penpusher | "Governmental Responsibility" (Reply)

kansaschica is fully and completely responsible for this thinkpost.

It really all began innocently enough.

kansaschica (whom I'm quite certain will not comment to this journal entry since she hasn't made a comment in my journal since almost exactly a year ago), posted an entry in her journal titled "The Hillary Clinton Drinking Game," where you take a drink every time Hill says "uh." Amusing. But then, she went on to make a comment: I would never vote for Barack Obama. Of course, I had to ask why... and... it's just best for you to look at THE THREAD.

If you don't, the shorthand version is she is concerned that Obama will force taxpayers to fund welfare as her top problem among a list that she typically has with I presume all Democrats.

Let's distill my argument here. Who is actually on welfare? That would be the first question to ask. Typically, it is the poorest, most indigent members of our society... people who either cannot or in some cases should not be working.

Another important question is why aren't they working now? And here's where we get into some spider web issues, so pardon me while I hit reverse and back up to give a better view of the landscape.

In order to get the best jobs, you need to have some tools. The first is a good education. We assume that everyone who attends school is getting "the same" education as most everyone else in our society. But not so deep down, we know that isn't the case. The best instructors do not teach in inner city classrooms, extreme rural areas, or in cities or towns that are on the brink. If you are a child in one of these areas, you are not going to receive the same start as a lot of other children who have had personalized education, private tutors, etc.

But forget about instructors. The school buildings themselves are an issue. More like prisons sometimes (and occasionally worse than that) these places are forgotten areas where it's basically a glorified babysitting job for the teachers unfortunate enough to find themselves there. The idea is, like Minnijean Brown-Trickey (one of the Little Rock 9 I referenced in my 2007 wrap up post), just basic survival. In some cases it's the other classmates that disrupt. In some cases it's a teacher, either because of incompetence or impatience, that blocks. In some cases it's the budget that doesn't permit the materials needed to help learn... things like... books, pencils and paper, are missing.

But before we even get to school, there is the issue of nutrition. In order to be prepared to learn, you have to have the energy, the stamina, the physical and mental preparedness to do it. If you do not get breakfast, or you haven't had lunch, school is merely a distraction from your hunger pangs. You really can't learn if your tummy is grumbling.

Why aren't these kids eating? No money for food. Their parents are poor, unemployed, maybe drug or alcohol abusers, any number of reasons.

The environment the children grow up in is a part of this story. What are things like at home? Is it a warm, friendly environ? Or are there sirens, gunfire, verbal and physical abuse? Is it safe to play, to go outside and have fun?

And really, the unspoken element that this time of life provides is the socialization process. What sort of friends, enemies, relatives, neighbors, people in general are these kids being exposed to as they grow and learn about what life is about?

Ok. I don't need to hammer these points. Let's get back on the road to where I was going with this.

The adults of today, the 20somethings and people upwards of that, have been through their scholastic experience and are now out there, somewhere doing something with their lives. The people who did not have a stellar academic career must find a job that will hire them. A high school diploma with no other specialized skills to go with it means that the options are limited.

But here's where we get into the thick of things. We have corporations.

Corporations are double edged swords, at best. They can come into an area and provide a massive amount of jobs for many people immediately. But depending on what they do, and what they are attempting to achieve, they can also bankrupt or force other smaller businesses in the same general area to close. So, there is a negative impact.

If we're considering "fairness" as a quality that exists in an employer/employee relationship, we would expect corporations to share the profits they make with their employees for their work, and have them share in the success, since it was their work that lead to the group earning. However, the corporation has another responsibility: the investors. And those people expect profits to go into their coffers, not to those of the workers.

How does the government figure in?

Corporations are subject to certain rules and regulations. However, apparently none of these are not firing massive numbers of their employees, paying their fair share of tax money for what they do, and sending jobs to foreign countries in order to keep their profit margins high. Very good for their CEOs and top execs. Tragic for the employees that did all the work to get them there.

Why are corporations exempt from these rules? Because the government permitted it. And why are the people who worked for these companies out of work? Directly because the "rules" permitted it.

The government is turning a blind eye to these corporations that are making larger and larger profits while the people who worked for them are unemployed and suddenly struggling to survive.

And yet, we are concerned about potentially "giving" money to people on welfare. In fact, that money was stolen by these corporations in what is basically a white collar crime, aided by government policy.

Are we blaming the people for taking these corporation jobs for not being "personally responsible" for their fate? Would we do that in the case of someone who was driving down the street, when some huge truck rear ended them? Would we blame that person because they were driving down the street and should have known better?

I really could rehash some more of the points I made in that thread above, like the fact that the massive spending in Iraq has drained the government more than any "programs" that might have been created could do, or the fact that when people get laid off, they tend to take survival jobs that might have gone to people who don't have the skills needed to take anything more challenging, which only adds to the misery.

Really, I'm not saying the government needs to fix every problem for every person... but it better be there for those that got screwed by them.