Monday, January 23, 2012

I started researching Social Uplift: Welfare and Unemployment Insurance.  I discovered to my surprise that this topic--so far researched-- is not as muddled as is 'Entitlements.'

In the latter topic I found that somehow the subject of what the government pays out as benefits to construct an individual's safety net is, by some fiction, inextricably tied to what funds it receives under this or that specific account rather than from simply its general funds, irrespective of the accounts from which the construct is drawn.

In the present topic (and I'm thinking primarily of welfare in the US), I have come to realize--thanks especially to Tanner's treatment of the topic in his book (1996; Cato Institute)--that the welfare uplift project has been a tremendous success to government's credit, despite Tanner's negative evaluations from a libertarian viewpoint.     

Frankly, I was not expecting to discover the many areas of poverty and human destitution that government programmatic intervention has had a remedial effect.  I probably won't find in the unemployment picture as many programs at work, but my approach to that area will be to apply what has been learned and successfully implemented among the poor recipients of welfare grants.  Especially heart-warming is the way in which government has not attempted to mold the recepient to a code of behavior deemed better than that which those in poverty exhibit, but to adjust the governmental programs to how the poor act in situ, making them more relevant and important.

Well, I just had to give a present progress report, because of its surprising features, to my mind!

      

Friday, January 20, 2012

I've been busy moving to downtown Omaha!  Near the library, where I do my blogging.

In the series Social Uplift, I'm dealing next with "Welfare and Unemployment Insurance in the US."  I've taken up the item of 'Entitlements,' where, I argue, the fundamental basis for the concept is the exercise of the right to live, honored through the government action for the sake of societal protection via the social contract (my understanding).

In discussing welfare et al, the general supposition is that the individual who accepts this "handout" will return to the mainstream, i.e., at some point will re-enter the workforce and will find a job.  Yet it is also understood that there may be circumstances beyond the individual's control which will make successful re-entry unlikely, such as age or lingering disability.  In such cases, being on welfare is understood merely as a "holding tank" until being adjudged "disabled" in the sense of "permanently unable to work" or "retired," i.e., in line to receive some kind of pension, e.g., social security.

In the interim while I'm producing this item, I'll of course add items to the ruminations and  John's "What's up?" blogs.    

The New US Military International Mission

Since there may be a change in the federal administration, I put this item forward simply in sketchy form.

I think the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya; and the US' role in the Phillippines' handling of the communist insurrection have provided data as evidence to support the proposition that the US military should allow native troops and other governments' military to take the lead to achieve cooperative ventures and projects.  The US military need not do it all, so to speak.  The US military will still provide the war-machine equipment and troop-training, but then will simply act as a consultant to those governments designated in command of some specific area of conflict.