WELFARE

For purposes of this discussion “welfare” shall be considered in the broadest of terms. It shall include direct welfare (payments to those deemed needy) and indirect welfare (entitlements to corporate tax breaks).

The notion that the government needs to provide for the individual in place of the individual providing for himself or herself is troubling. There is definitely a role for charity and good deeds, but to what extent does that role belong to government? Therein is the probative question.

Since Franklin Roosevelt’s presidency, the country on a whole has embraced a socialist mentality. Government is the provider of all things, replacing individual self-reliance. This has, in turn, led to a society that is far more dependent on “government” to survive.

While we could spend endless hours debating the practicality of having government serve “in loco parentis” (“in place of parents”,although it could also be argued as “crazy parents”) that argument can be had at a later date. For now the focus of this is to understand the derivation of the current socialistic welfare state that has shadowed our society.

The Depression, along with longstanding business leader practices of labor abuses, led to the people wanting to pay high taxes to be protected. This government implemented protection scheme (likely a RICO violation if devised by anyone other than the government) ranged from worker protections, social security, public welfare and more. The government would supplant the family and the various charitable organizations as the source for help.

Great on paper but difficult in practice. Ironically, during this period of mounting socialism in the United States, the people were convinced that they were at risk from communism. The proof of the pudding is that there is clear and convincing evidence that the communistic brand of socialism, with it totalitarian control, failed. Still, our society is, like a moth, drawing ever closer to the flame. While eschewing socialism we grew more socialistic than any other time in our nation. And there is no end to this idiocy.

In our prime our society believed that it could easily solve all the problems related to individual poverty by throwing money at the problems. This led to a wide expansion of the social net. Government welfare balloon and everyone, from the poorest single mother of ten to the corporate titan, wanted his or her piece of the government’s largess.

Politicians, realizing the situation, capitalized on this master-servant style relationship, campaigning to “protect the interests of (your cause here)”. By joining in the parade, these political figures were not statesmen but cheap political hacks. “Every man a King” was not an invitation to Eden but a death sentence.

The rapid expansion of government and its protective role remains unbridled. The government now is expected to have or create a solution for every problem. The unfortunate reality is that the people operating the government are not elected because of ability but because of personality. By putting power in the hands of these “personalities” it is inevitable that the government will fail to implement a proper solution but instead it will opt for a political one.

Thus, we are left with the present system of government “entitlements”, a euphemism for “welfare”. The society, including those that were raised to believe in self reliance, have all become convinced that they are not taking a “hand out”, but instead they are claiming what they are “entitled” to from the government. A mere word has destroyed generations of pride.

This is not an argument to end the ‘entitlement system’. Such a system took societal controllers years to build at the cost of millions to convince the people to relinquish their personal pride to a government. This will not go away anytime soon barring a complete meltdown of government. So, to rectify this situation, the tide must be turned and there must be a resurgence of personal responsibility and the programs that would encourage that type of behavior.

As an aside, it is interesting to note from a political perspective that the Democrats are looking to use socialism to control the people while the Republicans are looking to use surveillance and liberty curtailment to do the same. I leads one to speculate as to whether or not there is a mutual goal that transcends political parties.

For those who despise this government policy of mollycoddling there is resentment that a government would expend sums to maintain control, both political and governmental (something of a ‘bread and circuses’ policy). These folks despise politicians, probably recognizing them for what they largely are – panderers to the weak –physically, mentally, monetarily and more.

For those who are receiving an “entitlement” there is little incentive to give up a benefit. They are oblivious to the need to maintain a functional society and are more self-centered in as far as what they “get” from the system than what they contribute. They love politicians who promise more to them.

While the political battle rages between these two polarized factions, the system goes to shit. Promises for more welfare subsidies and promises to abolish the welfare system win votes for both sides but do little to resolve the burning issue.

There is likely an honest desire in society to help its most needy. I personally share that desire, although through a more private sector based vision. The problem is in defining what is “needy” in a society so complex that it defies classification. Is needy a person at or below the poverty line? In Rhode Island there are many “programs” that define such eligibility at 200% or more above the poverty level. If most people realized this, they would be outraged, but most are too stupid to make coffee and so how can they be expected to contribute anything toward a realistic solution?

As budgets get tighter, politicians become more and more active in their pandering. The mere fact that political action is “vote me and I will protect your benefits” is demeaning and detrimental to the very promise of the “land of opportunity”. Without a doubt, welfare reform is needed.

In the future I will explore the Rhode Island welfare system, the system of corporate welfare and the ever expanding role of government as God. I will also seek to expand on what I believe is needed to save the system.

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Veterans’ affairs are largely a federal issue, but due to the fact that the state operates a national guard, there is this and several other areas of state governance that impacts on veterans.

The state, through its guard, provides several functions, in terms of disaster relief and service in time of civil strife. Most recently it has come to represent service to the nation in terms of troops being sent to war. While many blur the issue of warfare and soldiers, I do not. Warfare is a governmental decision; soldiers are to loyally enforce those governmental decisions.

Thus, in asking them to serve, our society indebted itself for such service. It really is that simple. We, the state and its people, have an obligation to the men and women who have served this state in terms of military participation.

There are various state programs for our veterans, but increasingly we are finding that they are lacking. We need to make certain that our veteran’s homes are properly maintained and staffed. We need to make sure that these veterans are getting the treatment that they deserve. Promises need to be met.

Military service is a sacrifice. As part of a repayment for their sacrifices those who served deserve what was promised. It is a social debt that needs satisfaction.

During their service, when active, the military men and women are away from their families, most earning military pay instead of their standard civilian pay. They are asked to serve when there is an emergency that requires action on behalf of the society as a whole. They are asked to put their lives on the line.

For those of us at home, we can choose to ignore their sacrifices. But we should not. I believe that it is true that if we do not pay the proper homage to our soldiers, we will never be able to depend on their being there in the future. A world without a military is idyllic but unlikely and misguided.

In speaking with veterans, the main concerns are taking care of families of those currently serving and honoring the efforts of soldiers during past calls to duty. It really is that simple.

Not being a veteran, I am not fully aware of their feelings, but I can understand that they pervade the military family circle. There is a sense of “military as family”. It is an interesting dynamic, but it came about as a need. While not outcasts in a society, they are not your typical family. Because of this, military families tend to band together in a mutual aid society.

These military families have a reliance on each other, a bond that is indescribable, but existing. These families live a different lifestyle. It is incumbent on those of us who have the comfort of not being in the military to respect the service they provide. And to do this we must consider the needs of the military family and support it through our government.

While various wars range in terms of popularity, there needs to be a clear distinction between the supporting the war and supporting the troops. While I have heard the argument that to support the troops one must support the war, I am not so moved by that logic. To me there is nothing so politically repugnant than using either troops or children to make political points.

Decisions to go to war should be kept in the political realm. Support for the people that are required to go to fight these political decisions should not waiver and should not be political. The troops did not bring on the war, government, elected government, did. Troops follow orders. It may not be a successful defense to simply follow orders, but it doesn’t shift the burden of war creation either.

It is for these reasons that I support programs within the state to give our veterans recognition. Our government asked (rightly or wrongly). The soldiers gave (blindly). Our government owes (greatly).

When we return to this subject, I will discuss the nuts and bolts of the state’s role in military affairs, the role of the military in state governance, and the future role of a state military force.

HIGHER EDUCATION

Much like the way California is known for its agriculture, the Northeast is known for its institutions of higher learning. Rhode Island is part of that mix. We have a long and rich tradition in terms of higher education, both public and private.

As such, the state has a stronger value for higher education and has made great efforts to educate the people, giving them the opportunity to advance.

When speaking on the topic of higher education, there are several areas that deserve consideration. The first is the role of higher education within the state. The second is the system itself and its functions. A third is the manner in which it benefits the people of the state. And yet another is how all these roles fit together to create something of value instead of merely making the effort.

Broken down, this simply states that higher education has its political and legal functions, its business functions, and its education functions. Once these parameters are marked, the observer can judge how well or how poorly a state has cobbled together the varied functions.

In this statement I will leave to a future day the individual areas noted above. This piece will examine how Rhode Island puts together the pieces.

State institutions, and particularly the higher echelons of management of the public university system have always maintained a particularly closed political gene pool. Many of the people in Higher Education have come from politics, largely from legislative pay backs, gubernatorial pay backs, or buy offs from running and/or political payment for running and losing. This is not to say that these people are horrible, but it does have an impact as to operations. Many are not dopes, but it needs to be remembered they are also not there because of achievement in the education field.

This may or may not be all so bad, if it were not Rhode Island with its political inbreeding and if it were over some sort of safety net. It is good to have education leadership reflecting the community. After all, education achievement is only a reflection of the society itself. A society merely transfers its values to the future generation through education.

But, there are good and bad ways of operating a system, regardless of its make-up. From my perspective, it is best when there is a realization that there is a symbiotic relationship existing that needs to be nurtured. We need to have leadership that will look to the interaction of higher education and economic development within the state.

It does us limited good to train people at our institutions for jobs that do not exist in our state. It would behoove us to chart an economic development course, specifically target various industries, and educate our children to allow for employment in those jobs.

To do otherwise is to court disaster. By sending our educated children to other states to seek employment, we have armed our economic enemies at our own cost. If we could retain the talents we have paid to instill, we could be reaping the benefits instead of another state.

As I mildly alluded to earlier, in order to survive in the Northeast, an education institution must swim in deep higher education waters. The quality is brought up by the competition. History has clearly demonstrated that even political hacks can oversee such a system without fully running it into the ground or completely astray.

Thus, while we need to focus on what we can do. This is saying that we need to meld our system of higher education into our programs of economic development. We missed the boat on educating nurses as our state’s employment demanded more and more health care professionals. We have missed oppotunities by not educating people in the trades and found ourselves short during several recent building cycles. In a few words, we need to attempt to envision the future economic trends, possibly a task too great for political appointments or possibly a lack of vision and energy by primarily recent Governors, and to a smaller extent the Legislature. Vision, tempered by hindsight, is the best course of action.

Whatever the case, in the future I will try to better explore the linkage for which I am advocating. I will try to avoid my own fascination with the political in favor of the economic trends and the need to incorporate higher education into a long term growth plan that is designed to create jobs for Rhode Islanders.

THE JUDICIARY

First and foremost, I admit that I am a licensed attorney in Rhode Island, but I also note that this has never stopped me from being critical of the judiciary and its works. This cuts both ways. I feel that being involved in the system has given me an understanding of legal concepts that may appear wrong to the public, but they are based on solid legal principles. Still, as an attorney, I am susceptible to claims that I am just covering for the system.

The reality is that like almost anything in life, there is a good and bad side. For the most part, I find that we have a solid judiciary. I cannot claim it to be the most intelligent or the most effective, but it is better than most. Our judiciary problems are usually results of our shooting ourselves in the foot.

When we use judicial appointments to satisfy social goals or to pay off political (or bar association political) debts, we are not working in the interest of the judiciary. We compromise and thus, we are lost. That said, the pool of legal talent in this state makes it difficult to make a bad appointment through the existing system. It happens, but not as often as one would believe.

Still, our system, while not perfect, is good. It is better to have an appointed in the first instance judge in place of an elected one, at least on the Superior and Supreme courts of Rhode Island. Other inferior courts could possibly be elected, but that just adds another layer to the system. I also have long argued for a system of retention elections of judges, in essence a reconfirmation after ten years for judges below the Supreme Court, but such an approach is actually more of a safety valve allowing removal rather than an appointment mechanism.

While I find that the judicial talent is sufficient, I must say less and less about the administration of justice under this system. We have clogged courtrooms, unreasonable calendars, a broken sentencing system and more.

For anyone that has tangled with the legal system it is evident. There are standing room only courtrooms, no parking for the facilities, forms and procedures that bog down the system in the name of justice, and a general feeling of lack of accomplishment. And since the system is not limited to criminals, landlords and tenants, business interests and small claimants are forced to swim in a pool that hasn’t been chlorinated in years.

The plea bargaining system has turned the criminal process into horse trading. The lack of the ability to quickly and efficiently service the public has lead many to put civil cases into arbitration instead of waiting for the legal process, even though calendars have been shortened in recent years. As you can see, the problem is in the system itself.

I can honestly say that in the near twenty five years of practice, I have been before a good percentage of our judges and I disagreed with many as to their legal decisions, but I am hard pressed to say that more than three were too stupid for their position; even most of the politically connected appointments have been minimally competent jurists. But a capable judiciary cannot save an ill-fated judicial system.

In the future I will discuss how the Legislature can make the Judiciary more effective. I will attempt to demonstrate how the over-regulation of society is the real menace to swift and fair justice. I will also make an attempt to demonstrate how a more realistic legal system could reduce state tax money being spent on the cottage industry called law enforcement.

Until Rhode Island confronts its predilection for an over-regulated society, our justice system will always serve as an inefficient system of monitoring its population instead of a means of providing justice.