Hey, Don't Spend It All In One Place!

Washington state is helping out its neediest citizens by sending them checks for $1. I shit you not:

When you add printing and postage, it seems like a waste, but the state says the economy has them pulling out all the stops to find money wherever they can.

The point of all this is that it qualifies the recipients for federal funds, according to Leo Ribas, head of community services at Washington's Department of Social and Health Services:

He says if the state’s food stamp recipients receive just $1 for energy bill assistance, that qualifies them for extra federal assistance. That means someone like Nelson could receive about $30 more per month in food stamps.

Sending out $1 checks cost the state $250,000. DSHS says that could bring the state and additional $43 million in federal funding.

Call it red tape or a hoop to jump through. Either way, the state says it makes sense.

"I think it's an issue of maximizing the federal regulations to the advantage of Washington residents,” said Ribas.

Makes sense to me. I mean it's not like that federal money comes out of our pockets. And if we need more we can just print more! Everybody wins!

Good News For [Censored], Bad News For The [Censored]

Not fair! Why should my life-altering decision have consequences? So say some pregnant high school students from Denver:

Teen mothers-to-be attending a Denver high school are asking for at least four weeks maternity leave, saying they don't want to be penalized for absences while healing and bonding with their new babies, The Denver Post reports.

The current policy at East High School requires new mothers to return to school the day after they are discharged from the hospital or be penalized for unexcused absences, the paper said.

Next, the article gives Head ['s opinion]:

"My initial reaction is if we are punishing girls like that, that is unacceptable," Nicole Head, one of the counselors who brought the matter to the school board last month, told The Post. "We've got to do something."

Punishing? Are you kidding me? Listen, I'm all for a new mother taking some time off work or school to care for the newborn. But calling it "punishment" just because there are negative consequences is fucking insane. What about the other students who practice safe sex or abstinence and still have to attend class every day and do homework every night? As if the current structure of the welfare state doesn't encourage teen pregnancy enough already, now new teen mothers might also get a month off school with no strings attached? Unbelievable...

In addition, this is yet one more issue that could be a non-issue were it not for the government monopoly on schools and the complete lack of consumer choice. The last sentence of the article states that the Denver Public Schools do not have a set policy for student maternity leave, and it's up to the individual schools. Therefore it's possible that some public schools in the Denver area have policies more friendly to new moms. If students or parents had any choice in education, the mothers could simply choose a different school. (Given the high costs involved with having a baby, the private school option will not be feasible in many cases.)

Even so, I find it extremely unfair to more responsible high school students for mothers to get time off school with no consequences.

Story here.

DC Tax Revenue Comes in $100MM High, Is Instantly Vaporized

The DC government is still riding the real estate boom. This year, the taxes came in a big $100MM above predictions. Of course Mayor Fenty immediately allocated that over-payment of tax funds:

Fenty plans to ask the D.C. Council to invest about $29 million of the money in the 50,000-student school system, including spending $7 million to offer severance packages to hundreds of central office employees in a massive restructuring being planned by Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee, administration officials said.

Fenty also wants to spend $14 million to expand job programs for youths and for ex-criminal offenders and $12 million to repave streets and alleys, officials said.

Did you notice that the number of pupils in this article dropped to 50,000? So that equals a cost per student of $20K!I think that repaving is a great idea as that is a basic use of taxpayer money but jobs for youths and criminals ought to be left to the market.

Bloomberg to Pay Lazy People to Not Be So Lazy

I know a thing or two about being lazy. (Why do you think I haven't been blogging). And I hate going to the doctor. So where is my hand-out?

NEW YORK — Poor residents will be rewarded for good behavior — like $300 for doing well on school tests, $150 for holding a job and $200 for visiting the doctor — under an experimental anti-poverty program that city officials detailed Monday.

The rewards have been used in other countries, including Brazil and Mexico, and have drawn widespread praise for changing behavior among the poor. Mayor Michael Bloomberg traveled to Mexico this spring to study the healthy lifestyle payments, also known as conditional cash transfers.

$150 for holding a job? Shouldn't the money you earn working be reward enough?? More here.

A New Civil Rights Movement?

As a white, middle-class, male I'm really not qualified to give advice to the NAACP. But then I'm not really qualified to talk about any of the things I blog about. So I'll go ahead and give my advice. Like many national organizations the NAACP is trapped in the past, unable to see new threats or come up with solutions fit for the 21st Century. A good case can be made the organization doesn't even represent most black people. Certainly not the down-trodden. Witness their opposition to school vouchers and their silence on the war on drugs, which former ACLU executive director Ira Glasser credibly points out is the new Jim Crow. While outgoing NAACP president Bruce Gordon didn't do a thing to change NAACP's positions, he did realize that the solution to many of the problems facing black communities lies less in lobbying the government for a few more hand-outs and more in self-empowerment. So I'm sorry to see him pushed out the door by the NAACP board. If you're curious about the significance of his removal, then read this op-ed by two professors in today's Washington Post. An excerpt:

This is not to say that African Americans should no longer engage in political advocacy. But this tactic need not be the sole or primary focus of the country's oldest and largest civil rights organization. For example, the condition of many black children, from inadequate health care to poor education, begs for new and creative approaches to problem-solving. Why can't the NAACP commit some of its resources, beyond lobbying the government, to addressing the social and moral crisis faced by African American children? Can't we imagine tutoring programs as part of an agenda for social justice?

People taking care of their communities? Wow. The fact that this suggestion seems radical - or maybe reactionary??? - shows just how tight the shackles of the welfare state really are. I guess for those in positions of power and influence - the NAACP board - taking members of Congress out to dinner is so much more exciting than building a daycare center, providing medical treatment to the uninsured, and teaching people how to start their own businesses. Why teach someone how to fish, when you can get them to pay you $50 a year in membership fees?