The word welfare has taken on so many derogatory connotations that it has to go. Though a rose by any other name might smell as sweet, if it were renamed Bloody Mary people may hesitate to nose in its fragrance. Social programs, sadly too, have the same demeaning connotation. Welfare in its inarguable purity is for those who qualify for financial assistance where and when exists variable degrees of helplessness — either mentally, physically or economically. This is as it should be and therefore should no longer be linked with social security — another word that has outlived its usefulness. Reform here is just a matter of focusing on improving the services whereby appropriations thereof would in all likelihood be increased, certainly not cut.


Veterans with disabilities — surely, greater homage is expected — stemming from combat and preclude working for a living should therefore be placed under this misnomer, rather than as afterthought category of Veterans Affairs under National Defense in which they have to fight tooth and nail at budget time to retain their rights. It is the affair of every American to see to it that legitimate veteran claims are permanently honored. Obviously the degree of the affliction's severity determines the value of health care — in most instances totally free — together with suitable reward in stipends. In this scenario veteran’s hospitals per se should be open to the community for general purposes, rather than isolating veterans as though they were lepers. This category of the disabled — civilian and veteran — should be renamed Homage to the Disabled or HTD.


On the other hand, those who do not thus qualify above are either under social security or some other social program. Too often citizens lump together both. To avoid this perplexity social security should be clearly defined as widows pension or WP and retirement annuity or RA and be limited to income and medical care for the elderly, widows and their children, including home or nursery care. If permanently disabled or afflicted with Alzheimer, HTD would coördinate care services. The stipend should be based on the equivalent of a substantial margin above the poverty line for a single person, and for married couples when the spouse reaches 65. Married couples would not necessarily be entitled to double shares. Of course, upon the passing of a spouse, the widowed would receive the share for a single person. The widowed under 65 with children — including up to full-time post secondary education students — would receive a single share plus the value of taking care of x number of dependents. It should go without saying that this retirement annuity should be progressively taxed as ordinary income for those a thousand dollars or more above the poverty line.

All social programs under Human Services entailing direct assistance would be terminated. Low-cost housing projects [not rent assistance], health research, assistance to neighborhood clinics and hospitals for in and out patient care would be retained, except that co-payment is required, or 2½% of taxable income would be withheld. Those currently under social services would be the jurisdiction of the Labor department whose responsibility is to put all such persons to work. This will be known as PD or Placement Division. Further, the labor department should arbitrate justice in workman's compensation disputes. Government unemployment insurance will be terminated by definition as unemployment will not be acceptable. Seasonal layoffs, except for part-time work and agriculture, will not be tolerated. Small business and giant corporations alike will either furnish unemployment compensation for lay offs and downsizing or limit the hours of all personnel. All businesses in the event of bankruptcy will have posted a bond for six-month unemployment provisions to protect abandoned workers.

How to pay for this? Look for another blog.