Some Clarification on my Soapbox

As he frequently does, Darell Nelson hit the key point was trying to make (but just missed) in the midst of my soapbox.

The problem isn't that most people don't care about poor people. No one wants children to suffer or be needlessly ill or go hungry. No one wants single mothers to work themselves into an early grave or have to give their children up for adoption. No one wants hardworking people to lose their homes or not be able to pay their bills because someone got cancer.

My concern was the one he pointed out: that, though no one wants this, they're so concerned with what they perceive as rampant misuse of the social systems, they're concerned about committing to more social programs.

And that is exactly what I'm complaining about. It is comforting to believe that most of the people who need help could do better if they just tried harder, that they're lazy or milking the system. Because, if you think that, it's a great deal less frightening than the actual extent of the problem: that even the educated and people with good jobs can face financial ruin if they catch the wrong disease (even with insurance) - I've seen someone on federal health insurance go bankrupt and all their children lose the chance for college because the father had and beat cancer - both were professionals but they were forced to work jobs 200 miles away to recover. That hardworking people who have toiled honestly their whole lives can lose everything with a single pink slip. That mothers can lose their children entirely because they just can't afford to pay for child care while they are working minimum wage. Seen it. I know it happens.

And it happens far more than we like to think it does. Nearly 30% of households in the US make less than $30K/year. Not personal incomes, households.

What does that mean? That means nearly a third of families in this country who wonder how they will buy groceries week to week. That means a third of families where "owning" their own home is a distant dream. That means a third of families where college is unlikely to be considered an option. That means a third of families that likely live in close proximity to crime, who fight and scrimp to go to the doctor or buy clothes or shoes.

And that's in this nation.

It's easier to think that it's just a little unseen portion of society, that they were too lazy to take school seriously or aren't willing to work, that they're actually making out like bandits with cardboard signs on the side of the road or working the system. It's so much easier to think that, so much less painful than the realization that, even in this wealthy nation, many of our citizenry are suffering, not because they deserve to, but, at least in part, because they're too ashamed to ask for much...

And because we don't want to see they need it, to know good people are suffering, to acknowledge how many are suffering...and remind ourselves that it is frequently fickle fate alone that stands between our fate and theirs.

In the end, which is the greater tragedy? That some get money they really don't need and didn't deserve because they could work the system? Or that people fall through the cracks, children die, families suffer, because no one wants to acknowledge the real size of the problem?

I know on which side I would rather err.

Read more...

Sunday (Monday) Soapbox: Money Does Not Equal Merit

*Steps on soapbox*

I struggled with not writing this, but it's completely irritating me. I try to be patient. I understand that it's hard on several different levels to struggle, and that people, who work hard for what they have, can be impatient with those who haven't worked so hard.

I totally get that.

The problem is that there are many poor people who have worked just as hard who have nothing and no options and no opportunities. There are many people working two or three jobs who still can barely make ends meet, that still can't afford insurance or child care or get a vacation, or pay the mortgage or a car payment or...

There's a pervasive sense, pushed by certain factions and media, that poor equals laziness and sloth, that every penny spent on social services is money poured into the ungrateful account of a non-working welfare recipient, that people who are financially successful are inherently smarter and more meritous, that they deserve to be wealthy. However, to take that as a given, one has to assume the reverse, that people who are poor deserve it as well.

You know what, being poor is not a reflection on who you are any more than being rich indicates you're cultured, educated and good. No one willing to work "deserves" to see their child go hungry (actually, what child deserves to go hungry no matter who their parent is?). Why are we comfortable with the notion that people deserve to die if they can't afford insurance or that families deserve to go bankrupt if one of them gets ill.

There are educated folks out there struggling with unemployment. There are people who have worked hard their entire lives who are hurting terribly through no fault of their own.

I know I'm lucky to be where I am, that I'm lucky to have people I can count on, that, if something happened to me, my children wouldn't go hungry. But I've been where I needed help, where I didn't know where to turn. Not everyone gets away from that.

Being poor is hard enough without everyone who isn't assuming you deserve it. It's stupid, too. History shows, time and time again, concentrating money in the hands of the very few leads to economic ruin and/or political upheaval (frequently violent).

You know, if we stopped spending so much time and effort in villifying people who are already suffering, perhaps there'd be less suffering.

Is that really so bad?

*steps off soapbox*

Read more...

Sunday Soapbox: Me, Me, Me

*Steps on soapbox*

It's that time of the week again. Today, I want to talk about something that really bothers me, frightens me, something I think we're going to have to lick if we're ever going to amount to much as a species, bearing in mind that I equate "amounting to much" to a species hanging out in the long run as a vital part of the ecosystem rather than equating it with destroying the world as we know it and leaving big "beautiful monuments" to show we were once here for whatever species follow.

Peter O'Toole was in a movie a few decades back where he played a dirty old coot of the scientific variety. It occurs to me that O'Toole, even though he's looking positively cadaverous, might be playing an old lech even as we speak. But I digress. In this movie ("The Creator"), he spoke of something he called "the big picture."

Countering this notion of a "big picture," i.e. working and striving toward something bigger than oneself for the sake of the big picture is what seems to be prevailing attitude in this country (the US): me, me, me, now, now, now.

People want everyone to have health coverage - just as long as it doesn't affect their own insurance or change their taxes. Making homes and cars more energy efficient is good for the whole world - and the long term finances of the individuals making the switch - but it costs money now.

Show examples, even proof, that demonstrates better ways of doing things, ways to reduce errors, increase productivity, positively impact the environment, save money, help people for minimal cost and effort, and such efforts are met with suspicion and contempt. Frequently those responses aren't for real costs or efforts or inconveniences but the perceived possibility that inconveniences might occur.

We sit quietly by complaining about special interests buying politicians, yet we refuse to fix the system, punish the politicians willing to be bought (sadly, most of them apparently) or those spending money like water to serve their own interests at the rest of our expenses.

Thing is, we're proud of being individuals and the intelligence that sets us apart from "the animals" - but the big strength, the thing that really makes humans so powerful is our ability to work in a community for the greater good - the big picture as it were. If we're going to fulfill our potential, we're going to have think beyond our interests here and now. We're going to have to embrace the big picture for ourselves and our children. We've been running up a tab in a hundred different ways. Sometimes soon, it will be last call and someone will have to pay the bill.

A little big picture thinking today can take that tab down a size or two and give our children the tools and foundation they'll need to clean up our messes. Otherwise, we can hardly blame them if they're crushed by problems they had nothing to do with creating.

At least, that's how I see it.

*Steps of soapbox*

P.S. And, yes, 50K+ words in 30 days. Who knew?

Read more...

Thieving Thursday: My "Liberal" Views

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

If you’ve been following my blog long, you’ve probably noticed that not all of my readers agree with what I have to say, with the views I have.

Personally, I’m cool with that, and, as a consequence, I’ve had my eyes opened to different perspectives on some topics, to aspects I might not otherwise have appreciated. Sometimes, we’ll just disagree. Of all my recurrent readers, this is probably not true for anyone as much as it’s true for Relax Max. I read Clarity 2009 as well and we disagree frequently.

He’s written up three blog posts on topics that interest me, including healthcare, communism, and that dirty word, “liberal.” I’m not going into the disconnect I felt existed between explaining the need for healthcare for all on one post and blasting me for suggesting we all have to help pay for it. You all can reach your own conclusions.

But my particular comment – the one I want to steal – had to do with the assumption that today’s liberal meant taking all the wealth of the successful and passing it out to the lazy. I hear this characterization a great deal.

I don’t know if I’m count as a typical “liberal” – I hate labels and prefer to think of myself as a humanist or a compassionate thinker. In some ways, I do advocate some wealth redistribution. I believe that income tax collection should be limited to that portion of the income over and above what a household needs to survive (as, indeed, our taxes are structured now) and that taxes should be highest on larger “excess” incomes (i.e. portion of income above what’s needed to survive). Yes, I favor a progressive tax and I’ll tell you why – because I think people are entitled to more than they need, once everyone has what they need, because few people get rich on just their own personal efforts (and government contracts, tariff’s, efforts are often part of that success), because the difference in lifestyle between a 20 million dollar income and a 200 million dollar income is probably negligible whereis the difference between the lifestyle of a $20K household and a $30K household is appreciable.

I believe everyone should have certain government provided/assured services (and they should be comoparable, no matter one’s salary): libraries, postal services, police protection, fire protection, education, healthcare. I think social security was a brilliant idea so that the elderly weren’t left entirely destitute at the complete mercy of their children, former employers and, yes, their own judgement. With regards to education, I believe there should be a high standard applied nationally (not self-devised and assessed as states do now) – this is one country and education quality should not vary from state to state or location to location as it does now. I went to ten different schools in eight different states and the differences were shocking! I also think education through college should be supported for the good of the country.

I also believe a reasonable defense is required as well as government support for organizations for the general good of the country (EPA, NOAA, etc). I am for supporting everyone working, trying to work and medically unable to work so that they can live at least at a subsistence level, including using such methods as subsidized housing, unemployment benefits and disability payments. And I lose no sleep taking a chunk of people’s (and my) “excess” income to do so.

I do have an issue with “welfare.” I don’t believe able-bodied folks should be paid to do nothing indefinitely. I’m cool with programs to educate people to improve their chances for employment (and, preferably getting repaid as some of the bailed out banks have done) and/or having them supply “community service” hours to repay their welfare.

I welcome other ideas on this, particularly because I’m challenged by the implications to children. I don’t believe in paying a woman who’s irresponsibly had a passel of children she couldn’t afford to take care of to stay home and take care of them, but I don’t think the children should suffer as a result. Short of not allowing people to have children irresponsibly (And who decides the criteria? How do you enforce it? That’s a whole other can of worms even if people agreed it were necessary).

I don’t have all the answers, but I think answers can be found if we talk, if we hear different perspectives, if we keep trying.

At least, I’m hoping.

Read more...