I just love the preachiness of some of these folks -- the goal is "self-sufficiency?!" Name me one person who fits that bill, especially among the rich! (People with fiat fortunes have no room to talk. Against public housing? Get rid of the tax write off for mortgage interest.) One interviewee hits the nail on the head -- ending welfare caseload is a lot different than ending poverty. Pet peeve: No one tells the actual money a family of three receives from TANF -- 7600 per year in CA, under 2000 per year in Miss, last I checked.Why should an incredibly complicated society ever have this silly value -- self-sufficiency -- as a goal? Should people work? Certainly. In a modern industrialized world, the idea that that is a path to self-sufficiency is just plain silly. Perhaps the unabomber in his little shack was self-sufficient. And this isn't mere semantics -- the self-sufficiency of the type these folks talk about, if actually inspected tends toward some sort of Robinson Crusoe ideal. Stupid. The growth of the welfare state -- though it appears small -- is a great thing. Tons more people should get Medicaid -- my goal is 100%. And the program itself should be expanded in its coverage. I can think of any number of other wonderful things we could have -- a nice long list. Bring on the nanny state!
Post a Comment