Reforming Welfare

[sameech]

For me, block granting is NEVER a solution. That is something that completely destroys the power of the state and transfers it to the federal government. If we are allocating x dollars per person and taxing x dollars per person the real and practical solution is simply to have that state tax those dollars and collect rather than the federal government.

It seems asinine that the feds tax monies from state residents and then return those same monies back to the state – take out the middle men.

The federal estate tax largely is an efficient block granting system, or at least it was until the GOP started tinkering with it to the point that states have been looking at opting out. It was a very efficient system for years to collect the money at a single point and disperse it accordingly as opposed to having estates have to to deal with multiple estate tax regimens as high value estates tend to sprawl over multiple jurisdictions.

 

[Flopper]

Such a concept would be enormously complex whenever someone moved to another location (having an entirely different set of rules) and be completely insolvent because the poor tend to congregate in poor towns. When everyone there is poor there certainly is not going to be sufficient tax revenues to support welfare payments to the same.

Personally I think that welfare need a complete overhaul. There should be one welfare program or a small handful at worst case rather than over 70 as we currently have. They should also concentrate on getting people off it rather than perpetuate welfare. More work training and programs and less monetary. More education. Whenever possible, welfare should cover the goods directly as WIC does.

The practical solution is in the middle--allocate X number of dollars per state per person. Let the states decide what programs are most effective (basically block granting) for the conditions on the ground there. For instance, in Virginia, they could take the per capita receipts for all the wealthy/upper income people in the DC suburbs and reallocate it to the rural areas that are not nearly as densely populated if they so desired.

For me, block granting is NEVER a solution. That is something that completely destroys the power of the state and transfers it to the federal government. If we are allocating x dollars per person and taxing x dollars per person the real and practical solution is simply to have that state tax those dollars and collect rather than the federal government.

It seems asinine that the feds tax monies from state residents and then return those same monies back to the state – take out the middle men.

If the states received no federal welfare money, benefits would certainly be reduced however, I don't see why the programs would be managed any better. The states are responsible for fraud investigations, enforcement of time limits, citizenship requirements, establishing eligibility requirements, many of the rules, and an average of 45% of the cost of the federally covered program benefits. This is why benefit levels vary from state to state by as much as 4 to 1.

Eliminating the middle man, the federal government would place the biggest burden on the poorest states. State that could not afford programs would just have to drop them without much regard for their need. In addition, many service provided by federal government to state DHS divisions would have to duplicated by each state.

 

[Flopper]

Such a concept would be enormously complex whenever someone moved to another location (having an entirely different set of rules) and be completely insolvent because the poor tend to congregate in poor towns. When everyone there is poor there certainly is not going to be sufficient tax revenues to support welfare payments to the same.

Personally I think that welfare need a complete overhaul. There should be one welfare program or a small handful at worst case rather than over 70 as we currently have. They should also concentrate on getting people off it rather than perpetuate welfare. More work training and programs and less monetary. More education. Whenever possible, welfare should cover the goods directly as WIC does.

The practical solution is in the middle--allocate X number of dollars per state per person. Let the states decide what programs are most effective (basically block granting) for the conditions on the ground there. For instance, in Virginia, they could take the per capita receipts for all the wealthy/upper income people in the DC suburbs and reallocate it to the rural areas that are not nearly as densely populated if they so desired.

I'm surprised at how reasonable this thread is for the most part. It's a wonderful change of pace!
No one is blaming apartheid in South Africa on minimum wage laws. You guys rock!

For the most part, I think these ideas sound reasonable. It's just a matter of details.
The devil is always in the details.

Let's start with some basic goals.

Basic goal: Provide a safety net for people who are either born to poverty or who fall on hard times.
Problems:

This safety net must continue to exist despite arguments against entitlements. This safety net will have to be tied to a moving standard like the poverty line, and much of it currently is. The minimum wage should also be tied to a moving standard like the poverty line because this will end the tiresome debates on increasing it to match inflation.​

We do have a subculture which now exists in this safety net seemingly in perpetuity. Does this mean that we provide no safety net? And what happens with problem cases that won't get out of the safety net? Is this what people mean when they say "welfare fraud"? Because that is not "welfare fraud", but rather a person with some severe psychological deficiency that we might characterize as lazy or ill.​

Basic goal: Get people off welfare and into productive careers. That's good for the GDP, good for reducing crime, good for everything and everyone.
Problems:

Not everyone can be employed fulltime, like the disabled.​

Many low-end jobs don't want one person for 40 hours, they want three people at 15 hours each. This reduces the possibility of overtime pay and eliminates any requirement to provide health care. That means a low-end worker who honestly wants to work full time needs to ride around and do three different jobs. I have no numbers to better illuminate this phenomenon. How frequently does this type of situation arise? Will eliminating basic worker protections like overtime pay and healthcare really be beneficial to the American people on the whole? It has not been, historically speaking, a good plan to actually reduce the standard of living of the American people as a whole.​

Basic goal: Reduce the complexity of the welfare system.
Well, yes. Let's just do that. Simply because we have this long history of legislation and simply because we have a do-nothing congress are not excuses for avoiding such a common sense reform. Congress is the source of the inertia. That's not the fault of people on welfare. That's the fault of this strange government we have now... inertial-ocracy? friction-archy? Blame whichever side you want, none of them are budging.

Basic goal: Centralize welfare authority, disbursement and eligibility

I think decentralizing the system is not a good idea given that this limits mobility. I'd like a more centralized system such that if a welfare recipient could be weened off welfare if given an opportunity in another state, then why not encourage the welfare recipient to move on to greener pastures?​

An argument exists that the system cannot be decentralized because a poor person in New York City has a higher cost of living than a poor person in Binghamton , New York.
So why should the poor person in New York City not move to Binghamton? No really, I'm asking. Is living in the Big Apple on the government dole a right?​

I agree with most of your statements, particular in regard to decentralization. One of the main problems in welfare administration is there is too much decentralization. Welfare workers are faced with a plethora of rules and regulations from county, state, and a dozen different federal agencies often contradictory.

Decentralizing results in huge differences in benefits that not only vary between states but between counties. A family should not have to move to a different county in get financial aid for a retarded child. A working mother should not have turn down a better job in Texas because she would loose the Medicaid benefits she receives in Arkansas.