Boot Straps and Safety Nets

The term "Boot Strap" is generally associated with the view that individuals are on their own, and expected to take care of themselves, and by so doing, feel good about themselves as responsible citizens.

This is a world view which is usually associated with those who identify with the label Conservative, and which informs their politics and public policy views.

In contrast, the term "Safety Net" is generally associated with the view that individuals sometimes simply cannot pay for , or be expected to pay for, taking care of themselves, due to unanticipated and devastatingly expensive developments.

This is a world view which is usually associated with those who identify with the label Liberal or Progressive, and which informs their politics and public policy views.

A keyword here is "anticipated", or more accurately, it's antonym, "unanticipated". Adding "devastating" to any description of circumstances which safety net advocates are talking about provides even more clarity to the definition of circumstances for which a safety net view of public policy is worthy of consideration and serious debate.

This is not an abstract idea for me, having lived and experienced both situations.

As usual, debate on this issue is made more difficult by political party polarization.

My view is that these two approaches do not have to be mutually exclusive. Taking care of oneself is admirable and most people want to be able to do so. However, just as those who can afford it, pay for insurance to protect against being wiped out by fire, for example, we, as a society, should provide some type of safety net to insure citizens against losing everything due to unpredictable circumstances.

Some think of this as rescuing people from circumstances of their own making. Some think of this as rescuing people from circumstances which were unpredictable. The key word here is, "rescuing".

Social security is a great example of a safety net that has worked for years. It has provided a basic, poverty level, income for millions who had no pension plan and/or whose career was cut short, or curtailed by a health problem; as for example potential employers evaluating as flaws in a candidate's application, health issues which might increase the employer's health care plan insurance costs, or health issues, which would have little or nothing to do with performance of duties, as published, for the position. As a professional and fifteen year experienced career counselor I understand that the candidate with the fewest flaws wins.

A major flaw in our current program is that it sends a monthly check to anyone in the system, without regard to need; including those for whom it is an incrementaly small addition to their income. It's a waste of tax payer dollars, which should be used to provide a basic income to those who really need it, those cititzens who have come to be of an age which employers shy away from.

Congress, a few years ago, changed the rules for those who are elligible for Social Security, allowing those over age sixty-five to continue earning income which would not reduce their Social Security payments. This was a good and welcome move. It helped those whose physical ability to continue working was unimpaired. It did not help those whose physical ability to continue working was impaired. Citizens in that category are legion, though they fall through the cracks, thought of as an insigficant minority, and, as a group, are not evaluated as a constituent voting block, worthy of attention.

Single payer universal health care coverage is overdue in this country.
Medicare A and B, along with Plan D for prescription coverage are in place for seniors. Disability insurance can sometimes be counted on, but is not available to anyone who is elligible for Social Security. The same is true for Unemployment Insurance. This policy is inconsistent with it's goal of giving retired persons a break, and adding a good source of employees to those available to employers. If those over age sixty-five can earn income without losing their earned Social Security income, they should be able to collect unemployment insurance if and when their jobs have been eliminated, just as those under the age of sixty-five can now. The same availability should be afforded those who are still employable by virtue of the skills needed for a particular job, but who have become limited physically, though not in ways which would prevent them from performing the duties as advertised for the position.

The present system, which seems to have been advanced by a grudging agreement, but hardly a whole hearted appoval, has resulted in what I call a patchwork approach to looking after our citizens who have tried to play by the rules, but who have been blind sided by circumstances they couldn't see coming.

What we have now is a patchwork of programs that sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. It's time for a comprehensive safety net to be available for all citizens who tried their best to take care of themselves, but were unable to dso due to unpredictable and unanticipated events.

Leanderthal
Lighthouse Keeper