U.S. Republican Paul Ryan wants choice in delivering aid to poor

[realibrad]

So we need another layer of middlemen? Instead of government depositing foodstamps or housing assistance directly to recipient, we need to give money to some random third party to take a cut before they decide to help the poor the way they see fit, with our money? Just because giving it to private sector is magically going to make everything better and not just add a layer of cost?
Or we can just steer clear of this Republican scam, deposit the foodstamps or housing voucher directly to the person we are trying to help with this money.

I'm going to assume you did not read what I wrote.

There is already a middle man in the system now. The federal government is giving money to a middle man. Its not like the IRS is taking the money, and giving it straight to the people. That money goes to a public institution that then gives the money/services to people.

The idea here is that the government gives the money to a private firm, and not the public firm.

The current system already has a middle man, so why not make the middle man as efficient as possible so people get more from the assistance?

 

[senseamp]

I'm going to assume you did not read what I wrote.

There is already a middle man in the system now. The federal government is giving money to a middle man. Its not like the IRS is taking the money, and giving it straight to the people. That money goes to a public institution that then gives the money/services to people.

The idea here is that the government gives the money to a private firm, and not the public firm.

The current system already has a middle man, so why not make the middle man as efficient as possible so people get more from the assistance?

Who is the middleman for food stamps?

 

[realibrad]

Who is the middleman for food stamps?

From Wikipedia

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp program, provides food-purchasing assistance for low- and no-income people living in the U.S. It is a federal aid program, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under the Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), though benefits are distributed by each U.S. state's Division of Social Services or Children and Family Services

They are the middle men.
Just because its a government body, does not mean there is not middle men.

IRS collects money. Department of Agriculture gets the federal aid. They then send it to the states institutions and then the money gets to the people.

All the Ryan plan does is say, instead of giving the money to the state institutions, give it to a private institution to see if it can be done cheaper.

 

[michal1980]

I watched a snippet of Paul Ryan being interviewed by Chuck Todd on MSNBC (I couldn't watch it all) but it sounded like he was saying he would basically cut and gut a lot of things and he would choose to do this also with medicaid and medicare if he could. He is just spouting the same garbage talking points and ideas he did last year and the year before. Its all about killing off all the safety net programs, he isn't coming up with anything new.

your just lieing. but you on the left are stuck in your bubble world and cant see out of it.

Please tell me, what particular part of my statement did you think I was lying about?

Theres no 'cut and gutting' of anything. The plan is to better spend the money we already do on fighting poverty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...roblem-with-with-paul-ryans-new-poverty-plan/

But this time, he promises that his proposal doesn’t cut benefits, but merely reorganizes them.

heck, even the left Slate doesn't think the plan is bad

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...tic_it_s_also_a_thoughtful_compassionate.html

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Not quite the same but I'd love to see a huge increase in allowed charitable deductions. There are some things government isn't really that good.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Actually, yes, that is what he wants done. I don't know if it will work, but the idea has worked many times in the past.

NASA did some amazing things, but it did it a very expensive way. Along comes SpaceX and they found ways of doing things far cheaper. So now the government is going to pay SpaceX to fly supplies up to the space station, instead of paying NASA to do it. Far more efficient.

In fact, its a pretty well established idea in economics that the private market tends to do things more efficiently than the public. Thats not to say that all things run better in the private market, but typically it is cheaper.

So, instead of having the middle man be a government institution, it could be a private company if the win the bid. I think if the idea is to simply give private firms money to try and find ways of being cheaper, it would work our badly. But, if a firm can do the exact same thing as the public firm but cheaper, then the people in the program are far better off.

Now did SpacX start from a model rocket or did they build on the tech NASA built with all their money? Standing on the shoulders of giants or rubbing two sticks together in hopes of fire.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Now did SpacX start from a model rocket or did they build on the tech NASA built with all their money? Standing on the shoulders of giants or rubbing two sticks together in hopes of fire.

NASA was at least as dependent on a bunch of people from Nazi Germany. That however wouldn't be the point. NASA has become a bureaucratic football to be kicked one way or another. Politics rules the money and the agenda. In essence it isn't possible for NASA to compete because it's chained by irrelevant agenda, which is more important than science or results.

 

[Oldgamer]

Theres no 'cut and gutting' of anything. The plan is to better spend the money we already do on fighting poverty.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...roblem-with-with-paul-ryans-new-poverty-plan/



heck, even the left Slate doesn't think the plan is bad

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...tic_it_s_also_a_thoughtful_compassionate.html

Originally Posted by Oldgamer
I watched a snippet of Paul Ryan being interviewed by Chuck Todd on MSNBC (I couldn't watch it all) but it sounded like he was saying he would basically cut and gut a lot of things and he would choose to do this also with medicaid and medicare if he could. He is just spouting the same garbage talking points and ideas he did last year and the year before. Its all about killing off all the safety net programs, he isn't coming up with anything new.

This is my opinion, and I already clarified I heard a snippet of the interview, I didn't lie, about anything, I gave my opinion of what I thought of the small snippet of what I heard.

Don't be such a sniveling immature brat.. now.. let me take a moment to more clearly look at this so called Paul Ryan plan. I feel pretty certain it is going to fall flat on its face just as all his other great FAUX ideas on helping the poor.

 

[werepossum]

If I am understanding the idea correctly, its kinda how cities get bidders to compete for services.

So, you can have the local firm place a bid and a private firm place a bid. If the private firm can do the job cheaper and more efficiently than the public firm, then good. In theory if this is what is happening, I think its a good idea. You can't do it overnight though, because a lot of money is in these public firms. Start small, and instead of making the public firm bigger, put it to a bid and see who wins.

I agree there is some merit in it, but if that young single mother is applying for food and housing aid she probably needs food and housing aid, and it's not like there's a lot of excess in those payments for other things. Tuition in particular - even for a state college, it would be difficult to fund with the money allocated for food and housing aid even if that young single mother had other resources for food and housing.

I watched a snippet of Paul Ryan being interviewed by Chuck Todd on MSNBC (I couldn't watch it all) but it sounded like he was saying he would basically cut and gut a lot of things and he would choose to do this also with medicaid and medicare if he could. He is just spouting the same garbage talking points and ideas he did last year and the year before. Its all about killing off all the safety net programs, he isn't coming up with anything new.

Someday you'll have to explain to us why the supposed eternal threat of Paul Ryan reducing Medicaid and Medicare is a good reason to oppose him but President Obama should be supported while he cuts $700 billion from them. Hell, for that I'll even bring popcorn.

 

[crashtech]

Bureaucracies and middlemen both get paid to distribute something of value. Both are paid out of funds that have been allocated by the purchaser, in the former case the taxpayer, and the latter, the buyer of the product. It's not that difficult a concept.

 

[Oldgamer]

Ohhhh here we go, on Paul Ryan's so called go idea:

Rep. Paul Ryan, budget-slasher, releases a paternalistic poverty plan that has one good idea. Sen. Rand Paul, Civil Rights Act skeptic, speaks to the African-American National Urban League. The Koch brothers, backers of voter suppression efforts and union busting, give $25 million to the United Negro College Fund.

And each winds up hailed, even by some liberals, as taking a big step for the Republican Party when it comes to questions of race and poverty. Why do people settle for so little when it comes to the right trying to signal a change in its damaging approach to both?

Ryan’s one good idea is expanding the earned income tax credit, originally a Republican policy that Republicans turned against because Democrats embraced it too. The EITC is one big reason for the “47 percent” of people who pay no taxes that Ryan’s running mate railed against. Now Ryan says he wants to expand it, and some other programs – which doesn’t square with his infamous budget proposals of recent years.

So MSNBC’s Chuck Todd politely asked Ryan to reconcile his poverty plan with his budget plan – which cuts $5 trillion over 10 years, and takes 69 percent of the cuts from low- and moderate-income families – and he couldn’t do it.

“Does this mean you would change your budget proposal to reflect your new poverty plan?” Todd asked.

“No,” Ryan answered. “I didn’t want to get into a debate over the funding levels of the status quo. I want to talk about how to reform the status quo.”

Todd tried again. “So we should ignore your budget proposal for these programs?”

“No, Chuck, what I’m trying to tell you is, let’s not focus on dollars and cents for these programs,” Ryan replied, a little peevishly. “Let’s focus on reforming these programs so they work more effectively.”

Paul Ryan: a profile in equivocation.

Then there’s Rand Paul, continuing his “outreach” to African-Americans with his visit to the Urban League annual convention. Paul actually deserves credit for trying to tackle issues of criminal justice reform with Sen. Cory Booker. But in his Friday speech he also seemed to decry voter suppression laws, insisting his goal is to “help more people vote,” in the words of the Louisville Courier-Journal.

“We have to be together to defend the rights of all minorities,” Paul said.

But Paul flip-flops on this issue every chance he gets. “I don’t think there is objective evidence that we’re precluding African-Americans from voting any longer,” he said last year, after the Supreme Court curtailed the Voting Rights Act. But a few months later, he seemed to have second thoughts.

“Everybody’s gone completely crazy on this voter-ID thing,” Paul the New York Times. “I think it’s wrong for Republicans to go too crazy on this issue because it’s offending people.”

That was big news. But then, confronted by his friends at Fox, he lurched into reverse. Paul assured Sean Hannity he was fully on board with the Republican voter ID strategy. “No, I agree there’s nothing wrong with it. To see Eric Holder you’ve got to show your driver’s license to get in the building. So I don’t really object to having some rules for how we vote. I show my driver’s license every time I vote in Kentucky … and I don’t feel like it is a great burden. So it’s funny that it got reported that way.”

“It’s funny it got reported that way,” when that’s what Paul said. Maybe that’s where Paul Ryan learned how to equivocate.

Then there are the Koch brothers. I said everything I needed to in this story. I’m sympathetic to the UNCF wanting more scholarship funding. But “Koch scholars”? A no-strings gift would be one thing, but scholarships Koch foundation appointees help award, based on a student’s affinity for “entrepreneurship” and the free market is something else entirely.

Liberals who applaud UNCF taking the money, and decry AFSCME’s parting ways with the group, insist it’s possible to separate the principle of education for black children from the Kochs’ funding of efforts to break unions in the public sector – which disproportionately employ their parents – and suppress their voting rights.

But it’s true that all of these moves are preferable to outright race baiting and demonizing black people and the poor, so liberals give them extra credit. Applauding minimal GOP gestures toward decency reflects the soft bigotry of low expectations once again.

Link

 

[realibrad]

Now did SpacX start from a model rocket or did they build on the tech NASA built with all their money? Standing on the shoulders of giants or rubbing two sticks together in hopes of fire.

I'm not anti NASA, which I think you believe. Many great things came from the US space program. NASA was about the US catching up to the USSR for national security. NASA later became something different, and lost its scope.

My point is that if other companies can do things more efficiently than NASA, why would we not go with that company? If security is not the issue, what is?

 

[realibrad]

I agree there is some merit in it, but if that young single mother is applying for food and housing aid she probably needs food and housing aid, and it's not like there's a lot of excess in those payments for other things. Tuition in particular - even for a state college, it would be difficult to fund with the money allocated for food and housing aid even if that young single mother had other resources for food and housing.


Someday you'll have to explain to us why the supposed eternal threat of Paul Ryan reducing Medicaid and Medicare is a good reason to oppose him but President Obama should be supported while he cuts $700 billion from them. Hell, for that I'll even bring popcorn.

I think we would be far better off just giving a reverse income tax, and not having different institutions giving out aid for every type of thing. I really think people would be better off if we just gave them money, instead of giving them what we think they should need.

Its really quite insulting to think that the poor are too stupid to use their money wisely, so we must give them food stamps instead.
I know food stamps are not a real thing anymore, but its a quick way to refer to a program.

 

[Fern]

Problem with this is that if private companies are taking tax money from the gov to perform service, the bureaucratic cut has already been taken, which would result in a double dip. For a private system to have a chance, it would have to be funded directly by taxpayers, which probably could never happen.

Initially I was going to disagree with you about the "double dip" you mention above. But others made posts disagreeing with you so I didn't bother.

Now, I'm beginning to agree with you although, perhaps, for reasons you haven't expressed above.

-----------

First wanna say I give Paul Ryan credit for trying. I think he's sincere and is working hard to improve things. Working hard to come up ideas etc. Problem is, I like very few of them.

In general, I have no problem with trying new things to improve govt services.

In general, I have no problem with letting states try to handle some of the services now provided by the federal govt. I'm a fan of the whole "states are little laboratories" concept embedded in the Constitution.

But at this point I think his idea is a bad one for a number of reasons:

1. Many here see this as the govt model versus the private model and of course often the private model outperforms the govt model.

But that's not what this is. To evaluate his proposal on that basis is erroneous.

In the typical private model customers are free to purchase or not. Customers evaluate the product etc and make the decision to give the business their money in exchange for the good or service. If the company performs poorly the customer will not return and the market will take of the poor performer: They will go out of business.

That's not the case here. The business gets the money from the govt, not the customer. IMO, that's very important. In the true private business model the customer will not acquire the product if they think it's overpriced. In Paul's 'hybrid model' why would the customer care if the product was overpriced? They're not paying for it, Uncle Sam is. (I think this a big problem is our HC system: The customer doesn't pay, the insurance company does etc.)

Well, how is the federal govt to watch and ensure 'customer satisfaction' and cost efficient delivery of service? They're going to have to develop a layer of bureaucracy for this purpose.

2. Fraud. Paul's proposed model is very similar to Medicare/Medicaid. Non-profit or for-profit organizations provide the service to customers and are paid by the govt. Everyone is aware of the fraud. Back in 2009 AG Holder said it was $60 billion a year. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicare-fraud-a-60-billion-crime-23-10-2009/

I.e., another layer of federal bureaucracy will be required to combat this.

3. Cronyism. Anybody wanna bet that political insiders won't be setting up private companies to get fat, overpaid, govt contracts from their politician friends? And let the lobbying money flow.

In too many ways the elements present in the private business model don't exist here. Therefor, I don't expect the benefits to exist either.

Fern

 

[Fern]

-snip-

So MSNBC’s Chuck Todd politely asked Ryan to reconcile his poverty plan with his budget plan – which cuts $5 trillion over 10 years, and takes 69 percent of the cuts from low- and moderate-income families – and he couldn’t do it.

“Does this mean you would change your budget proposal to reflect your new poverty plan?” Todd asked.

“No,” Ryan answered. “I didn’t want to get into a debate over the funding levels of the status quo. I want to talk about how to reform the status quo.”

Todd tried again. “So we should ignore your budget proposal for these programs?”

“No, Chuck, what I’m trying to tell you is, let’s not focus on dollars and cents for these programs,” Ryan replied, a little peevishly. “Let’s focus on reforming these programs so they work more effectively.”

Paul Ryan: a profile in equivocation.

Chuck Todd, who I generally like and will watch if on TV, is being a jackass here.

Program funding levels and the structure/design of those programs ARE two completely different and unrelated things. There's no valid reason to pollute the discussion of one with the other.

"Equivocation" not found. (In fact, it appears the author doesn't even know the meaning of the word.)

Fern

 

[crashtech]

...In too many ways the elements present in the private business model don't exist here. Therefor, I don't expect the benefits to exist either.

Fern

Possibly, yet I don't think we should automatically give up on figuring out innovative ways to increase efficiencies in systems that aren't market driven. In post 26 I had a rough idea of how this might be accomplished, by introducing competition within the bureaucracy itself. I don't expect my idea is necessarily any good, but the concept of re-introducing competitive elements into programs where it has been removed or has never existed, is, I think, an idea with merit.

 

[realibrad]

Initially I was going to disagree with you about the "double dip" you mention above. But others made posts disagreeing with you so I didn't bother.

Now, I'm beginning to agree with you although, perhaps, for reasons you haven't expressed above.

-----------

First wanna say I give Paul Ryan credit for trying. I think he's sincere and is working hard to improve things. Working hard to come up ideas etc. Problem is, I like very few of them.

In general, I have no problem with trying new things to improve govt services.

In general, I have no problem with letting states try to handle some of the services now provided by the federal govt. I'm a fan of the whole "states are little laboratories" concept embedded in the Constitution.

But at this point I think his idea is a bad one for a number of reasons:

1. Many here see this as the govt model versus the private model and of course often the private model outperforms the govt model.

But that's not what this is. To evaluate his proposal on that basis is erroneous.

In the typical private model customers are free to purchase or not. Customers evaluate the product etc and make the decision to give the business their money in exchange for the good or service. If the company performs poorly the customer will not return and the market will take of the poor performer: They will go out of business.

That's not the case here. The business gets the money from the govt, not the customer. IMO, that's very important. In the true private business model the customer will not acquire the product if they think it's overpriced. In Paul's 'hybrid model' why would the customer care if the product was overpriced? They're not paying for it, Uncle Sam is. (I think this a big problem is our HC system: The customer doesn't pay, the insurance company does etc.)

Well, how is the federal govt to watch and ensure 'customer satisfaction' and cost efficient delivery of service? They're going to have to develop a layer of bureaucracy for this purpose.

2. Fraud. Paul's proposed model is very similar to Medicare/Medicaid. Non-profit or for-profit organizations provide the service to customers and are paid by the govt. Everyone is aware of the fraud. Back in 2009 AG Holder said it was $60 billion a year. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/medicare-fraud-a-60-billion-crime-23-10-2009/

I.e., another layer of federal bureaucracy will be required to combat this.

3. Cronyism. Anybody wanna bet that political insiders won't be setting up private companies to get fat, overpaid, govt contracts from their politician friends? And let the lobbying money flow.

In too many ways the elements present in the private business model don't exist here. Therefor, I don't expect the benefits to exist either.

Fern

So a few things.
While it is true that the people getting the aid will not vote with their money, that does not mean there is not a customer. In this case, the customer is the government....whaaaa...Ill feed you baby bird. See, the government is paying for a service, and that service is to take care of its people. Right now, they are paying an institution to provide these services. So, the market should still function to drive down prices, because competition between firms should still work. If firm A does it for cheaper, firm B will not get the contract.

Fraud will be around no matter what, as its human nature. The question should be what system offers the best way to reduce the cost of fraud. If the fraud cost 100 dollars, and the efforts to fight it cost 120, better to leave the fraud, as you can help more people. I dont know if that is at all true here, but it establishes my point that I'm about to make. Private firms will attempt to stop fraud within itself but not with the people who consumer the service. Either system right now does very little to stop it, because in the end, the cost of fighting the fraud is more expensive than the savings it will bring, as seen with drug testing recipients.

I would argue Cronyism is far worse in a public system than private. In a private system, you give the contract to the people who offer the same service at a lower price. When a firm is chosen that has a higher price, its much easier to see Cronyism.

 

[marincounty]

I think we would be far better off just giving a reverse income tax, and not having different institutions giving out aid for every type of thing. I really think people would be better off if we just gave them money, instead of giving them what we think they should need.

Its really quite insulting to think that the poor are too stupid to use their money wisely, so we must give them food stamps instead.
I know food stamps are not a real thing anymore, but its a quick way to refer to a program.

But why are Republicans constantly trying to cut food stamps, aid for the poor, etc..?
Trying to institute drug testing for welfare recipients?
Republicans are so hostile to poor people that I am always amazed any poor person votes Republican.

 

[realibrad]

Possibly, yet I don't think we should automatically give up on figuring out innovative ways to increase efficiencies in systems that aren't market driven. In post 26 I had a rough idea of how this might be accomplished, by introducing competition within the bureaucracy itself. I don't expect my idea is necessarily any good, but the concept of re-introducing competitive elements into programs where it has been removed or has never existed, is, I think, an idea with merit.

Free market has problems, so better to just do the other things. Just ignore that the other systems also have problems too...

 

[realibrad]

But why are Republicans constantly trying to cut food stamps, aid for the poor, etc..?
Trying to institute drug testing for welfare recipients?
Republicans are so hostile to poor people that I am always amazed any poor person votes Republican.

Thats the thing here. The part about giving the private firms a chance seems good. That gets washed out by the 10 other ideas that are pushed by them that are stupid, such as drug testing that cost $100 for every $1 it saved. I just dont want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

[ivwshane]

I'm all for reform, this isn't reform, it's just replacing one middleman for another more costlier middleman.

His proposals should fool no one and yet some how they fool quite a few.

 

[Oldgamer]

I'm all for reform, this isn't reform, it's just replacing one middleman for another more costlier middleman.

His proposals should fool no one and yet some how they fool quite a few.

Agreed..

 

[realibrad]

I'm all for reform, this isn't reform, it's just replacing one middleman for another more costlier middleman.

His proposals should fool no one and yet some how they fool quite a few.

How would the private middleman be more costlier?

 

[-slash-]

But why are Republicans constantly trying to cut food stamps, aid for the poor, etc..?
Trying to institute drug testing for welfare recipients?
Republicans are so hostile to poor people that I am always amazed any poor person votes Republican.

The money doesnt just appear out of thin air. It is comprised of our tax dollars, I'm sure your aware of that. The problem is when the government continues to give cheese to the poor, there is little to no incentive for them to better their own lives and make their own living wage. Instead they choose to live lazily and continue to use tax payer dollars to do so. The majority of the right wing does not despise the poor, they despise the juicing of the current aid system. The left thinks they are helping the poor by giving them all these handouts, but ultimately they are hurting the poor by giving them a means to live without having to work for it and better their situation.

I have no issue with government assistance programs so long as they are not routinely abused like our current systems are. With no true incentive to get off the program the poor remain poor and continue to eat tax dollars for those who have bettered their life. At some point it goes from being aid to supporting failure and mediocrity. It's the same garbage that is causing this huge minimum wage increase push. If you leave the wages low for ENTRY level jobs those who have any shred of sense in their head will strive to either advance in their current workplace or seek education for a better job and thus wage. The economy has to have entry level labor jobs. It allows corporations to keep costs of goods down. There are those who will continue to work those entry level jobs the rest of their life. They are either lazy, content, or unable to advance. Not everyone is cut out to be in management, thats life and it is not fair. Paying everyone like a manager only decreases incentive to advance and hinders middle level workers.

The big part of this plan I saw that I believe should be implemented in any form of government assistance is the incentive program,
"Illustrating his plan in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, Ryan said a 24-year-old single mother of two with a high school education and dreams of one day being a teacher could go to a local social services provider for help. Instead of applying for food stamps, housing vouchers and welfare checks, she would meet with a case manager and draft an "opportunity plan" to achieve her goals, targeting money where it is needed most, such as transportation or child-care costs.

The catch: she would have to sign a contract and meet certain benchmarks for success, such as learning new skills or seeking work. Failure would mean a cut in aid while exceeding expectations would earn her a bonus."

The incentive is to advance herself. If she does not, she gets a cut in funding. If she does, she gets an increase in funding until she is able to sustain herself, then she gets off the funding and makes a living for herself.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How would the private middleman be more costlier?

I believe the idea is that the money gets collected and routed via taxes so government in essence has one layer and has a cost associated. Then it goes to somewhere else who has another cost. Then were would have to be regulations and oversight added (you really can't let things go, look at how financial institutions raped us through the nostrils) and that has a cost.

The question is how could all that be less than removing distribution by government. I have to say I'm not seeing how that would be.