Although I favor legalizing marijuana—largely for reason articulated by Mary Jo, Amanda P., and Eileen—I think it’s important to recognize that there is at least one major disadvantage to legalizing pot: doing so would almost certainly lead to more people using the substance. As Cato Institute Fellow Jeffrey Miron writes, “Available evidence does not suggest a large increase, but lower prices and legal acceptance would certainly nudge in that direction.”[1] And, by and large, I don’t think a stoned society is a good society.
Yes, some people benefit from marijuana use—e.g., it sometimes has legitimate medical uses—but pot consumption can also have some troubling affects. Marijuana today is much more potent than it was in the past: “[t]he mean concentration of THC, the psychoactive ingredient, in confiscated cannabis more than doubled between 1993 and 2008.” Consequently, marijuana today is more dangerous and more addictive. Dr. Nora D. Volkow of the National Institute on Drug Abuse estimates that approximately one in six marijuana users become addicted. And “[i]n users who develop a dependence or addiction, quitting can cause intense withdrawal symptoms, like anxiety, trouble sleeping, lack of appetite, mood swings, irritability and depression, experts say.”[2]
Although nobody aside from anarchists is suggesting that teenagers should be legally permitted to use marijuana, legalizing for the adult population would make the substance more abundant and thus more available to young people. And this would by and large harm young people. One recent study found that teenagers who regularly smoked pot had a drop in their IQ scores. Other studies have shown that individuals who become regular pot smokers before they turn sixteen performed perform “significantly worse on cognitive tests of brain function.” Moreover, imaging scans have shown that these individual have “alterations in the frontal cortex white matter tracts” of their brains “that are associated with impulsiveness.[3]
Despite all this, I think the disadvantages of legalizing marijuana are outweighed by the advantages. The government has spent an astronomical amount of money on its failed war against marijuana. According to the Cato Institute, legalizing pot would save the different levels of government a combined $8.7 billion annually. Legalizing pot could also bring in an additional $8 or $9 billion every year in new tax revenues.[4]
[1] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/making-case-marijuana-legalization
[2] http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/legalizing-of-marijuana-raises-health-concerns/
[3] Ibid.
[4] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/making-economic-case-legalizing-drugs
Sex Education
I don’t think the controversy is over teaching kids about SEX. I know many Evangelical Christians, and I really don't think they'd mind public school teachers talking to their kids about the bodily and emotional changes that occur during puberty, about male and female sex organs, about the process of conception. They just don't want their kids being taught about contraceptives -- because they think this essentially amounts to telling kids that premarital sex is okay. And they don’t want their kids being taught about homosexuality or being encouraged to explore their sexual preferences -- because they think this is an implicit endorsement of sin.
I personally think it’s smart to teach kids about contraceptives -- because it reduces teen pregnancy. And I think it’s good to teach kids about different sexual preferences and tell them that their sexual preferences are okay -- because it can be emotionally damaging going through adolescence feeling that your very natural sexual desires are bad and that you therefore are bad. All this said, I don’t think that schools should teach these topics if parents don’t want them to. Parents care about their children more than the state does. Parents have far more invested in their children’s lives. And since we’re just not going to completely agree about many of these moral values, and since the truth of these values is ultimately unknowable, I think that parents should, with some obvious exceptions, have the final say when they come into conflict the state.
1) I think many parents are relieved when others teach their kids about sex. Many parents just don’t want to “go there” with their kids, and I think it’s great that others are there to fill this void -- whether these others be youth pastors, school teachers, whatever. So no, I don’t think this should necessarily be the primary responsibility of parents.
2) I think that schools should get the permission from parents of younger adolescents before providing sex education. I’m talking about twelve-, thirteen-, fourteen-year-olds. I think at some point, however, adolescents should be free to make their own decisions in these matters. I think that between the ages of twelve and eighteen, adolescents should gradually be given more rights. I can’t tell you when. I can’t tell you how this transfer of power should work. I just think that our society’s conception of adulthood is out of whack. We consider young people children until they turn eighteen, and in the long run I don’t think this is doing anyone any favors.
Today we say that parents have the right to make important decisions for their children until their children turn eighteen, at which point we suddenly consider them adults. I can respect a parent’s refusal to let their thirteen-year-old receive sex education, but I don’t think that that parent should have as much authority when their child is, say, sixteen or seventeen. I don’t have the perfect answer here, but I definitely think schools should obtain parental permission during early adolescence but should be able to provide sex education later on, even before the student has legally entered adulthood.
Social Security
[Argument for privatizing Social Security]
Social Security is going bankrupt. Last year the Social Security Trustees reported that the system is currently 31 percent underfunded.[1] What this means is that, in order to pay all promised benefits, the government is going to eventually need to come up with an additional $20.5 trillion. Yes, that’s trillion.[2]
One way to prevent the system from insolvency is to permanently raise the payroll tax rate to 16 percent. Another option is to permanently cut retiree benefits by 22 percent. A third option, one that would avoid causing such pain to workers and/or retirees, would be to force workers to invest in personal accounts.[3]
Libertarian writers William Shipman and Peter Ferrara point out that Wall Street pays significantly better than Social Security. To illustrate this point, they ask us to imagine an individual who entered the workforce in 1965 and over the next 45 years took all the money he and his employer would have otherwise put into Social Security and instead invested it in the stock market. Even if this individual had waited to retire in 2009—and had thus lost 37 percent of his investments in the 2008 financial crisis—he would have retired with 75 percent more than had he invested in Social Security.[4]
Needless to say, investing in the stock market contains numerous risks, and for this reasons economist Laurence Kotlikoff includes numerous safeguards in his plan for privatizing Social Security. For example, he suggsts that the government invest worker contributions and that “Wall Street plays no role and earns no fees.” Kotlikoff includes other safeguards that, for example, requrie the government to make contributions for the unemployed and disable.[5]
Now it's true that the Social Security trust fund isn't going to begin to run dry for another 20 years. But it is irresponsible for us to refuse to deal with this issue today and leave the bill to future generations.
[1] And this is after taking the Social Security trust fund into account.
[2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/kotlikoff/2012/07/13/what-neither-candidate-will-admit-social-security-is-desperately-broke/
[3] http://www.thepurplesocialsecurityplan.org/
[4] http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/private-social-security-accounts-still-good-idea
[5] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-11/social-security-hole-overwhelms-taxes-cuts.html
* * * * *
[Argument against privatizing Social Security]
Arguments in favor of privatizing Social Security generally rest upon the assumption that past stock market performance will determine future stock market performance. Put differently, the argument holds that since (1) Wall Street outperformed the bond market in the Cold War era, it follows that (2) Wall Street will always outperform the bond market.[1]
But it’s not at all clear that this will be the case. Many economists believe that stocks were so high after WWII because they were underpriced and that the market has corrected itself.[2] Other economists argue that stocks during this period did so well because economic growth was robust.[3] But, of course, things have changed, and the current consensus is that the economy is going to grow at a sluggish rate for the foreseeable future.[4]
The end of WWII marked the beginning of “The American Century.” The current century is entirely different. The United States is no longer the planet’s economic hegemon. We’re now a nation drowning in debt. We now face fierce competition from China, Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil, to name just a few countries. China’s economy will most likely surpass ours within the next 20 years.
In sum, the stock market’s amazing performance during the Cold War tells us one thing and one thing only: the stock market did amazingly well during the Cold War. But we now live in a new age, one that doesn’t look altogether promising. Over the past twenty years we’ve seen how unpredictable the market can be, how quickly bubbles can burst and send businesses into bankruptcy. To trust one’s retirement savings to Wall Street is simply more of a gamble than most informed people would be willing to take.
[1] http://archive.truthout.org/article/paul-krugman-confusions-about-social-security
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1973
[4] http://www.epi.org/publication/bp355-five-years-after-start-of-great-recession/
* * * * *
I am against privatizing Social Security.
Social Security is a great program. It is a program that works. It is a program that people can depend on. It keeps millions of families and individuals above the poverty line.
As I argued above, past stock market performance does not determine future stock market performance. Just because the stock market did so well in the last part of the twentieth century does not mean that it will always do well. I think working individuals would do well to take additional steps to save for their retirements: e.g., by investing in 401(K) plans if possible. (I also think the government should do more to encourage people to save for their retirements.) But to gamble a sure thing—one that is so essential for so many of its recipients—seems incredibly imprudent to me.
I think that the best argument in favor of privatization is that Social Security is going to go bankrupt (not for several decades, but still), and that something drastic needs to be done. I agree that something drastic needs to be done, but I think gambling with people’s retirement savings is not the answer. I personally favor drastic cuts to national security spending. We spend nearly as much on security as the entire rest of the world combined. We could spend a fraction of this and still have a highly effective national defense. I also think we should go about making major changes to the tax system--for example, by raising the capital gains rate and closing corporate loopholes--that would in turn generate more revenue from the wealthiest Americans.
* * * * *
Arguments in favor of privatizing Social Security generally rest upon the assumption that past stock market performance will determine future stock market performance. Put differently, the argument holds that since (1) Wall Street outperformed the bond market in the Cold War era, it follows that (2) Wall Street will always outperform the bond market.[1]
But it’s not at all clear that this will be the case. Many economists believe that stocks were so high after WWII because they were underpriced and that the market has corrected itself.[2] Other economists argue that stocks during this period did so well because economic growth was robust.[3] But, of course, things have changed, and the current consensus is that the economy is going to grow at a sluggish rate for the foreseeable future.[4]
The end of WWII marked the beginning of “The American Century.” The current century is entirely different. The United States is no longer the planet’s economic hegemon. We’re now a nation drowning in debt. We now face fierce competition from China, Japan, Germany, India, and Brazil, to name just a few countries. China’s economy will most likely surpass ours within the next 20 years.
In sum, the stock market’s amazing performance during the Cold War tells us one thing and one thing only: the stock market did amazingly well during the Cold War. But we now live in a new age, one that doesn’t look altogether promising. Over the past twenty years we’ve seen how unpredictable the market can be, how quickly bubbles can burst and send businesses into bankruptcy. To trust one’s retirement savings to Wall Street is simply more of a gamble than most informed people would be willing to take.
[1] http://archive.truthout.org/article/paul-krugman-confusions-about-social-security
[2] Ibid.
[3] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1973
[4] http://www.epi.org/publication/bp355-five-years-after-start-of-great-recession/
* * * * *
I am against privatizing Social Security.
Social Security is a great program. It is a program that works. It is a program that people can depend on. It keeps millions of families and individuals above the poverty line.
As I argued above, past stock market performance does not determine future stock market performance. Just because the stock market did so well in the last part of the twentieth century does not mean that it will always do well. I think working individuals would do well to take additional steps to save for their retirements: e.g., by investing in 401(K) plans if possible. (I also think the government should do more to encourage people to save for their retirements.) But to gamble a sure thing—one that is so essential for so many of its recipients—seems incredibly imprudent to me.
I think that the best argument in favor of privatization is that Social Security is going to go bankrupt (not for several decades, but still), and that something drastic needs to be done. I agree that something drastic needs to be done, but I think gambling with people’s retirement savings is not the answer. I personally favor drastic cuts to national security spending. We spend nearly as much on security as the entire rest of the world combined. We could spend a fraction of this and still have a highly effective national defense. I also think we should go about making major changes to the tax system--for example, by raising the capital gains rate and closing corporate loopholes--that would in turn generate more revenue from the wealthiest Americans.
* * * * *
[Michelle:]
The impetus of privatization is that the actuarial model currently used to fund social security is broken and sure to go bankrupt in the long run. This is a mathematical fact notwithstanding partisan claims from the left denying it. However, the need to fix the system does not imply the need to privatize it as the right insists. Their dogmatic insistence that private systems always outperform public systems has comported with historical fact, and the myopic privatizations schemes they have proposed have justly deserved the visceral attacks they have received.
It would be quite easy to correct the funding issues of social security if we took simple steps to move back the retirement age incrementally to a level more appropriate for modern life and began implementing a means test to determine eligibility to receive benefits. These reforms would be painless in that nobody that needs benefits would be denied them. There would still be options available for disabled. Those with sufficient assets or the ability to work will not be denied necessary services and the plan would make sure that services remain available to all who truly need them.
However, the political environment is such that it seems certain that nothing will be done until the red ink on this program is so large that only painful austerity measures will bring it back to solvency. That is regrettable.
* * * * *
Hi Michelle,
As usual, I enjoyed reading your posts. I think that means-testing deserves serious consideration. I wouldn’t want to raise the retirement age, however. It’s true that life expectancy has increased over the past 70 years, but this increase is largely due to a decline in infant mortality rates. Americans today who make it to 65 live on average just five years longer than Americans in 1940 who reached that age.[1], [2]
Given these numbers, one might want to argue that the retirement age should be raised by five years, but I think there are other issues to consider. For instance, although people are living longer today, it’s not clear to me that these additional years are quality ones. Thanks to a pacemaker, my grandpa will probably live into his nineties, but he suffers from steadily-worsening dementia, as well as debilitating back pain. If we raise the retirement age by five years, such individuals might have as many retirement years as people in previous generations, but I doubt they’ll have as many “good” retirement years.
Another issue to consider: raising the retirement age would disproportionately hurt the poor. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, since the 1970s the gains Americans have had in life expectancy have primarily gone to the wealthy and well-educated, meaning that "any further rise in the retirement age would be a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who aren't living much longer, and who, in many cases, have jobs requiring physical effort that's difficult even for healthy seniors."[3], [4]
[1] http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#022
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/opinion/life-death-and-deficits.html
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/research-ties-economic-inequality-to-gap-in-life-expectancy/2013/03/10/c7a323c4-7094-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html
* * * * *
Donald,
I don't think your cites support your contention that life expectancy increases are due largely to declines in infant mortality. Further, the continually decreasing population of workers to retirees would appear to belie that hypothesis. [1]
Though infant mortality is certainly a factor, we must consider that "Effective public health strategies currently exist to help older adults remain independent longer, improve their quality of life, and potentially delay the need for long-term care."[2] While this is undeniably a positive, it is also a driver of social security and medicare costs and an indicator that our population could absorb an increase in retirement age.
I'm well acquainted with Prof. Krugman's arguments that increasing the retirement age disproportionately effects the poor, but I think ultimately they fail. I don't have room here for the lengthy treatment that topic deserves, but means testing and eliminating the cap on SSI tax are not sufficient in themselves. And as elderly populations continue to burgeon [2], this move is something we must begin to implement for people currently under 40 in order to avoid the patently terrible and calamitous alternative of privatization.
[1] http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.htm
[2]http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/pdf/healthy_aging.pdf
* * * * *
Hi again, Michelle,
Well I think we agree on many of the bigger points: for example, that Social Security is going to eventually run out of money if something isn’t changed. I just don’t agree that raising the retirement age should be the answer, especially since there are other ways to raise the money, ways that would cause less harm to society’s most vulnerable: e.g., cutting military spending down to 1990s levels and/or raising taxes on the wealthy.
I also think it’s important to keep in mind that, according to many studies, the health of middle-aged Americans started declining in the mid-1990s. Other studies show that younger Americans are experiencing higher disability rates and numerous health problems (many associated with obesity) not experienced by their predecessors (Stephen Gorin, “Why We Should Keep the Social Security Retirement Age,” Health & Social Work, 37.2). All of which makes me feel even more strongly oppose raising the retirement age.
Anyway, thanks for the great dialogue!
* * * * *
As usual, I enjoyed reading your posts. I think that means-testing deserves serious consideration. I wouldn’t want to raise the retirement age, however. It’s true that life expectancy has increased over the past 70 years, but this increase is largely due to a decline in infant mortality rates. Americans today who make it to 65 live on average just five years longer than Americans in 1940 who reached that age.[1], [2]
Given these numbers, one might want to argue that the retirement age should be raised by five years, but I think there are other issues to consider. For instance, although people are living longer today, it’s not clear to me that these additional years are quality ones. Thanks to a pacemaker, my grandpa will probably live into his nineties, but he suffers from steadily-worsening dementia, as well as debilitating back pain. If we raise the retirement age by five years, such individuals might have as many retirement years as people in previous generations, but I doubt they’ll have as many “good” retirement years.
Another issue to consider: raising the retirement age would disproportionately hurt the poor. As Paul Krugman has pointed out, since the 1970s the gains Americans have had in life expectancy have primarily gone to the wealthy and well-educated, meaning that "any further rise in the retirement age would be a harsh blow to Americans in the bottom half of the income distribution, who aren't living much longer, and who, in many cases, have jobs requiring physical effort that's difficult even for healthy seniors."[3], [4]
[1] http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html
[2] http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#022
[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/16/opinion/life-death-and-deficits.html
[4] http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/research-ties-economic-inequality-to-gap-in-life-expectancy/2013/03/10/c7a323c4-7094-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_story.html
* * * * *
Donald,
I don't think your cites support your contention that life expectancy increases are due largely to declines in infant mortality. Further, the continually decreasing population of workers to retirees would appear to belie that hypothesis. [1]
Though infant mortality is certainly a factor, we must consider that "Effective public health strategies currently exist to help older adults remain independent longer, improve their quality of life, and potentially delay the need for long-term care."[2] While this is undeniably a positive, it is also a driver of social security and medicare costs and an indicator that our population could absorb an increase in retirement age.
I'm well acquainted with Prof. Krugman's arguments that increasing the retirement age disproportionately effects the poor, but I think ultimately they fail. I don't have room here for the lengthy treatment that topic deserves, but means testing and eliminating the cap on SSI tax are not sufficient in themselves. And as elderly populations continue to burgeon [2], this move is something we must begin to implement for people currently under 40 in order to avoid the patently terrible and calamitous alternative of privatization.
[1] http://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.htm
[2]http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/publications/aag/pdf/healthy_aging.pdf
* * * * *
Hi again, Michelle,
Well I think we agree on many of the bigger points: for example, that Social Security is going to eventually run out of money if something isn’t changed. I just don’t agree that raising the retirement age should be the answer, especially since there are other ways to raise the money, ways that would cause less harm to society’s most vulnerable: e.g., cutting military spending down to 1990s levels and/or raising taxes on the wealthy.
I also think it’s important to keep in mind that, according to many studies, the health of middle-aged Americans started declining in the mid-1990s. Other studies show that younger Americans are experiencing higher disability rates and numerous health problems (many associated with obesity) not experienced by their predecessors (Stephen Gorin, “Why We Should Keep the Social Security Retirement Age,” Health & Social Work, 37.2). All of which makes me feel even more strongly oppose raising the retirement age.
Anyway, thanks for the great dialogue!
* * * * *
[Michelle:]
Well, Mr. Gorin is unwilling to even acknowledge that Social Security is in a funding crisis: "It’s important to keep in mind that Social Security is not in danger of going broke." [1] so I wouldn't take his word as authoritative on the issue of disability rates since he appears impervious to mathematical facts. Particularly where the current scholarly debate isn't whether quality of life and life expectancy are going to rise or fall, but whether they will plateau or continue rising drastically for another century. [2]
Any rise in disability diagnoses, I suspect, would be better explained by an increased diagnosis rate, not decreased health outcomes in the population.
[1] http://www.plymouth.edu/magazine/faculty-forum/how-secure-is-social-security/
[2]http://www.prb.org/pdf06/nia_futureoflifeexpectancy.pdf
* * * * *
Michelle,
You’re mischaracterizing Stephen Gorin and quoting him completely out of context. He’s saying that the trust fund will run out in 2038 and that taxes after that will pay for only 77-81 percent of Social Security. That’s what he means by not “going broke.” Moreover, even if his math skills are lacking (which they don't seem to be), pointing this out would in no way refute the numerous scholarly articles he cites, which argue that future retirees might be less healthy than current ones.
Some scholars in fact believe that life expectancy might decline in the coming years (S.J. Olansky et al., “A potential decline in life expectancy in the United States in the 21st century,” New England Journal of Medicine, 352:11), although this isn’t essential to my argument. Your claim that the rise we’ve seen in “disability diagnoses” might be “better explained by an increased diagnosis rate, not decreased health outcomes” is at this point just a claim, since you haven’t supported it with any evidence.
* * * * *
I was being charitable to Mr. Gorin by stating that his mathematical skills are lacking. The alternative is to accuse him bald face dishonesty. While he is probably right that at the very moment the trust fund runs out of money the receipts will total 77-81 percent of obligations, he hides or ignores the fact that that is only the tip of the iceberg. The fund is running out of money because expenses are growing much faster than receipts. So if the trend is not arrested, that percentage gap between receipts and obligations continues to grow after the 2036 expiration of surplus funds (continuing to use Mr. Gorin's numbers which appear to come from the CBO). So closing the gap at that point simply isn't doable as he would have us believe. Moreover, allowing the surplus to be depleted presents serious problems of it's own. It is not improper for me to point out that he is flat wrong by claiming that there is no budget crisis in SSI, nor am I taking him out of context by doing so.
The main premise of the study you cite is "From our analysis of the effect of obesity on longevity, we conclude that the steady rise in life expectancy during the past two centuries may soon come to an end." That is highly speculative and a specious result being that their assumptions that obesity reduces longevity is probably unfounded. Please forgive me for not having time today to track down the recent study on that point, but an article which briefs it can be found here: http://news.menshealth.com/overweight-men-mortality/2013/01/02/.
I apologize for not citing the eminently supportable statement that diagnosis rates in America are increasing, but it's irrelevant to the argument since we agree that costs are ballooning and I have already sufficiently demonstrated elsewhere that population health outcomes are on an improving trend and have been for 100 years (200 years according to the study you provided). We do each appear to have a wealth competing studies on this point, but since mine are based on empirical evidence and past trends while your appear to rely on forecast modeling based on assumptions, I think any careful review of the literature would be forced to conclude health outcomes are improving.
Hi Michelle:
Gorin’s analysis of Social Security funding is not relevant to my argument. (Although you seem to be moving the goal posts when you claim that Gorin denies that there is a “budget crisis.” The issue is what he means by saying that Social Security is not “going broke.” Gorin doesn’t deny that there’s a budget crisis.)
Whether life expectancy might decline in the future is also not relevant to my argument and is an issue you brought up. I never said that diagnosis rates are not increasing; I just asked for evidence for the claim that increased diagnosis rates are the reason why some researchers say that younger and middle-aged Americans have recently experienced an increase in disabilities. The fact that health conditions improved throughout the twentieth century does not mean that they will continue to improve in the future.
Hi Linda:
As I understand it, Social Security loaned some of its trust fund money to the US government in exchange for government securities. Which means that, legally speaking, the money still belongs to Social Security and they can redeem the securities when they need to. (Just like individuals who buy savings bonds can redeem those bonds when they’re ready to.)
From what I’ve read on the internet, it looks like the Social Security trustees believe the trust fund will run out in 2033, after which point taxes will be sufficient to pay for 75 percent of benefits (http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee12-pr.html). I think the Congressional Budget Office has a fairly similar estimate.
Poverty
I don’t think that the current poverty threshold is reasonable.
I did a little research and learned that the way we determine the poverty threshold is outdated. The current formula essentially takes the amount of money an individual needs for food and multiplies that number by three. Although this formula might have been reasonable when it was established in the 1960s, things have changed: namely, food prices have significantly fallen, while prices for others good and services—most importantly, healthcare—have risen.
There are other problems with the current poverty threshold. First, it doesn’t take into account geographic differences: it’s obviously more expensive to live in some cities and states and than others. Second, it doesn’t take into account the in-kind benefits that people receive. Third, it doesn’t take account the amount in taxes that people pay.[1]
In 1995 the National Academy of Sciences recommended several changes be made to the way we measure poverty. Among other things, the NAS recommended that we take geographic differences into account and measure how much money individuals need for, not just food, but also things like clothes, housing, childcare, and healthcare.[2] When we apply their recommendations, or similar recommendations, it turns out that the poverty rate goes up. According to one estimate done in 2007, the poverty rate would have increased from 12.5 percent of the population to 15 or 16 percent.[3]
[1] http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/beyond_the_poverty_line
[2] http://prospect.org/article/mismeasuring-poverty
[3] http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/poverty/report/2009/08/25/6582/its-time-for-a-better-poverty-measure/
Undocumented Workers
Helen:
But undocumented immigrants do pay taxes. They pay sales taxes, they pay property taxes (even those who rent). Most undocumented workers use employee identification numbers or fake social security numbers and pay payroll and even income taxes. As Eileen pointed out earlier, studies have shown that undocumented actually pay more in taxes than they will ever receive back in the form of government benefits.
* "Immigrants and Taxes," The Tax Foundation, http://taxfoundation.org/blog/immigrants-and-taxes
* "Unauthorized Immigrants Pay Taxes, Too," Immigrant Policy Center, http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/unauthorized-immigrants-pay-taxes-too
* "Many illegal immigrants pay up at tax time," Associated Press, http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm
* "Illegal Immigrants Are Bolstering Social Security With Billions," New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/05immigration.html?_r=0
* "Undocuemnted Immigrants Pay More in Taxes Than They Receive in Benefits," Truthout, http://archive.truthout.org/undocumented-immigrants-pay-more-taxes-than-they-receive-benefits59264
THE PROBLEM
I’m going to focus on the sequester, the series of automatic spending cuts that began to take effect March 1. The sequester’s spending cuts ($85 for the first year, $1.2 trillion over the next decade) will adversely affect millions of low-income Americans. For example:
“Nearly two million people who have been out of work for more than six months could see unemployment payments drop by 11 percent” by April.
“Doctors who treat Medicare will see cuts to their reimbursements.” (Thus potentially making it more difficult for senior citizens, many of whom are on fixed incomes, to receive quality medical care.)
Many school districts will receive less federal funding.
“Roughly 600,000 low-income women and children” will “stop receiving food aid.”[1]
More than “100,000 low-income families will likely lose housing vouchers.”[2]
MICRO SOLUTIONS
Social workers often help people on the micro level by informing them of government benefits that could improve their lives. This, of course, isn’t possible with the current problem: the problem is that there are now fewer government benefits available for low-income individuals. So one of my micro solutions would be to make individuals more aware of private charities that could help—for example, local religious institutions. I would also make them aware of initiatives by private groups—for example, job fairs, food banks, and clothing drives. Providing personal instruction in financial matters (for example, helping individuals to budget, looking for different ways to teach financial responsibility) might help many. In some cases I might encourage individuals to turn to their families; many individuals are estranged from their families and perhaps personal counseling and conflict-resolution training could sometimes foster reconciliation.
MEZZO SOLUTIONS
From what I’ve experienced many—although certainly not all—religious organizations tend to be inward-focus. For several years I attended a church that almost exclusively focused on the needs of its own members and basically ignored its surrounding community. But I don’t think most religious organizations want to be this way. In many cases I think social workers could persuade such organizations (and other smaller community groups) to play a bigger role in the community and do more to help those in need. My personal experience tells me that religious organizations want to play a bigger role in society (few religious individuals want to hide their light under a bushel, so to speak) and sometimes just need a little help, a little nudge. Reaching out to these groups, telling them about the needs of my clients might prove to be eye-opening and consequently spur such groups to do more to help their neighbors.
MACRO SOLUTIONS
Here I think social workers could, first of all, help different community groups work together to achieve common goals—for example, holding job fairs, starting up clothing drives. I also think social workers should partner with larger organizations that are trying to bring about political change through lobbying and through public awareness campaigns. I would also like to see social workers help workers organize themselves into unions. Labor unions, I believe, have proven their ability to increase worker wages and benefits and are just what we need right now.
* * * * *
NOTES
[1] Jonathan Weisman and Annie Lowrey, “Hard Budget Realities as Agencies Prepare to Detail Reductions,” The New York Times, February 23, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/politics/hard-budget-realities-as-agencies-prepare-to-detail-reductions.html?pagewanted=all
[2] Sharon Parrott, “Sequestrian’s Impact: It’s Real,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 25, 2013, http://www.offthechartsblog.org/sequestrations-impact-its-real/
MICRO SOLUTIONS
Social workers often help people on the micro level by informing them of government benefits that could improve their lives. This, of course, isn’t possible with the current problem: the problem is that there are now fewer government benefits available for low-income individuals. So one of my micro solutions would be to make individuals more aware of private charities that could help—for example, local religious institutions. I would also make them aware of initiatives by private groups—for example, job fairs, food banks, and clothing drives. Providing personal instruction in financial matters (for example, helping individuals to budget, looking for different ways to teach financial responsibility) might help many. In some cases I might encourage individuals to turn to their families; many individuals are estranged from their families and perhaps personal counseling and conflict-resolution training could sometimes foster reconciliation.
MEZZO SOLUTIONS
From what I’ve experienced many—although certainly not all—religious organizations tend to be inward-focus. For several years I attended a church that almost exclusively focused on the needs of its own members and basically ignored its surrounding community. But I don’t think most religious organizations want to be this way. In many cases I think social workers could persuade such organizations (and other smaller community groups) to play a bigger role in the community and do more to help those in need. My personal experience tells me that religious organizations want to play a bigger role in society (few religious individuals want to hide their light under a bushel, so to speak) and sometimes just need a little help, a little nudge. Reaching out to these groups, telling them about the needs of my clients might prove to be eye-opening and consequently spur such groups to do more to help their neighbors.
MACRO SOLUTIONS
Here I think social workers could, first of all, help different community groups work together to achieve common goals—for example, holding job fairs, starting up clothing drives. I also think social workers should partner with larger organizations that are trying to bring about political change through lobbying and through public awareness campaigns. I would also like to see social workers help workers organize themselves into unions. Labor unions, I believe, have proven their ability to increase worker wages and benefits and are just what we need right now.
* * * * *
NOTES
[1] Jonathan Weisman and Annie Lowrey, “Hard Budget Realities as Agencies Prepare to Detail Reductions,” The New York Times, February 23, 2013, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/us/politics/hard-budget-realities-as-agencies-prepare-to-detail-reductions.html?pagewanted=all
[2] Sharon Parrott, “Sequestrian’s Impact: It’s Real,” Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 25, 2013, http://www.offthechartsblog.org/sequestrations-impact-its-real/
No comments:
Post a Comment