Basic Needs Part I: Food Assistance

I understand people need assistance during certain seasons of life, and I support the wealthiest nation in the world ensuring adequate provision of its citizens most basic needs. However, I am disappointed, discouraged, and angered by the waste, fraud, and abuse of our country’s current public assistance programs. It is my main objective (MO) to design public assistance systems which:

1. Preserve the provision of basic needs, in this case our need for sustenance (food and water). 
2. Reduce the amount of public funding directed towards assistance programs.
3. Allow others to shoulder a greater amount of the resource (time, talent, treasures) burden.

As a disclaimer, I do not consider myself any better or worse than those who choose to accept public assistance, or than those who may abuse it. There are circumstances and price points where if the government offered me money, I would take it.


Outlined below are a handful of general principles I see as being beneficial in achieving my MO:

1) Food assistance will be an option available to every citizen.

It is a citizen’s choice to accept public assistance, no force will be involved. Also, a person’s income, nor any other criteria, will exclude a citizen from receiving food assistance.

2) Individuals will choose how much assistance ($) they need on a monthly basis.

A maximum monthly limit will be established based on family size.

3) Individuals will exchange freedoms for monetary assistance.

I am no dietitian,  however, as a general principle there will be severe restrictions on food items eligible for purchase. As Dave Ramsey recommends: live on rice and beans. Thus no New York Strip steaks, lobster, caviar, sugared beverages, etc.

 

4) Individuals will pay back into the system the amount they received plus a surcharge.

Although controversial, the concept of paying back into the system what an individual received is perhaps my favorite. I believe it places an emphasis on personal responsibility and establishes a disincentive to accept public assistance (as one will have to pay back in what they took out plus a surcharge).

I hope an example may aid in clarifying the above concept – all numbers subject to change :). Bob, over the course of the last 3 months, has chosen to accept $500 in food assistance secondary to company layoffs. Bob has now accepted new employment and is making $200 per month over the poverty line (to be calculated later). A surcharge of 10% ($50 – subject to change) will be added to Bob’s total assistance received ($500) to cover administrative costs and provide a disincentive for those who don’t need assistance to utilize the system. Thus Bob will be required to pay back a total of $550 ($500 + $50) into the food assistance system.

Bob will be allowed a 6 month grace period where he may choose to pay back any amount (including none) of the funds he owes ($550). After 6 months, the federal government will garnish 15% (subject to change) of Bob’s wages above the poverty line until the full $550 is paid. Assuming Bob chooses not to pay back any amount into the system in the 6 month grace period, the federal government would garnish $30 ($200 x 15%) of Bob's wages each month until it had received $550 ($550 / $30 = 19 months + 6 month grace period = 25 month total repayment period). 

5) A lifetime maximum benefit will be established.

After an individual reaches their maximum lifetime benefit, they will no longer be eligible to receive further benefits. At this point a secondary safety net option will still be available. As with the monthly limit, the lifetime limit will be adjusted based on household size.

Potential concerns:

1. Individuals may receive assistance, but never be above the poverty line, and thus never pay back into the system.
1. This is what we do now. No one is currently required to pay back what they have received. Therefore, my proposed system is no worse than our current system.
2. Children
1. Rightly so, there are many who are concerned about the well-being of our country’s children. An argument could be made with lifetime maximums established and less willingness to accept assistance, children have a higher risk of being neglected. Although not a perfect solution, I see such scenarios as a perfect opportunity for private charities and local governments to design programs specifically addressing children.

Revamping our country's food assistance program is a difficult topic for me to address succinctly and with a high degree of clarity. Unfortunately, I am not sure how to do better articulating my thoughts and would thus appreciate other's input as this is an issue we all need to work together to find a workable solution.

Next Week's Topic: Private Charities Part I: Overview

Fantasy Football Part 3: Mid Season Update

Week 7 of the NFL regular season is in the books. A quick review of where I wanted my fantasy football teams to be at the end of week 7 and after week 13:

Finish in the top half of all my leagues –

• Hawkeye: 3/8
• HoP: 3/10
• Warhawk: 2/12

> 60% win rate –

• 13-8 (61.9%)
• 5-2, 4-3, 4-3

Worst fear: Matthew Stafford and Chris Johnson failing to live up to expectations.

• I must say I saw this coming: Draft Recap

Bad beat: HoP injuries – Jimmy Graham, Greg Jennings, Cedric Benson, Ryan Williams, Rashad Jennings, Austin Collie, and Darius Heyward-Bey.

Best surprise: Despite lackluster performances of Stafford/CJ0k in my Hawkeye league and catching the injury bug in my HoP league, I still have a winning record in all 3 leagues.

Missed opportunity: Still haven’t pursued trading my plethora of Green Bay Packers...

Significant roster moves: Picked up Alfred Morris, Shonn Greene, and Alex Green off waivers in my HoP league.


Summary:
I feel very fortunate to be where I am record wise. For the amount of players I drafted (50), the vast majority have lived up to expectations. Exceptions include:

• Darren McFadden: If you told me he would be healthy for the first 7 games I would have thought he would be a top 5 RB, instead he is the 18th best RB.
• Philip Rivers: I was convinced last year’s turnovers were an anomaly. I have seen Rivers excel with lackluster receiving corps and no run game. Apparently Rivers has simply regressed. He is on pace to throw for under 4000 yards. He is currently the 24th ranked QB.

The Packers have survived perhaps the 4 best defenses in football: Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, and Houston. Their remaining schedule looks pretty :)

Not that I will ever know, but it pains me to think what kind of numbers Austin Collie could have put up this year. Donnie Avery and rookie T.Y. Hilton have been averaging double digit targets. It’s hard to know what Collie could have done, but I think we may have seen some big numbers...

I have not had a difficult time finding RBs. I planned on punting the RB position and scrapping by with injury replacements of which have been numerous.


Thoughts going forward:
I plan to hopefully trade Greg Jennings or Alex Green to lessen my dependence on the Green Bay Packers.

If I can stay .500 or above while Greg Jennings and Jimmy Graham recover from injury I should have a great looking team in my HoP league. I need Stafford, Rivers, and Chris Johnson to pickup their game to create an elite team in my Hawkeye league. As expected in my Warhawk, there is a lower level of competition and I should end up a solid team here as well.


I feel as if the majority of my blog has gone towards writing about fantasy football. For this I apologize as I am much more interested in political issues. Fortunately I plan to only have 2 more fantasy football posts during the next 10 weeks. I know my wife/editor will be thrilled :)


Next Week’s Topic: Basic Needs Part I: Food Assistance

Basic Level of Care

Referring back to my perceived Roles of Government post, it is my aim to go into more detail regarding the role of government in providing welfare assistance to its citizens. I intend to lay out a few general principles and later write more in depth about specific assistance topics. (In my naivety I am unsure what the politically correct term is for welfare/supplemental assistance/entitlement programs may be. Thus, hopefully as becomes more apparent throughout the post, I am not degrading individuals who qualify for government assistance. Again, less wrath, more grace :)

What I think –

1) The wealthiest nation in the world (and possibly history), should provide for the basic needs of its citizens.

What I currently disagree with are the systems of meeting these needs, and perhaps more significantly, what is defined as a need. Expanding upon the latter, I believe our most basic needs are food/water, shelter, clothing, and to a degree health care. Thus in part, I agree with the provision of food sustenance (food stamps, free/reduced school lunches), subsidized/federal housing (Section 8 Housing), clothing assistance, and nationalized health care.

Based on the data collected by GlobalRichList.com in the year 2000: 

A person working 2000 hours per year (50 working weeks x 40 hours per week, 2 weeks unpaid vacation) making minimum wage ($5.15) in 2000 would earn $10,300 per year and be in the 13.25% percentile of income earners in the entire world. Or stated another way, such an individual would earn a greater annual income than 86.75% of people worldwide.

I understand the cost of living in the United States is indeed higher, however I also believe a large part of this is self-inflicted based on what we define as a need. I acknowledge my statements about defining what a need is are vague, but in an effort to keep my post somewhat condensed, I will expand upon each individual need in future posts.

Update (3/1/14): Global Rich List has updated it's data to 2008. Based on 2008 data, a person working 40 hours a week with 2 unpaid weeks of vacation per year and making minimum wage ($7.25) would be in the top 8.66% income earners in the world.

2) Disincentives should exist for utilizing public assistance programs.

Currently the U.S. government is experiencing out of control spending: 4 straight years of 1+ trillion dollar deficits, national debt is now more than 100% of our gross domestic product (GDP), the federal government received $2.4 trillion in revenue and spent $3.6 trillion, 50% more than it brought in...

By a rough calculation of the 2012 Federal Budget, 37.7% of our federal budget goes towards Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, food, and housing assistance programs. Add in social security and you get 57.7%. For comparison sake, defense spending accounts for 19.3%. With an aging population, many of these numbers are expected to continue expanding at even greater rates.

Other 2012 Federal Budget Links: USFederalBudget.us, Wikipedia Article

I believe in order for a government entity to offer supplemental assistance and contain/control costs, disincentives must exist for utilizing these programs. Currently my two favorite disincentives are the exchanging of freedom for assistance and the concept an individual will be responsible for paying back into the system what they have received. Examples include: 

• Accepting subsidized housing while exchanging the freedom of choosing where to live (currently practiced).
• Upon acquiring employment following a period of accepting unemployment assistance, an individual would begin to pay back into the unemployment system what they received (not currently practiced to my knowledge).

3) Public assistance is available to all citizens.

Your income does not determine your eligibility. What determines your eligibility is your citizenship (sorry illegal immigrants, more on you later though). My immediate feelings are this will rub people the wrong way. However, as I expand upon proposed disincentives for using public assistance in future posts, I hope I will achieve clarity by showing how assistance programs are available for those who need it, but not beneficial for those who are well off enough not to need them.

In addition to public assistance available to all citizens, there will also be private systems along side public systems. Thus individuals will be able to use a combination of public systems (Social Security) and private systems (401ks, pensions).

4) The federal government will provide a bare bones basic level of care and leave individual states the freedom to expand assistance programs with state tax dollars.

I favor giving individual states greater autonomy to determine the extent of a wide range of policies and provisions, including the degree of public assistance. States that are in favor of a more Cadillac coverage system will have the freedom to raise more funds (or cut other spending) to pay for their assistance programs compared to another state that elects to utilize only the federal assistance programs.

5) While efficient, I believe our society suffers by the government playing Robin Hood and essentially taking from some to give to others.

I acknowledge a government does need to tax its citizens in order to provide stability, protection, and fulfill other roles. However, there is a point where I feel the government begins to tell its citizens:  “You don’t know what’s best for you, so we the government have decided to take your money and spend it for you, because we are smarter and wiser."

This being stated, it is we the people who elect leaders, and therefore I believe we all suffer from a similar mindset. A mindset of we would rather elect leaders who will pass into law or tax policy our preferred agenda. Doing so is more efficient and less frustrating, however, I fear it only divides our country rather than create slow, sustainable progress.

Much like the recent Presidential Debates, I again acknowledge these concepts are currently vague. Rest assured, I will go into excruciating detail in future posts.

Next Week’s Topic: Fantasy Football Part 3: Season Update