I think the political morality play that has become center stage for the
hearts and minds of American voters has its roots in "The Great Society".
LBJ had a vision for raising the bar for the poorest of the poor as a sort
of "leg up", if you will.  He was riding on the ideological coat-tails of
FDR, who's WPA, CCC and dozens of other nationalized programs allowed people
guaranteed subsistence for a modest, but guaranteed wage.

My own grandfather built post offices, federal buildings and other
infrastructure throught the Deep South during the Great Depression.  Sure,
he was, at times, away from his family, but bellies were full and there were
warm dry places to sleep for all.  The point is that he did SOMETHING to
earn FDR's wage.

LBJ's plan was, as the British put it, "the Dole".  The intent was to
provide support for a limited time in order that the have nots could get a
toe-hold into the market economy--which was doing well in the '60s.

The '70s weren't so kind, so the dole programs were extended infinitum.
Instead of bringing people in to work on the crumbling 40 year-old
infrastructure of the depression, people stayed on welfare and well paid
contractors got the tax dollars to do the work (not very well, I might add).

In the meantime, Welfare, WIC and many of the other social programs became a
generational birthright to an entire culture.  The system was rife with
corruption on both ends.  The stereotype of the Welfare mom buying her
groceries with foodstamps and then placing them in the trunk of a new car
has roots in truth.  The "dole" became institutionalized, both for the
recipients and for the government--suddenly we had a huge level of
bureacracy on the Federal, State and Local gov't payrolls to support the
system.

I am not regurgitating common knowledge with the above paragraph.  I've
experienced it.  As a young teen, I worked in a chemical factory in the
heart of inner-city and watched the rampant abuse of the system as the
bureaucrats turned a blind eye.  Many of the guys in the plant would
"divorce" their wive's so the family could draw money from the government
coffers, while Dad still went home every night (keeping a phony address
elsewhere).

So, while there is GREAT need for monetary help for the disabled and poor,
the backlash against so many years of rampant abuse was inevitable.

My solution would be to return to FDR-like programs.  Instead of "welfare to
work", where the welfare recipient is given a few training hours and sent on
their way, the government would provide the work too.

Believe me, as a bureaucrat, there is much work to be done by folks of all
stripes of mental and physical ability.  Meaningful work.  Work that would
instill pride and an ethic of social responsibility.

For those that truly need help and cannot contribute in kind, those would be
special cases that would be taken care of on their own merit.




-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth H. Thiers [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 8:02 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: WMD'S DOES IT MATTER


I think you put the Iraq issue in great perspective Kat.
My politics fall somewhere in the liberal Republican/ conservative Democrat
range.  For anyone who want real faces to go with that fiscal
irresponsibility of the present administration come spend a day with me.
Social Security isn't just for old people. Many of my families get some SSI
benefits (usually less the $100 a month) just so that they can qualify for
other benefits you know those frivolous ones like health care for your
child, respite care for your family and goodness forbid behavior therapy for
your child with difficulties.  I've got working families who 's children are
being kicked off the roles of SSI and Medicaid because they make too much.
Families that are seriously thinking of getting divorces and parents who
never get married so that their children might have a chance of recieving
some type of services.
I go to bed at night feeling very overwhelmed with the need out there.


Beth T. the OT