PA. Welfare Programs are put on Life Support (Newspaper column)

[JPZenger]

http://www.mcall.com/opinion/yourview/mc-corbett-pa.-welfare-budget-yv-strauss-yv-0214-20120213,0,722492.story

By Rev. Sandra L. Strauss, director of public advocacy for the Pennsylvania Council of Churches

Excerpts:

"Many budget and policy proposals appear nonsensical, even mean-spirited. For example, the public welfare budget contains seemingly punitive proposals that place blame on and punish welfare recipients for being poor... One penny-wise and pound-foolish proposal is elimination of general assistance that provides help to only the most vulnerable — less than half a percent of Pennsylvanians. The benefit is barely subsistence, at $205 per month throughout most of the state, with 28 counties actually lower. Still, it means a great deal to those who do receive it.

And Pennsylvania actually recoups a good chunk of these outlays when people with disabilities are approved for federal Social Security or SSI disability benefits, so the actual savings is even less. Therefore the funds, reclaimed by the state, are, in essence, a loan.

Another proposal, outside of Gov. Corbett's budget, is reinstituting an asset test for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamp) recipients. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, D.C., cites that about 75 percent of SNAP recipients live in households with children, and more than one-quarter live in households with seniors or people with disabilities. In fact, SNAP alone has kept many persons and families out of poverty and has lessened its affects on many others — including reductions in the number of children and seniors who go to bed hungry in Pennsylvania."

[Newest Reality]

1. In light of

all the various factors concerning the poor treatment of those in true need and the growing Underclass sprouting up around us, I'm rethinking my idea of a "society".

What kind of society do we have? There is no way to generalize that abstraction precisely because it varies across the country and around the world. Yet, there are some basic implications that include the acknowledgment of our general welfare and the benefits of said. It is not difficult to realize that our notion of self-hood does not logically stop at the epidermis. No matter how we frame "rugged individual" when we put that notion in a space suit and let it float in an empty vacuum, when the oxygen runs out, that's all, folks. We are, by nature, social creatures both for our survival needs and deeper, more intrinsic reasons.

So, are we supporting and building a society any longer? Or, do we need apt metaphors to provide insights into the multiplicity of factors that are transforming and dissolving our notions and expectations of what society is and has to offer?

If what we mean by society is to be promoted and applauded as something like a collection of cancer cells, multiplying and doing their own thing while increasingly consuming the resources of the body, then no matter how much denial is involved at Cancer Inc. the body will weaken and die in direct proportion to the profits of the tumors. That's means death, (potentially slow and agonizing) for context and contents. The more the model succeeds, the more devastating the disease and the more rapid the demise.

I'm sure we could find many apt ways to represent the current decay in the structures that represent our personal investments in our general welfare and even gain valuable perspectives on who, what, where and when. It might be useful to see where we stand and what our part of this process is.

Everything appears to have a beginning, middle and end, so yes, decay and dissolution are inevitable. In that understanding though, a glimmer reveals itself. After every end, something begins anew. Knowing were we are and what to do when we are there might be a way to exercise the most useful aspect of our intelligence and utilize the reality of decay in order to encourage and nurture and give rise to the transformation and rebirth.

[PRETZEL]

2. bringing welfare back into the discussion

http://www.dpw.state.pa.us/publications/budgetinformation/act22-expeditedregulatorychangestothedpw/index.htm

http://policypathwayspa.blogspot.com/2012/02/overview-of-yesterdays-department-of.html

I'd like to bring back into the discussion the assault on the state's lower income and especially as to how that relates to our aging population directly.

As backround, my position is one within the aging community. One of the hardest hit segments of our population in the proposed budget are those individuals and families who are elderly, lower income and who have certain needs in order to maintain a quality of life within their communities. The program is called the Aging Waiver and is administered through the Department of Public Welfare. This is a program that has traditionally been the undertaking of Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) since this is a population where their expertise is unmatched.

In the first link, under review for final passage is what is called Act 22 - Expedited Regularory Changes. This act has give authority to allow Secretary of Welfare Alexander free reign to make changes to the current system not only for the aging community but the welfare community in general. If you read the various sections of the act, this is an assault on those needy individuals and families. Under Act 22, AAA's may no longer be a viable option for out seniors. They will basically be on their own. This is in no way, shape or form treating our elderly population with the respect and resources they need in the most vulnerable times of their lives.

Pennsylvania is going the way of privitized long term care. This is not a good model.