#Welfare Programs

[chronicallycouchbound]

I refuse to call government assistance programs “welfare” or “benefits”.

I’ve been on government assistance programs my whole life. I have never lived above the poverty line.

It’s a system that doesn’t care about my wellbeing, they care about doing the bare minimum to keep people alive enough to function and work, and if you’re disabled and cannot work, they give significantly less of a fuck.

And benefits?? What benefits?

Food stamps that run out within two weeks because I am budgeting with 8$ a day with literally dozens of dietary restrictions? Or do you mean the housing voucher that I have to never even have a gift card, penny to my name, Sams club membership, phone bill, literally anything that could be “income” in order to qualify? That same housing voucher system that if I mess up even once with I not only lose all government aid for at least 5 years, it’s also mandatory PRISON time for 1 year?? “Oh but they would never do that, right?” Nope! I have several friends who are now felons for minor lease violations and unhoused as a result! Oh maybe you mean the state health insurance that doesn’t cover most treatments, specialists, and testing I need and if I tried to make a gofundme to cover, I would lose aforementioned housing? Oh and we can’t forget all the money I get for being disabled, which is exactly 0$. I’m still fighting for SSI and have been for 6 years! That’s over 6 years with absolutely zero income. ZERO. And guess what, whenever I *do* get on SSI, I will lose my housing voucher. And I won’t be able to afford my current apartment because even in subsidized low income housing it’s too expensive for the maximum SSI “benefit” amount. And on SSI you can’t have savings over 2000$. Oh and they do make housing for people who are low income where you pay 30% of your income but I can’t even be on the waitlist since I don’t have any income. And on top of all this, I can never get married because I’ll lose all of the programs.

I could keep going. That’s not even half of the programs I’m a part of.

• None of them give me cash in hand. Even for vouchers I have to provide receipts for everything.

• Food stamps just straight up won’t even cover ineligible items. Which includes hot foods.

• I genuinely don’t believe that there’s a way to “game the system” and why would you? You would gain literally nothing.

• It’s designed to keep people poor. Once you make over a certain amount, you lose all or almost all benefits. There’s no way to slowly transition out of the programs, if you’re someone who’s able to. It’s all in or all out.

• All of these barriers are made significantly worse while unhoused/homeless. I’ve been homeless for over half of my life and there’s so many fucked up rules. If I missed one night staying in the shelter, I lost my housing voucher because I no longer was “verified as homeless” even if I was sleeping outside still.

[prettyvintageafternoon]

I think it's also important to note that the reason why the "welfare queen" myth has existed for so long is because it was a stereotype that conservatives pinned on black women in particular.

It's much easier to galvanize conservative voters into voting to gut welfare programs that they also use if you're using a black woman's face as the symbolic image for the supposed problem.

These are the same people who vote against abortion access because they think black women are having 10,000 abortions in one day when they themselves have also had abortions, or know someone who has.

The "welfare queen" is and always has been a myth but also I'm just not gonna be made to pretend I care about her. I'd rather every single child had food to eat every day of their lives than spend any amount of my time worrying about whether some random person is taking advantage of the system.

[townpostin]

Youth Congress to Launch 'Har Ghar Khata-Khat' Campaign in Jamshedpur

From August 6, Youth Congress will conduct a public outreach campaign to survey the effectiveness of state government welfare schemes. Youth Congress to survey state welfare schemes in Jamshedpur, starting door-to-door campaign on August 6. JAMSHEDPUR – Starting on August 6, the Youth Congress will launch the ‘Har Ghar Khata-Khat’ campaign in Jamshedpur to survey the reach and effectiveness of…

[gravitascivics]

JUDGING LIBERATED FEDERALISM, VI

In sharing the various elements of liberated federalism, the proposed view by which to develop a civics curriculum, this blog is offering equality as a central concern.  In the last posting, using the ideas of Philip Selznick,[1] it described and explained the implications of what Selznick calls baseline equality.  This posting will now review his other form of equality, equal treatment.

         This next aspect, equal treatment, as with the case of baseline equality, is based on the belief in the dignity and integrity of each member of a union.  Such a belief leads to the aspiration for creating a commonwealth in which all its members can enjoy equal treatment or condition.[2]  

As baseline equality was a fundamental right, equal treatment is a derivative right and is based on an equal evaluation of everyone’s welfare.  In pursuing this right, to the extent it exists, dissimilar treatment for people in different categories can be considered and deemed rightful under what is judged to be the appropriate conditions.  

Dissimilar treatment must be justified on some grounds in which circumstances show that a level of disrespect to the dignity and welfare of certain groups exists.  “The objective is fairness based on moral equality, not consistency for its own sake.”[3]  In other words, government should treat people differently if to do so would be to respect and advance the ideal that everyone has intrinsic worth.  This can meaningfully give substance to a moral equality standard, i.e., to afford treatment to individuals as equals but realistic as to their situations.

This dissimilar treatment is not meant to down-level people, but to raise them to create a community in which all are ideally – and to a great extent actually – well-born.  So, therefore, a study of government should include inquiry and debate over the connection between the social equality that exists in fact and the equality which is advocated by this element of the liberated federalist model. In addition, inquiry should be extended to ask what this element of moral equality would prohibit or set limits on public or private sector policy within a commonwealth.

This blogger in other venues has made a distinction among how advocates of natural rights, critical theory, and liberated federalism define equality.  Natural rights view sees it as being the establishment of equal conditions, as in equality before the law.  This blog identifies that condition as an attribute of baseline equality.  

Critical theory defines it as equal results – that there should be minimal variance in the distribution of assets – such as wealth. And liberated federalism sees equality as regulated equality in which government and other authorities see to it that where factors, such as historical ones, place disadvantages in the path of certain groups, authoritative regulations should be put in place to alleviate or rectify the resulting disadvantages.[4]  A minimum wage would be such a regulation.

A commonwealth is then faced with a double-edged sword.  On the one hand, the inevitable ranking of individuals leads to an uneven distribution of material values.  Such a reality, though, threatens the level of moral equality in the commonwealth. But this sort of ranking is not only pervasive among societies of all kinds but is readily justified within those societies.  Calls to end uneven distributions are unrealistic and attempts will (and have) caused unacceptable costs to other values.

For example, would attempts to even out distributions act to squelch the motivation of those who would otherwise work creatively and assiduously to advance technological and other business-oriented activities which result in higher production and productivity?  The experience of collectivist societies, such as in purely socialistic societies where such attempts have been made, seems to indicate that such motivation would be squelched.

The key to resolving the dichotomy of values is the classical liberal call for equal opportunity.  Selznick describes these values as follows:

 No one should be hampered, no door should be closed to anyone, because of a prejudice against that person’s social origin. Whatever opportunities exist should be open to all without regard to social class or (as later extended) to race, creed, ethnicity, or gender.  Thus equality of opportunity has the limited objective of overcoming prejudice while maintaining the legitimacy of differential rewards.[5]

 In short, the focus is on ending any caste elements within the commonwealth.[6]  Affirmative action, under such a value, is limited to the following activities:  

 ·       identifying and providing appropriate training to those victimized by discrimination,

·       helping members of a discriminated group, or to demand evidence that public or private agencies have dealt with discriminated groups in good faith, and

·       exert meaningful effort to rectify past incidences of discrimination by actual accomplishments.

 Helping efforts might be extended to those who have not even been discriminated against, in order to upgrade the group as a whole.  In addition, public agencies, such as schools, should provide resources to poorer members of the commonwealth to encourage recipients to compete economically for limited material values.  At its base, the commonwealth would rely on a meritocratic standard that allows those who produce or have good fortune to benefit from their effort or luck, but it dismisses as illegitimate the ideal that holds that “winners” are inherently superior.

         Inequalities in such a value system are tolerated on the grounds that to eliminate them would be costly, impractical, and too disruptive and counterproductive to the general creation of wealth of material and other assets.  This would ultimately work to the disinterests of all, including the disadvantaged and the discriminated.  Therefore, the moral equality that is sought is based on a reciprocal advantage, not on sympathy, pity, or benevolence.

         Under such a system, all should support an arrangement as if anyone making up the commonwealth could be at the bottom – “there but for the grace of God go I.”  This reciprocal nature calls on a meaningful reality that (1) allows an opportunity to improve one’s position significantly, and (2) sets up a cooperative mode of social interaction.

         It allows for rational decision-making, maximizing one’s benefits and minimizing one’s costs, but is more encompassing than the marginal analysis of the systems approach (reviewed earlier in this blog). It considers the potential and often real distribution of assets.  Where significant imbalances exist – when basic humanity is threatened for an individual or group – leading to a lack of respect and dignity where anyone or anyone’s loved ones can find themselves in desperate and deprived conditions, appropriate welfare should be allotted.

         The reciprocal nature of this proposed arrangement has strong support within its logic for a fraternal ethos upon which community can be built and a meaningful commonwealth can be maintained.  But there exists under this logic the temptation to see all inequalities as counter to moral equality.  One needs to be clear about the functions of inequality. Selznick comments:

 Historically there have been four main justifications for inequalities as contributing to the common good.  It has been claimed that inequalities are essential for:  (1) effective organization for prosperity, education, public safety, and similar social goals; (2) achievement of excellence and high standards, especially in the realm of “high culture”; (3) protection of freedom, including the freedom to become unequal in possessions and personal attainment; and (4) commitment to ascriptive unities, especially family membership, which depend on recognition of special benefits and privileges.  None of these objectives can justify unlimited or unrestrained inequality.[7]

              The argument can be made that some level of inequality is both practical and moral, i.e., that a moral commonwealth should support an elitist element within its midst.  The elites, who are committed to democratic and republican ideals, are those the commonwealth depends upon to lead in the pursuit of a moral society under those ideals.

Included in this ideal is the goal of establishing a community in which the elites and non-elites can live in an overall cooperative venture.  In summary, that cooperative effort is to seek equality that restrains arbitrary power, encourages democratic participation, and promotes effective economic opportunity.  These qualities serve as the bedrock of a liberated federalist guided polity and should be at the core of a civics curriculum.

[1] Philip Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth:  Social Theory and the Promise of Community (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992).

[2] The term, “equal treatment,” as it is often used by those who ascribe to the ideas of natural rights, is limited to the notion that all should be treated in similar fashion by those in governmental authority.  Here, Selznick expands on this ideation of what “equal” or “equality” means.

[3] Ibid., 491.

[4] See for example, Robert Gutierrez, Toward a Federated Nation:  Implementing National Civics Standards (Tallahassee, FL: Gravitas/Civics Books, 2020).

[5] Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth, 492.

[6] Is “caste” too strong a term when considering the US?  To address that question readers are directed to Isabel Wilkerson, Caste:  The Origin of Our Discontents (New York, NY:  Random House, 2020/2023).  She makes a convincing argument that this nation has sufficient conditions to classify it as harboring a caste system.

[7] Selznick, The Moral Commonwealth, 499, emphasis in the original.

[xawery-y]

well said! I'm all for essily obtainable healthcare and housing, but there is no way it will make all of the disruptive people disappear.

living in a community makes it our responsibility to learn to live with the unpleseant and to at least tolarate it.

i grew up in a big city and i rly think it’s important to the best of your ability learn to be okay sharing spaces with people who are not in that moment pleasant to be around. people who smell bad. screaming children. people asking you for money. teenagers noisily loitering. people talking to themself or to you in disorganized ways. even in a socialist utopia with free health care and housing and robust harm reduction programs, there’s always going to be people being disruptive and uncomfortable in public and you’ve gotta be okay with that and be polite.

[spoondrifts]

hi there! i kinda hate to do this, but i'm in a bit of a rough patch financially at the moment, and i'm a little concerned about running out of grocery money at the end of the month. totally no pressure, but if you're feeling generous and would like to tip me a few bucks on my ko-fi, i'd really appreciate it <3 again, please don't feel obligated at all!! love u guys and i just figured it couldn't hurt to ask :)

[alwaysbewoke]

[chronicallycouchbound]

“Benefits” my ass.

These are mandatory forms for General Assistance, which pays for my rent, household needs ($45) and some food (100$).

I am disabled and have been fighting for SSI since 2017. Once I am eventually approved, I have to use my backpay to pay back a portion of this (about 1/3 of my backpay, my lawyer gets another 1/3, I get whats left).

In order to have housing (after YEARS of homelessness) I have to waive my rights to confidentiality for my own medical records.

Note that “phone bills” are misspent money. I am entirely reliant on someone else’s kindness to be on their phone plan. This had to be approved by my GA caseworker. I NEED a phone, not just for my dozens of appointments to manage my life threatening chronic health conditions and serious mental illnesses, but also to call the pharmacy, to call my landlord, DHHS, heating assistance programs, case management and therapy, AND, of course, for my monthly general assistance appointment. Yes. They REQUIRE me to have a phone AND I cannot pay for it. I have zero income since I’m unable to work anyways.

What happens if I “misuse” these theoretical funds? Federal prison time, a mandatory minimum of 1 year, PLUS disqualification of all government services for up to 5 years.

So yeah, “Benefits” my ass.

[panvani]

Reading The Road to Serfdom and it's like 15% well articulated points, 15% stuff that's objectively not true, 50% conclusions reached based off of vibes, and 20% just listing various stereotypes about Germans

[bitchesgetriches]

Hi. I was wondering if you would be willing to share information about the Affordable Connectivity Program for your followers who might benefit ftom it? www.fcc.gov/acp. Thanks.

Of course, cherry bomb! Thanks so much for bringing it to our attention. From the org's site:

The Affordable Connectivity Program is an FCC benefit program that helps ensure that households can afford the broadband they need for work, school, healthcare and more.

The benefit provides a discount of up to $30 per month toward internet service for eligible households and up to $75 per month for households on qualifying Tribal lands.

Eligible households can also receive a one-time discount of up to $100 to purchase a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet from participating providers if they contribute more than $10 and less than $50 toward the purchase price.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO

And worry not, Bitch Nation: we did a little research into it, and the ACP is a legit government program and not a scam, and the FCC can generally be trusted. Good luck!

If you liked this article, join our Patreon!

[faeryfalls]

on the topic of “pro-lifers”

i am so sick and tired of people who claim to be pro-life under the guise of “a fetus is a person and has the right to life” because 9999 times out of 10000, they don’t give a flying fuck about life. if you are pro-life you fight for extreme gun control in the united states, because the children being shot in schools have a right to life. if you are pro-life you call for a ceasefire in gaza, because the people being brutally murdered in a genocide have a right to life. if you are pro-life you advocate for increased support behind welfare programs, because poor and disabled people have a right to life. if you are pro-life you are for free, quality universal healthcare (WHICH WILL ALWAYS INCLUDE ABORTION), because every single person has a right to life.

if you are pro-life, you are pro ALL LIFE. the moment you decide to cherry pick using any excuse, you are not pro-life; you’re just another hateful, pretentious liar.

[swagging-back-to]

i think people should look more into donating their post-mortem finances purely to animal shelters.

not only does it go to the animals currently in the shelter, helping pay for their food, blankets, and medical care, but it can also help the shelter rescue animals from kill shelters and euth. lists.

donating to animal sanctuaries, especially ones for rescued farm animals, is another thing most people should be doing IMO.

[bratzboykai]

Every time I write letters to my local politicians I'm always prepared to have a vein rupture from how pissed off their response emails make me. I hate all politicians, but Texas politicians I hate you the most 🙃

[fenrislorsrai]

The proposal, drawn up by the federal Administration for Children and Families, is open for public comment until Dec. 1. Once comments are reviewed, officials plan to issue final regulations that could take effect in the months after that, heading into the 2024 election. The first change would prohibit states from counting charitable giving by private organizations, such as churches and food banks, as “state” spending on welfare, a practice that has allowed legislatures to budget less for programs for low-income families while still claiming to meet federal minimums. ProPublica documented how Utah avoided more than $75 million in spending on public assistance over the past decade by taking credit for aid to the hungry and homeless provided by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Many of the vulnerable Utahns we interviewed felt that in order to access desperately needed aid, they had to participate in Mormon religious rites they didn’t believe in.)

-

-

The new rules would also restrict states from spending TANF funds on child protective services investigations, foster care or any other programs that don’t meet the fundamental purposes of welfare: strengthening poor families and keeping them together. ProPublica found that in Arizona and elsewhere, money meant to help parents struggling to raise their children is instead used to investigate them for alleged child maltreatment — which often stems from the very financial circumstances that they needed help with in the first place. Under the Biden plan, Arizona would likely have to find other ways of funding its aggressive child protective services investigations of poor parents and use welfare dollars to help families stay together rather than removing their kids into foster care.

-

-

As ProPublica has reported, many of welfare’s failures originated with a 1996 law signed by then-President Bill Clinton. That legislation, which Biden supported at the time as a senator, gave states broad flexibility over how to spend their annual grant of federal dollars intended for the poor. In the decades since, legislatures, especially in the South and Southwest, have found ever more creative outlets for the funding, including diverting it to anti-abortion clinics or not spending it at all. The Biden administration’s proposal would mandate that states provide concrete evidence, including social science research or real-world examples, showing that they are using their TANF spending in ways that truly help families in need. One of the best ways to do that, according to the administration: direct cash assistance. “We remind states that there is a large body of research that shows that cash assistance is a critically important tool for reducing family and child poverty,” said the announcement of the proposed regulations. “Studies have found that when families receive TANF and are more financially secure, they are less likely to be involved in the child welfare system.”