The Government, the Market, Charity and the Social Safety

[imreallyperplexed]

After last night's Republican primaries, it seems that everyone concedes that Romney has nailed down the Republican nomination and we are - barring a "third party surprise," the United States is facing a Romney-Obama contest in November.

Rather than focus on the candidates per se, I would like to focus on issues and platforms. So this question is aimed to get people to propose "platform stances" on "social safety net" issues. I hope that people will - at least initially - concentrating on making a "positive case" for their position (rather than tearing down candidates or political philosophies). Here are a set of questions:

1. What is the function of a "social safety net"?
2. Does society have an interest in providing a social safety net for individual members of a society?
3. If society does have an interest in providing a social safety net, what should be the role of government, the market, and charity respectively? Why?
4. How does society provide a social safety net now? Could it be improved? How?
5. Can you give an example to illustrate your discussion?

Note, these questions are meant to encourage debate on "social policy" issues (which seems relatively rare on PJ.)

 

[Lukey]

if done through charity, it is voluntary - if done through government, it is mandatory. What gives us the right to force people (against their will) to work to provide for someone (not a relative) else's cost of living. Is that not a form of slavery?

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Lukey,

Thanks for getting things started. It sounds like you don't think that the market can provide a "social safety net." Is that correct? It sounds like you think that there are only two viable alternatives for you - government or charity? Is that correct?

I am also wondering what you include in the social safety net? Are programs like Social Security and Medicare part of the social safety net? Or the social safety net restricted to programs like Medicaid and Food Stamps?

Finally, I am really not sure what you think that the function of a "social safety net" is. Can you elaborate?

if done through charity, it is voluntary - if done through government, it is mandatory. What gives us the right to force people (against their will) to work to provide for someone (not a relative) else's cost of living. Is that not a form of slavery?

 

[Corruptbuddha]

What is the function of a "social safety net"?

To provide a minimal sustenance to the infirmed, indigent and handicapped in our society.

Does society have an interest in providing a social safety net for individual members of a society?

It does. But only to those that can not do for themselves.

If society does have an interest in providing a social safety net, what should be the role of government, the market, and charity respectively? Why?

Since it is intended to help those who can not provide for themselves, it is then a product of Government and Charity. And since, by the market Iassuem you mean business, I do not percieve a role for it in the safety net realm. As to why, the simple answer is that we can't have those who have no other means nor ability to starve in the street.

How does society provide a social safety net now? Could it be improved? How?

It provided FAR too much by government. It could be improved by stricter standards of qualification. Charities have no such standards nor should they.

Can you give an example to illustrate your discussion?

Sure: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/18/man-living-as-an-adult-baby-is-cleared-of-social-s/?page=all

That gentleman deserves no more to be on the government teat than I do.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

CB,

Thanks for a responsive answer. Let me ask some follow on questions.

To provide a minimal sustenance to the infirmed, indigent and handicapped in our society.

Does this apply only to "individuals" or does it apply to families as well? For example, are there particular problems for poor families that do not have the resources to provide for everyone in the family?

It does. But only to those that can not do for themselves.

How would you determine this? Would it cost anything to enforce this?

Since it is intended to help those who can not provide for themselves, it is then a product of Government and Charity. And since, by the market Iassuem you mean business, I do not percieve a role for it in the safety net realm. As to why, the simple answer is that we can't have those who have no other means nor ability to starve in the street.

Is there a problem if the market does not pay "living wages" and people don't get enough to eat? Or is the market "guaranteed" to produce enough "living wage" jobs?

It provided FAR too much by government. It could be improved by stricter standards of qualification. Charities have no such standards nor should they.

Can you be more specific? How much is too much? Is too much provided by local and state governments? Or is just the Federal government?

Can you give an example to illustrate your discussion?

Sure: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/18/man-living-as-an-adult-baby-is-cleared-of-social-s/?page=all

That gentleman deserves no more to be on the government teat than I do.

OK, I think that this illustrates who you think should NOT qualify. (I am happy to see these kind of fraudsters get caught.) Who should qualify? How much will it cost to catch each and every cheater? (Think IRS and tax cheats or repo men or insurance fraud.)

I do appreciate the answers. I am asking you the sort of questions that bankers asked me when I asked for a business loan. The bankers wanted to understand the underlying "business model." I am trying to understand your underlying "business model."

 

[ITALIA]

if done through charity, it is voluntary - if done through government, it is mandatory. What gives us the right to force people (against their will) to work to provide for someone (not a relative) else's cost of living. Is that not a form of slavery?

A hundred years ago Government left it up to churches and charities to serve the needy thinking they could handle it and it wasn't government duty. Guess what, they couldn't do it. Then Hoover thought the same thing, that states, local, charities and people would help each other without federal help. How did that work out for Hoover? government had to take over a large role because they had to not because they wanted to.

 

[Lukey]

Lukey,

Thanks for getting things started. It sounds like you don't think that the market can provide a "social safety net." Is that correct? It sounds like you think that there are only two viable alternatives for you - government or charity? Is that correct?

I am also wondering what you include in the social safety net? Are programs like Social Security and Medicare part of the social safety net? Or the social safety net restricted to programs like Medicaid and Food Stamps?

Finally, I am really not sure what you think that the function of a "social safety net" is. Can you elaborate?

Well, in my opinion, all social welfare spending (including public education) is part of the "social safety net." And for the reasons I outlined above, we have an obligation to keep as much of it as possible in the charity (non-profit, voluntary donation) realm. That keeps a stigma associated with it (and also a spending discipline) that keeps people striving to keep from having to use it. I think it is easier for me to say what it is not. The function of the "social safety net" is NOT to "institutionalize" dependency.

 

[Lukey]

CB,

Thanks for a responsive answer. Let me ask some follow on questions.



Does this apply only to "individuals" or does it apply to families as well? For example, are there particular problems for poor families that do not have the resources to provide for everyone in the family?



How would you determine this? Would it cost anything to enforce this?



Is there a problem if the market does not pay "living wages" and people don't get enough to eat? Or is the market "guaranteed" to produce enough "living wage" jobs?



Can you be more specific? How much is too much? Is too much provided by local and state governments? Or is just the Federal government?



OK, I think that this illustrates who you think should NOT qualify. (I am happy to see these kind of fraudsters get caught.) Who should qualify? How much will it cost to catch each and every cheater? (Think IRS and tax cheats or repo men or insurance fraud.)

I do appreciate the answers. I am asking you the sort of questions that bankers asked me when I asked for a business loan. The bankers wanted to understand the underlying "business model." I am trying to understand your underlying "business model."

Um, IRP, I think you missed that the dude was CLEARED of social security fraud. The government has decided he deserves SSDI...

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Well, if you include public education as part of the "social safety net," can you tell me how public education "institutionalizes" dependency?

Well, in my opinion, all social welfare spending (including public education) is part of the "social safety net." And for the reasons I outlined above, we have an obligation to keep as much of it as possible in the charity (non-profit, voluntary donation) realm. That keeps a stigma associated with it (and also a spending discipline) that keeps people striving to keep from having to use it. I think it is easier for me to say what it is not. The function of the "social safety net" is NOT to "institutionalize" dependency.

 

[Lukey]

Well, if you include public education as part of the "social safety net," can you tell me how public education "institutionalizes" dependency?

Well probably the best example is "no child left behind" where no matter how unable or unwilling a kid is to learn, the school has to spend whatever resources it takes to keep trying to teach the kid.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Lukey,

My bad. I did not express myself clearly enough. I should have said "I am happy to see these kind of "possible fraudsters" are investigated. On the face of it, there certainly seems to be room to ask questions. That said, I do not know all the evidence or all the rules. Apparently, there was no fraud because it seems that there was an extended investigation. Whether the rules are too permissive is not something that I would render a judgement on based on the information in that article. I would need to know more about the specifics of SSSI for disabilities.

It sounds like you think that social security disability payments are too "lenient." However, I assume that you think that some people deserve disability benefits. So, I get back to the "business model" question. How would you propose that "deserving" folks get diability payments while minimizing fraud and administrative costs? And if you made these reforms, how big an impact would it have on the national debt? Here are some websites to look at to get a discussion started.

http://www.socialsecurity-disability.org/content/about-ssdi?gclid=CIuu27_a0q8CFckZQgodXS0zFg

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_fraud

Having said this, I will also point out that we have "rescoped" the initial question from a discussion of the "social safety net" to a (perhaps more manageable) discussion of social security disability policy as one element of the social safety net.

Um, IRP, I think you missed that the dude was CLEARED of social security fraud. The government has decided he deserves SSDI...

 

[imreallyperplexed]

And the alternative is? (I am not necessarily supporting No Child Left Behind. I am just asking whether you have an alternative.)

Well probably the best example is "no child left behind" where no matter how unable or unwilling a kid is to learn, the school has to spend whatever resources it takes to keep trying to teach the kid.

 

[Lukey]

Lukey,

My bad. I did not express myself clearly enough. I should have said "I am happy to see these kind of "possible fraudsters" are investigated. On the face of it, there certainly seems to be room to ask questions. That said, I do not know all the evidence or all the rules. Apparently, there was no fraud because it seems that there was an extended investigation. Whether the rules are too permissive is not something that I would render a judgement on based on the information in that article. I would need to know more about the specifics of SSSI for disabilities.

It sounds like you think that social security disability payments are too "lenient." However, I assume that you think that some people deserve disability benefits. So, I get back to the "business model" question. How would you propose that "deserving" folks get diability payments while minimizing fraud and administrative costs? And if you made these reforms, how big an impact would it have on the national debt? Here are some websites to look at to get a discussion started.

http://www.socialsecurity-disability.org/content/about-ssdi?gclid=CIuu27_a0q8CFckZQgodXS0zFg

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/chartbooks/disability_trends/sect01.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_fraud

Having said this, I will also point out that we have "rescoped" the initial question from a discussion of the "social safety net" to a (perhaps more manageable) discussion of social security disability policy as one element of the social safety net.

The easiest way I could see to police this program would be to privatize it. As long as it is in government hands the goal will morph into getting the most folks into the program rather than keeping it limited to only those who deserve it.

 

[Lukey]

And the alternative is? (I am not necessarily supporting No Child Left Behind. I am just asking whether you have an alternative.)

Probably the best one is school choice. That way the kids who don't want to learn can be warehoused in the government school while the kids who want to work hard can be sent to private schools where they will get a better education, free of the dead weight around their ankles in the form of chronic underachievers holding up the classwork.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

How would privitizing help? (A lot of prisons have been privitized and prison populations have exploded costing taxpayers millions.)

Really, lay out the business model. Where would the revenues come from? Where would the costs accrue? How would a private firm operate differently than a "non-profit" in this arena? (Or when you mention "privitization" - do you mean both for-profit and non-profit organizations could offer services?)

The easiest way I could see to police this program would be to privatize it. As long as it is in government hands the goal will morph into getting the most folks into the program rather than keeping it limited to only those who deserve it.

 

[Lukey]

How would privitizing help? (A lot of prisons have been privitized and prison populations have exploded costing taxpayers millions.)

Really, lay out the business model. Where would the revenues come from? Where would the costs accrue? How would a private firm operate differently than a "non-profit" in this arena? (Or when you mention "privitization" - do you mean both for-profit and non-profit organizations could offer services?)

Buying private disability insurance with (taxpayer) premium support for low income folks. And yes, both for-profit and non-profits could provide the policies.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

Why would this be more efficient and combat fraud better than the current system? How would it benefit the average taxpayer? Would there be caps on total disability payments? Lots of questions Lukey.

Buying private disability insurance with (taxpayer) premium support for low income folks. And yes, both for-profit and non-profits could provide the policies.

 

[Lukey]

Why would this be more efficient and combat fraud better than the current system? How would it benefit the average taxpayer? Would there be caps on total disability payments? Lots of questions Lukey.

It would switch the incentives from signing up the most people possible to signing the fewest possible (for starters). With private employees with normal pay and benefits administering it instead of overpaid, under worked bureaucrats. I think it is obvious how this would "benefit the taxpayer." And the benefits would mirror what the SSDI program provides. I got all the answers, IRP.

 

[imreallyperplexed]

I got all the answers, IRP.

That is precisely the reason that I don't think that you are particularly credible.

 

[Lukey]

That is precisely the reason that I don't think that you are particularly credible.

I stick to the simple and straightforward (this isn't rocket science). Yet you would rather place your blind faith in Degsme's "sophisticated" decorrelation studies adjusting for this, that and the other thing as "proof" (PROOF) that progressive economics works (despite all its real world examples of failures).