Series 2558: Constituent Correspondence, 2000-2003
36428
From: <PubliusIV@cs.com>
BC: Governor Musgrove
Created: 10/1/2000 2:14 PM
Subject: Federal Government Reforms--Position Paper #31
Message:
In Position Paper #20, it was stated:
"At first stroke it might appear that a national resolve to eliminate
poverty, principally funded through general tax revenues, would be in
contradiction to these first two principles [for TAXES and APPROPRIATIONS].
Not so! A later Position Paper will be devoted to Welfare and Poverty."
[See previous Position Papers at: http://ourworld.cs.com/publiusiv]
This paper, and the 6 to follow, will constitute the final group of planned
Position Papers. Additional papers may be presented from time to time, as
circumstances warrant.
God willing, Governors, Lt. Governors, and State legislators will lead
deliberations with their constituents. In concert with the other 49 States,
each State will act to cause the necessary reforms to the central government
(as was done in 1776 and 1787).
Guy G. Wooten (aka Publius IV)
[Current e-mail address: publiusiv@cs.com---lifetime forwarding:
ggwooten@alum.mit.edu]
8016 S. Grandview Avenue, Tempe, AZ 85284
Position Paper #31--Welfare and Poverty
Definitions:
welfare--the state or condition with regard to good fortune, health,
happiness, prosperity, etc.
on welfare--receiving financial aid from the government or from a private
organization because of hardship and need.
poverty--the state or condition of having little or no money, goods, or means
of support.
As stated in its Preamble, the reason "We the People" did "ordain and
establish [our] Constitution" was to provide for our WELFARE. Specifically,
it reads "in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity".
So long as we tolerate poverty in our land, our "union" will be far from "
perfect"; "justice" will not be "establish"ed; "domestic tranquility" will be
un"insure"able; the "general welfare" will be restrained; and, those who are
poor will not "secure the blessings of liberty to [themselves] and [their] pos
terity".
Putting on only Caesar's glasses, we can readily see the benefits to
America of a steady commitment to converting the "have-nots" to "haves": (1)
unity in what had been the slums and hovels, as well as the rest of the USA;
(2) the end to crime that had originated due to deprivation; (3) the end to
diseases that accompanied mal-nutrition, hunger, and lack of adequate medical
care; (4) no more riots in the inner cities due to frustration and despair;
(5) millions more capable workers to build our thriving businesses; (6) the
same millions then having disposable income to spend on the products of our
thriving businesses; and, (7) pride in the USA and respect from abroad,
greater than we have ever had.
The most direct, but latent, benefit for each individual American is the
"safety net" that the anti-poverty national commitment would constitute for
each of us. In essence, we would each have an economic insurance policy. In
that policy it is provided, that no matter how it comes about, if we are
"wiped out", we would not starve, we would not lack a roof over our heads, we
would not be without medical care, and we would have help in "escaping" from
being "on welfare".
The nation would in effect be establishing a "from the bottom up"
Economic Development Corps (EDC), committed to providing National Security
against the ravages of poverty. In many respects, it would be an adjunct to,
and similarly functioning as, the Armed Services.
Each individual and family, who qualify as poor or near poor, would be
"inducted" into the EDC. Each would be evaluated, set on a "course" to
escape from "on welfare", guided, and tracked.
Some would require only a "brief" "enlistment"; needing only
supplementary income, and some help, while reestablishing their adequate
income from employment "off welfare". Others may have the education and
skills to be "off welfare", but who have been brought down by a mental or
physical (or addiction) condition that can be "treated" to put them back "off
welfare". Still others may have to be "retired" to mental, physical
disability, retirement or nursing homes, facilities provided under health
care programs funded by the federal and State governments. This would be the
case, where the determination has been made, that these individuals have no
promise of being constructively employed, nor to be capable of functioning
independently "off welfare".
In the main, the "inductee" individuals and families would require
extensive, disciplined programs to overcome conditions which preclude them
from independent living "off welfare". They would be provided education, job
training, moral and social instruction sufficient for them to "graduate"
from, and not recidivate into, "on welfare". In all cases, individuals (and
families) would be required to be fully employed while "on welfare", with
their work hours being split among education, instruction, job training,
family raising, and jobs provided through EDC.
Envisioned is an organization on national and 50 States levels. Overall
direction, funding, coordination, and "Inspector General" auditing, would be
at the federal level. Most, if not all, accomplishment would be required of
the EDC districts (each of the 50 States). However, free flow among and
within the States would be characteristic where this would be most efficient
and effective. For example, particular type job training locations may be
located in only one or a few States. Also, relocation after "graduation"
from "on welfare" should be unrestricted, when in the State or national
interest.
- Attachment Filename: C:\archives\governor\mail\Governor Musgrove\_attach\Federal Government Reforms--Position Paper #31\Mime.822
Attachments
federal_government_reforms-(2)/mime.822