Jack Kirkpatrick
05-13-2009, 11:33 AM
There is a compelling argument to urge a NO vote on all propositions except Proposition 1F where a YES vote is warranted at next week's vote. Before any future propositions or increase spending, there should be a systematic assessment as to who is receiving tax dollars and their actual need. More oversight on the poor and program compliance audits and reviews should be designed to standardized and determine justified increases in spending.
Empathy to the poor's plight does not require a hand up if the poor bypassed our traditional educational system and the many of our other more specialized programs for those that bypassed the system or fell out of the system because of bad choices. There are so many programs and welfare supplements for "unwanted" children being raise by an auntie, a granny, or their own mother.... There is a lack of sustainability for those entering programs address drug and remedial educations and vocational training. These programs are not adequate to assist the poor in becoming independent and self-supporting. California's Proportion 36 - drug diversion - is a dismal failure as to referrals, entry and completion of the program, yet million of dollars have been spent without noticeable progress.
Almost all programs should be cut except to the truly disadvantaged. I would estimate that 60% to 70% of the poor could sustain themselves without public assistance and both the poor and underemployed who do receive specialized public assistance can do without unless they demonstrate progress toward sustainability. If aid receivers exacerbate their problems by use of drugs, criminal activity, dropping out of training programs, intended or unintended pregnancies, where additional funding is continued or required they should be removed from our welfare rolls. Asecond chance may be acceptable in a year or two, but no greater than what they were getting from their last run on the system.
I would also estimate that 60-70% of the poor are relying on options contained in the underground economy or bartered services to make up the difference in income - community/family baby sitting, drugs sold to supplement income, trade in stolen goods.... If you go to many of those Section 8 home renters - it is amazing to see a lot of conspicuous consumption - multiple TVs, abandoned cars, I-Pods, cell phones, clothes...; the same for many other residents who claim poorness. The Chronicles' Season of Sharing news photographs show a lot of items that poor people should not be able to afford. The shop and trade bartering practices of the underground economy represents a lot of resourcefulness.
Random and unannounced welfare checks and certain restrictions may be "big brother," but the pubic has a right to know where their tax dollars are going and set further restrictions on claimants on the public dole. After all, increasing taxation on the everyone including the rich is a form of oversight and accountability. So there should be no chilling affect on audits.
It is time to dock the "players" of the welfare system and stop knocking the taxpayers for underfunding federal, state and local programming. Programs should be cut except to the truly disadvantaged - the 30 to 40% who really does need sustainable public assistance. We would have money left over to improve assistance to education and other programming vital to a sustained ecomomy!
Empathy to the poor's plight does not require a hand up if the poor bypassed our traditional educational system and the many of our other more specialized programs for those that bypassed the system or fell out of the system because of bad choices. There are so many programs and welfare supplements for "unwanted" children being raise by an auntie, a granny, or their own mother.... There is a lack of sustainability for those entering programs address drug and remedial educations and vocational training. These programs are not adequate to assist the poor in becoming independent and self-supporting. California's Proportion 36 - drug diversion - is a dismal failure as to referrals, entry and completion of the program, yet million of dollars have been spent without noticeable progress.
Almost all programs should be cut except to the truly disadvantaged. I would estimate that 60% to 70% of the poor could sustain themselves without public assistance and both the poor and underemployed who do receive specialized public assistance can do without unless they demonstrate progress toward sustainability. If aid receivers exacerbate their problems by use of drugs, criminal activity, dropping out of training programs, intended or unintended pregnancies, where additional funding is continued or required they should be removed from our welfare rolls. Asecond chance may be acceptable in a year or two, but no greater than what they were getting from their last run on the system.
I would also estimate that 60-70% of the poor are relying on options contained in the underground economy or bartered services to make up the difference in income - community/family baby sitting, drugs sold to supplement income, trade in stolen goods.... If you go to many of those Section 8 home renters - it is amazing to see a lot of conspicuous consumption - multiple TVs, abandoned cars, I-Pods, cell phones, clothes...; the same for many other residents who claim poorness. The Chronicles' Season of Sharing news photographs show a lot of items that poor people should not be able to afford. The shop and trade bartering practices of the underground economy represents a lot of resourcefulness.
Random and unannounced welfare checks and certain restrictions may be "big brother," but the pubic has a right to know where their tax dollars are going and set further restrictions on claimants on the public dole. After all, increasing taxation on the everyone including the rich is a form of oversight and accountability. So there should be no chilling affect on audits.
It is time to dock the "players" of the welfare system and stop knocking the taxpayers for underfunding federal, state and local programming. Programs should be cut except to the truly disadvantaged - the 30 to 40% who really does need sustainable public assistance. We would have money left over to improve assistance to education and other programming vital to a sustained ecomomy!