plan will be one of the first ones bitching that the government didn't do enough for kids that suffer from a lack of health care.
Another big argument I have heard against a health care law is that government will screw it up..... and this arguments has even been made by some congresspeople. Government doesn't have to screw it up. It is the very people who are using that argument, who are trying to dilute it and tilt it to the insurance companies favor that are screwing it up. It will be easy to make the law include provisions that the premiums for the government version has to cover the costs, i.e. not subsidize premiums for people that make enough to pay for it, and they can offer subsidies for people making under so much a year for any plan they chose. That would not put a disadvantage to the insurance companies.
The disadvantage the insurance companies would have is that they would have to figure out how to compete with the government who wouldn't have multimillion dollar executives to pay, nor would they have shareholders they have to pay. I feel this is the main reason they fight a health care bill so much, they are afraid that they will have to accept that they might have to limit thier own salaries to compete and still pay their shareholders. And they fight by trying to spread some misinformation and scaring people into being against it. They can't fight with good numbers so they hired a firm to study only parts of the health care bill to try to come up with a large number for cost to scare people and then relay those numbers as an actual cost of the bill. Then they spend a lot of money to pressure congresspeople to dilute and fight the bill. It is just shameful
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)