Loading ...WELFARE IS NOT A RIGHT
I hate to sound like the bad guy here, but someone needs to tell people who get government assistance that it is not a right, but a privilege. I cite the recent ACLU lawsuit against the Indiana Family Social Services Agency over the privatization of the agency.
The ACLU maintains the privatization of the eligibility portion of FSSA has resulted in thousands of Hoosiers being denied benefits they are entitled to. No offense, but the last time I checked, government benefits are not a right.
I am all for helping people and think there should be a safety net for the neediest of the needy, but there is nothing that says the state has to do anything. We made a decision as a society to help people out of the kindness of our hearts and the money in our wallets. However someone needs to tell the 1.1 million people who are getting the benefits as long as someone else is paying the bill, that the day is coming where some of us may decide not to do that anymore.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:13 am
I think what you’re missing is that the FSSA doesn’t get to unilaterally decide who to help and who not to help. If they are denying assistance to people who meet the criteria set by the people controlling the money, they’re violating the law.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:31 am
This looks like another fiscal skeleton in the closet that few have paid any attention. When our tax dollars help support Family Services, John Q. Public tax payer has a right to know what eligibility standards may be compromised by arbitrary decisions from privitization (toll road comes to mind), and applicants need to know these standards are fairly enforced without favoritism from a case counselor.
During the last several years, many charities, fund drives, TV marathons, and rock concert benefits that came under the microscope were discovered to have atrocious accountability standards with only a fraction of good people’s money finding its way to the receipient at the expense of giant expensive chandeliers within the headquarters of the Red Cross for example.
Our Tax dollars deserve the highest oversight standards. Sounds like an investigation and audit is long overdue. Where is Rafael Sanchez?
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:00 am
The old conversation about welfare. Some many people plan for welfare that it’s become part of life plans for some people. I overheard to young high school girls pver the weekend at a graduation talking about how they could get welfare to pay for their apartments and how it would leave them money for their hair and nails. Whether it’s a right or not. it’s been abused to the fullest and needs some major re-tooling!
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:23 am
Pothole repair is NOT in the Constitution either. Fire and police departments are “recent” developments too…
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
Helping out truly needy people would seem to be no problem - if the first in line for handouts were not for millions going to sports leagues and hoteliers, billions going to airports and stadiums and trillions going to wars. Byt the time they are done suckling, the teat has run almost dry.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:10 am
You are the bad guy. There are folks who have been disabled for years, both physically and mentally whose fingers know not keyboards and minds that know not computers and about whom there is nothing that can be done except be supported by us. They are also incapable of re filling out forms as their hands don’t work well enough to hold pens and their minds are drugged for pain and so don’t function well. These folks are dis served, all of a sudden, by an out of control executive branch. Go and meet with some of them. I can put you in touch with one such. The ACLU assumes that there are very many such.
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:18 am
I can’t beleive you’re making this argument, Abdul. The existence of FSSA, and who it helps, are governed by statute. As in: adopted by the legislature. So, those who meet the standards are entitled ot benefits governed by organizational statute. Agency rules and procedures were promulgated as a result of those statutes.
The argument now, is whether FSSA ignored those statutes.do agree, that the stnadards are either badly managed or, just possibly, the Bush-led economy i in such shambles that more and more pweople qualify for assistance. Abuse surely exists, but the enforcement of those rules is a direct result of legislature-established procedures. State statutes are at the root of all.
I
And you’re a lawyer!
May 22nd, 2008 at 11:46 am
I’m sorry, Abdul…I’m having a heck of a time…I’ve been searching my Constitution of the United States and Indiana Constitution all morning.
I CANNOT find where welfare is a RIGHT. What am I missing?
Oh…wait a minute…maybe it’s in the same paragraph that authorizes killing unborn children!
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Regardless of issue, merit, morality, party, level of government, or angst, as we wrangle over minutia, we get closer to economics making the decisions for us. We have more choices now, or continue to spend money we don’t have and have fewer later.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:31 pm
Ok gang here is the problem. The issue is not who but how this is being done. This issue is the out sourcing of the process to a private firm that wants to do everything electronically. Some of the folks that need assistance just can’t work within the new system. The other issue is the company doing it still can’t get the issue right in Texas where they have been doing it longer. I was in Texas recently and have the front page story about these exact same issues still going on in Texas. So if you want to see the paper Abdul give me a call. And even though it was ok’s remember this is a group of companies including Mitch Roob’s old employer.
Peace
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Regardless of what people are or aren’t entitled to, an agency is expected to implement its own internal rules for establishing eligibility. People who can show that the firm engaged by the agency violated the agency’s rules should come forward.
May 22nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Let me put this in perspective.
FSSA has decided to improve efficiency in distributing welfare and health benefits by outsourcing the distribution of benefits to a private firm who’s goal is to automate the process to computer websites, telephone call centers, and ATM debit cards. This is used to justify eliminating the previous jumbled network of case workers, paper files, and other things.
The only problem is that the customer for these services are most likely the least, last, and lost among us. Meaning they are not educated or literate, lack money for computers and phones, don’t have bank accounts (cash only), and are likely to be mentally or physically incapable of performing many daily tasks without assistance.
In reality what has happened is that by eliminating the jumbled network of case workers they have eliminated institutional knowledge of long term “clients” and the automation is even less efficient in delivering services in some cases.
Case in point, I heard of a health care “client” confined to his home with a need for oxygen as part of his care requirements. His normal case worker was eliminated in the streamlining of services and the call center staff lacked knowledge of his situation and cut off payment for his oxygen. He reportedly died.
All I am trying to point out is that is not just a philosophical debate, but a practical issue of delivering needed services that can mean the difference between life and death.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
I think you really need to take a refresher course on administrative law…
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Let me try this again and explain this to you people who don’t seem to get it. My issue is not with helping the poor, my issue is people who thinking the poor have a right to be helped.
Although we help people out of the goodness our hearts, we need to do it in a cost-efficient manner. I happen to like privatization even though some other people don’t. We can have that debate. It’s a fair one.
However, some of you seem to have forgotten that it’s the taxpayers who pay for these programs with their state and federal dollars. If you feel a need to give all your hard-earned money to government to help someone else, be my guest. I prefer to a little of my own.
And by the way, I know a fundamental principle of admin law is that an agency must follow its own rules. Just remember, if the rules say you don’t get a benefit if you didn’t turn in all the paperwork then the agency is doing its job.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:17 pm
You might try to respond without the venom, Abdul…tranquuility is good for the soul.
You indicated that welfare is not a right, but a priveledge. Under Indiana law, it is a right for those who qualify under the admin rules. Period.
I happen to think privatization might work well in this arena, if handled well. The ICLU and many others, some of whom I respect and some of whom I don’t, think otherwise.
Now, we’re going to hand over the decision to the least-able sector of government, the branch which has the least experience in matter slike this: the judiciary. And they’ll base their decision on the side that lawyers-up the best. Ain’t that grand?
I’m not a flaming right-wing ideaologue. Far from it. But I’d like our governors, presidents, and mayors, the executive branch folks, to work a little harder on getting these things right initially. So fewer courts have to step in.
This is not the first instance where the exec branch effed up the handoff (if they did). Neither political party is immune from these ineffective handoffs. That’s what the real story is here.
But please don’t tell us that the folks who get assistance are getting a priveledge. They’re legally entitled if they meet the eligibility requirements.
Now, as for cheaters…well, indict all their butts yesterday, as far as I’m concerned. And there are lots of them. But there are also an overwhelming number who truly need help. And I do not object to my tax dolalrs helpign them, with proper oversight.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
You remain the bad guy in this discussion. Folks who have qualified for benefits for years without any question are being made to jump through electronic hoops that they have neither the skill or ability to navigate. Up yours and Up the ACLU on this issue. The offer remains for you to accept a visit to one such or keep your head where no sunlight penetrates.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Pascal, gentle poster, I read your post three times and I’m not sure yet whom you seek to criticize.
Clarity please.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Abdul,
Something you need to keep in mind is the US private healthcare system has been structured to shift the cost of caring for the most needy to the government to maximize profits.
The only other alternative is not to have a public safty net and we can be like a third world country with people dying on the streets with no food, shelter, or healthcare.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 pm
“Pascal - May 22nd, 2008 at 8:20 pm
… ‘Folks who have qualified for benefits for years without any question…’
That’s right, folks…and therein lies the problem. To them, it has become an “entitlement.”
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Not so Easy - what the heck are you talking about? The US private healthcare system should never have to pay for the needy - that’s not maximizing profits, that’s just common sense in business.
Although I think Abdul’s comments were not so much about the story, but about handouts and entitlement and privatization in general, it is still a very worthwhile discussion.
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:02 pm
Unfourtunately, and I know you know this Abdul, since you are a lawyer, there is no difference in the “rights-privleges” of the constitution. So therefore it is a right.
Sad but true.
May 23rd, 2008 at 2:18 am
How about this: Government Assistance is a Privilege…get a job if you are remotely able.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:47 am
FINALLY! Abdul can’t cut me off on this particular message, as he did this morning on the radio.
-
As I stated in my email to Abdul this morning:
***************
Hello Abdul,
-
You are correct — welfare is not a ‘right’.
Our Indiana Constitution provides for ‘county farms’:
-
Article 9 Section 3. The counties may provide farms, as an asylum for those persons who, by reason of age, infirmity, or other misfortune, have CLAIMS UPON THE SYMPATHIES AND AID OF SOCIETY.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/const/art9.html
-
The big question is this: Why did we get away from this?
-
Indiana used to have county farms. If people were physically capable of work, they worked the farm, or were ‘farmed-out’ to work for other people to help offset the costs of their ’support’.
-
Paupers were even ’sold’ for a period of time! See the attached photo that I took at Connor Prairie last Saturday.
-
We can do this again. Build a large compound with Quonset huts, mess halls, latrines, etc. We can also have a ‘clinic’ similar to an aid station for sick call, similar to our military.
-
Hey, it’s good enough for our military!! Should be good enough for them.
*************
Abdul cut me off while I was trying to explain this concept to him.
-
Abdul chuckled on-air, then began talking about the Emancipation Proclamation.
-
Abdul took a radio break. When he returned, they were playing some hokey ’slave’ song, clearly implying that this concerned slavery (as in Blacks).
-
Needless to say, I was pretty annoyed by this behavior from Abdul — he who professes to dislike the ‘race card’.
-
Our Indiana Constitution ALLOWS for County Farms. See Article 9 Section 3.
-
I don’t know how or why we abandoned this concept. We currently pay for people to live in Section 8 housing units that are in better shape (as in NEW construction) than many productive TAX-paying folks live in. Or we are paying their rent, mortgage, food, utilities (cable TV), etc. Our current methods make it ‘comfortable’ to be poor and unproductive.
-
Indeed! The ‘projects’ near Raymond and Sherman have been rebuilt what; two or three times in the past 30 years?!?!
-
WHY can’t these people live on the ‘farm’? Quonset huts are pretty cheap to build. They were certainly good enough for U.S. Marines to live in!!
-
Are we to believe that these ‘entitlement-driven’ people who have CLAIMS UPON THE SYMPATHIES AND AID OF SOCIETY are somehow better than our military personnel?
-
What is oh-so-sweet about Indiana is that, since our Indiana Constitution has such a provision, it cannot be ruled ‘unconstitutional’ by some activist lawyer wearing a black robe!!!!!
-
So, what’s wrong with ’selling the labor’ of a physically-fit destitute person to pay for their upkeep? Abdul scorned that concept this morning.
-
SCENARIO: I am one of ten plumbers working for AJAX Plumbing Company. A homeowner calls in needing a plumber. I am the owner of the company. I dispatch an employee to this customer. The charge is $60 per hour, of which the plumber actually make $25 per hour…the remainder is MY profit.
-
What have I just done?
-
I have ’sold the labor’ of my employee to the customer!!
-
Yet, when I advised Abdul this morning that Connor Prairie had an old flyer showing that the ‘labor’ of three paupers was to be ‘farmed out’ by the Delaware Township Overseers of the Poor (re: Township Trustees), Abdul didn’t coddle much to that idea.
-
Indeed, he (snidely ?) implicated that this was ’slavery’. Abdul did not use the word ’slavery’ — at least I didn’t hear it. But, the inference was certainly there.
-
It was uncalled for. It was unfair to me, and to his listeners.
-
This is certainly justified by our Indiana Constitution. I don’t care what the Illinois Constitution states on the matter.
-
In summary; I simply believe that people who are ABLE, should work for the bounty of their CLAIMS UPON THE SYMPATHIES AND AID OF SOCIETY, get their ‘help’, and be removed from the rolls of the taxpayer subsidized ‘poor’ as quickly as possible.
May 23rd, 2008 at 8:19 am
Well, Robert on NW side…all of this could very well happen…except for the liberals, cry-babies, ACLU, ICLU, bleeding-hearts, etc. who would not allow it.
We don’t want to “hurt their feelings,” “make them FEEL bad,” bring attention to their laziness, etc.
Ever stand behind them in a grocery store line? See what they are buying? See how they manage to buy “banned” items with their food stamps? Oh…sorry…they don’t use food stamps anymore. No, they use a “debit card” so people won’t STARE at them!
How sad…this country is fading fast. Thanks, liberals.
May 23rd, 2008 at 9:16 am
The smartest person in the room.
Pam Brookshire, director of program operations for Community Action of Northeast Indiana said “At its essence this is a good idea. I just don’t think the people who thought it up know enough about the people we serve.”
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
Corralling people who happen to be poor into farms (to be honest, it should read ‘labor camps’)?
Surely that would cross off at least two of the three on this list: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
May 23rd, 2008 at 10:42 am
Concerned Taxpayer, what are you talking about? Are your 1st and 2nd paragraphs related? I can’t honestly tell.
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 am
I agree and disagree with many of the points made here. The issue I have is with the buddy system on the privatization and the fact that the people that know how to game the system will still game the system. The folks that really need and qualify for services are having trouble using the new system with out assistance. That is the issue. And if you are truley deserving of services and you lose them even for a short period of time the results are pretty devastatiing.
While I am all for impriving the system and streamlining government you don’t hire a company that has already proven in Texas they can’t do the job. And in regards to Abdul’s point about the paperwork. Seems to be an issue in IN and in TX that people come back and prove that they submitted paperwork but it was lost on outsource side. Makes me remember the day I heard Mitch Roob speak in the early days of the administration in regards to services for people with disabilities that “sometimes you have to shoot a hostage”. I guess this is one way…..
Peace
May 23rd, 2008 at 11:16 am
Sorry Abdul, as a family member of one of these people you have zero clue what you are talking about. I’ll give you that Welfare is not a right, but as one poster said, and I embellish, neither are sewers, roads, schools or any other governmental service. Those are all bargained for by the electorate who chose to form the Nation/State in the first place.
This process has caused a great deal of unneeded concern on the part of many very deserving people. For example, my sister, or all you taxpayers, paid into the system for 30 years before her disabilities become so pervasive that she had to quit work. She would trade places with any of you if she could. And, let me say this Abdul, those who are cheating the system are more likely to know how to beat the system and probably didn’t lose a dime in the transition. The ones who got hurt, like my sister, can’t use the internet, can fillout the forms, can’t do anything other than try and get someone to help them. Oh wait, there isn’t anyone because there are no more caseworkers. Good Move Mitch!
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 pm
What is concerned taxpayer concerned with? I suppose he pays Social Security taxes. When it is time for him to collect his benefits is he “entitled” to them or not? Let’s not have any more double talk. What is sad about this is that conservatives have not taken the lead in defending those who are now abused by the system and denied benefits to which they are perfectly entitled. Nope, left that task to the Indiana Communist Liberties Union.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Um okay, just as an fyi for those of you without a legal background, and those with one that don’t use it. Welfare benefits ARE a right once they have been granted. This is according the the US Supreme Court in Goldberg v. Kelly. Thus the US Constitutional provision that guarantees the right to welfare is the 5th and 14th Amendment’s Right to Due Process. Specifically, the Procedural Due Process right to notice and hearing before deprivation of property, which welfare benefits are once they have been granted. Incidentally this is the same provision that protects the right to an abortion (14th Amendment Substantive Due Process Liberty Interest). Good luck with that everyone.
May 23rd, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Think again. I’m not overly critical of anyone but would like commentary based on realities and knowledge rather than hipshots. We have worked out a method to completely educate Abdul on one case from which he will draw conclusions other than what he has previous posted. We are all prisioners of what we think we know and if lucky, we find ways of escaping those constraints.
May 23rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Pascal…where were the hipshots? (Love that term: may I borrow it?)
It’s prob. time to let it go, but I still don’t understand the totality of your 5-22 8:20 comment. I think you’re criticizing me and the ACLU. Why, I don’t know.
I merely pointed out that Abdul is wrong; welfare IS a right to those who have qualified by the state’s rules. I didn’t say whether I liked or loathed that fact. A few other posters have gone down a similar path.
May 24th, 2008 at 3:38 am
Quoting John Howard, May 23rd, 2008 at 10:41 am
Corralling people who happen to be poor into farms (to be honest, it should read ‘labor camps’)?
Surely that would cross off at least two of the three on this list: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
**************************
John, you clearly believe that able-bodied people who have CLAIMS UPON THE SYMPATHIES AND AID OF SOCIETY should not have to ‘labor’ at all for this aid.
-
John, you also imply that these county farms would violate our constitution. Yet, how could some lawyer in a robe rule it unconstitutional, when it’s written into our Constitution?
-
You want to play the ‘poor have rights’ game? Well, what about MY rights? What about MY right to the fruits of MY labor?
-
Yet, along come the poor person who is able-bodied, yet refuses to work. They cry and complain to government.
-
Along comes government, which uses force to extract some of the fruits of MY labor, and gives it to the able-bodied ‘poor’ who did nothing to earn it.
-
I have more respect for the panhandlers around town. At least they are out doing ’something’.
-
If some county decided to grow some ‘nads, and implement Art 9 Sec 3, what would you do? File a lawsuit? Cry that there is no implementing statute?
-
Be at ease! Our Constitution trumps State statutes.
-
Anyone ready to invest in quonset huts ?!?!
-
http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title1/ar1/ch2.html
IC 1-1-2-1
Hierarchy of law
Sec. 1. The law governing this state is declared to be:
First. The Constitution of the United States and of this state.
Second. All statutes of the general assembly of the state in force, and not inconsistent with such constitutions.
Third. All statutes of the United States in force, and relating to subjects over which congress has power to legislate for the states, and not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States.
Fourth. The common law of England, and statutes of the British Parliament made in aid thereof prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First (except the second section of the sixth chapter of forty-third Elizabeth, the eighth chapter of thirteenth Elizabeth, and the ninth chapter of thirty-seventh Henry the Eighth,) and which are of a general nature, not local to that kingdom, and not inconsistent with the first, second and third specifications of this section.
(Formerly: Acts 1852,1RS, c.61, s.1.)
May 24th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Robert-NW needs to grasp the difference between ‘offer asylum’ and ‘incarcerate’.
May 24th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
“Pothole repair is NOT in the Constitution either. Fire and police departments are “recent” developments too…”
I agree. I should be allowed to pop out five bastard kids by different daddies and still be allowed to not have to hold down a job. If this means taking more of Wilson’s money from his pension check, I don’t see a problem with it. A person should not have to work, and their housing, food, medicine, etc. should be paid for by others.
May 27th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Quoting John Howard, May 24th, 2008 at 8:56 am
-
Robert-NW needs to grasp the difference between ‘offer asylum’ and ‘incarcerate’
***********************
Hi John. I know the difference. In my ‘world’, the asylum would come with strings…as it should!
-
Want others to feed you? If you’re able-bodied, then you work at something. You DO NOT sit around on your lazy azz.
-
Need a roof over your head? If you’re able-bodied, then you work at something. You DO NOT sit around on your lazy azz.
-
There is nothing wrong with having able-bodied people work for the ‘welfare’ they wish to receive.
-
I suspect that our current lot of Overseers of the Poor (township trustees) don’t enforce the current law requirement of getting aid from family first, then coming to the taxpayer. I also suspect that the work requirement gets a wink and a nod from the trustees.
-
So, John…should able-bodied people work for their ‘welfare’, or should they be permitted to lounge around on their lazy azz??
May 27th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
We’ve spent ourselves into a final 24-second economic clock (5-10 years at current spending levels). We must now bring the ball up the court for our kids and old age. Protecting those “truly in need” is as subjective as “worthwhile” foreign policy. Based on history and polarization along the lines of party, race, and income- it’s not looking good. With years of not being able to say “No” to virtually any spending, we’ve got maybe one possession to figure it out. But, I still like our play options of across the board spending cuts or bipartisan sacrifice (like capping childbirth entitlement and out-of-country tax evasion at once). Can we put players on the court that care more about winning than individual success? Can we get a coach who’s interested in long-term success instead of a few games? Can we put up a good shot?