This is an expansion on the earlier discussion between Firebird and myself.
As I mentioned in those comments, when we took in my wife’s mentally disabled brother, our household went from being a net payer of money to the Federal Government to being a net receiver of money as a result of the subsidies paid directly to him through SSI Disability and also to us for acting as his caretaker.
Firebird pointed out, correctly, that in times past those costs would have been borne entirely by us and by whatever support we could garner from the community. That choice is still one we could have taken – we could have refused those benefits and taken on those costs ourselves. I could have worked another job to cover the expenses and looked for help in the community. The Amish do that – but we didn’t.
The government money was there and we took it.
As Joshua Sanders pointed out in an unrelated posting, this sort of thing was not thought to be the purview of the Federal Government by the Founders and the authorization to fund these payments is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
Maybe Joshua is correct in – I infer – his opinion that folks like my brother-in-law should not be subsidized by the Federal Government. But I can think of other programs that do not have a basis in the beliefs of the Founding Fathers that cost the taxpayers as much or more. Foreign aid to Israel and Egypt. Maintaining overseas bases. The TARP program. Corn farming subsidies. NASA – and I like NASA.
If the goal is to save taxpayer money, there are plenty of programs that cost more than aid to the mentally retarded. I don’t hear much about cutting those, though. They seem to benefit the politically powerful.
I like to think that none of my fellow Authors or Commenters begrudges my taking this Federal largess. Firebird – bless her – has said she doesn’t.
This isn’t something we do for the money – the agency that handles the subsidy has asked us to consider taking in another mentally retarded adult for whom we would receive payments as caretakers, but we have declined – this is something that makes a difficult family situation less difficult.
I certainly don’t begrudge your SSI–my godson also has mental retardation, and since his father was killed in a car crash, it has been an essential part of the household income.
The world has changed since the 1700s. We have smaller families. They move more often. This is good for economic growth. But, it means that families no longer have the resources needed to care for someone with a disability. This is best handled as a collective problem. The alternative is to go back to the conditions that would make family/charity based care viable. We would need to have very large families in an agrarian based economy. Alternatively, we could just let these people die. AS MI says, a nation has the ethics it can afford. We can afford this.
Steve
Alternatively, we could just let these people die.
This is an addendum to my more detailed comment below:
I am quite sure that if my aunt were out in the real world she would eventually successfully commit the suicide she has attempted before. That is not the kind of world I want to live in.
Yes, we can afford this. There are many other subsidies I’d get rid of first.
For a person with a genuine need, I have not problem either. It’s quite likely that, while the money may cover the fiscal cost of caring for your brother-in-law, you and your family are paying a price that can never be repaid. Hopefully, you and your’s are getting personal satisfaction from your efforts. I’ve worked in mental health and know quite well how difficult your struggles can be.
Yeah, the situation changed the household dynamics, that’s for sure.
The government money was there and we took it
And where did the government get the money? Because the government certainly does not generate wealth. This is the very mentality that has us in the financial mess we are in today. I understand the logic that you pay in, thus you are entitled to receive – and it is the government that has created and encouraged the entitlement mentality.
Having said that, who wouldn’t do exactly what you’ve done in today’s world? The money is there – take it.
God bless you for caring for your brother-in-law.
You are absolutely right on that, Firebird. And thank you again for your kind words. I am sure this change in my life is making me a better and less self-centered person.
I’ve been thinking a bit more, though. There’s another angle to this, on the question of who benefits from a welfare economy in which the State takes on the functions previously done by family and local charity.
I’ve heard the claim that the old age pensions were at least in part introduced in Germany by Bismark in part so that young men would be less resistant to leaving their responsibilities of caring for their parents when drafted into military service.
Steve alluded to this above – in a society where there were no government subsidies and folks were dependent on family and local communities, there would be a strong disincentive for people to move away from their families and away from the local communities in which they were well known.
This ties in pretty well with JMK’s thoughts on Corporatism. Could it be the case that at some level, government welfare is not just about buying votes or about caring for the disabled, but is an active collaboration with industry to promote a mobile workforce with fewer binding ties to family and community?
Creepy thought, and maybe a bit on the conspiracy-minded side, but how many folks have moved for their career that wouldn’t have moved if their parents depended on them for support.
Do you have a good source on Bismarck’s social policies–all the books I can find at the public library seem to pertain to his political and military stuff?
Unfortunately not, that tie was was based on reading undocumented discussions.
Wikipedia lists some likely looking volumes under “Specialized Studies”
Beck, Hermann (1995), Origins of the Authoritarian Welfare State in Prussia, 1815–1870.
Hennock, E. P. The Origin of the Welfare State in England and Germany, 1850–1914: Social Policies Compared (Cambridge University Press, 2007) 381 pp.
Kindle (and Amazon) have a pretty thorough biography of Bismark by Jonathan Steinberg. Titled, Bismark. Somewhat dry and long but pretty detailed.
My mother has been dealing with frustrating situation for the past decade. My aunt is mentally unstable. She went undiagnosed and untreated for decades while supported/enabled by my grandparents. Once my grandfather started living in the VA hospital my mother became primarily responsible for her care and the full roster of her problems became apparent.
Shockingly she had managed to hold on to a job for a government agency for years, but it finally reached a point where that was no longer possible. Her apartment was condemned by the city and she now lives (temporarily – for the past year) in a home for the disabled (I think she’s there technically for a physical disability). My mom is in the process of trying to get a state-appointed caretaker for her so that she will have a place to live and some kind of government money coming in for her care.
My aunt is a compulsive liar and a thief. She opened up credit cards in my dead grandmother’s name and ran up $15,000+ in debt. She is a hoarder and if she were to move in with my mother would immediately start filling the house with stuff. She cannot be stopped. She cannot live on her own. She needs to be institutionalized. My mother is delaying the distribution of my grandfather’s modest estate so that hopefully she can put my aunt’s inheritance (5K) in a trust to pay for medical and other future bills (if it were given directly to my aunt she would spend it in a week, if that).
I suppose in the past her care would have been entirely the family’s responsibility. Is my mother supposed to spend the entire rest of her life giving 24/7 care to her sister? Is she supposed to use her life’s savings on her? Are we nieces and nephews supposed to quit our jobs, move back to the Midwest and then use all of our savings to care for her?
We have all contributed in one way or another to her care. We don’t want her to end up on the street but we also can’t take her in – lest someone belittle the hoarding problem, SHE WILL FILL ANY SPACE SHE OCCUPIES WITH OBJECTS AND ANIMALS. Isn’t it to society’s benefit in general that we other family members are able to have productive lives as well? I do think families need to take responsibility to care for family members, but there is a point where that is just too much. I want to earn my keep and pay my way and do my part, but thank god for the social safety net.
“I suppose in the past her care would have been entirely the family’s responsibility. Is my mother supposed to spend the entire rest of her life giving 24/7 care to her sister? Is she supposed to use her life’s savings on her? Are we nieces and nephews supposed to quit our jobs, move back to the Midwest and then use all of our savings to care for her?”
The Objectivist argument Firebird is making (she may or may not realize it is an Objectivist argument) is that if the family takes care of its responsibilites, taxes will be lower for everyone else. It is just a matter of bad luck for you, or more accurately as it is usually phrased by those on the right, your family and aunt probably did something wrong and deserve the problems you created. While you and your family would suffer economically, everyone else would be better off.
Steve
Steve,
Yuck. That world-view puts a premium on low taxes and economic prosperity over everything else. I’d rather live in a world where we (the society-We) care for those support the family-We and also individuals who are unable to care for themselves. If every person’s circumstances were completely of their own making then maybe the Objectivist plan would work. But sometimes we are not in control. Bad things happen to good people. And bad things happen to bad people.
Bests,
Sara
Oops. SALLY. Who’s Sara?
It is just a matter of bad luck for you, or more accurately as it is usually phrased by those on the right, your family and aunt probably did something wrong and deserve the problems you created. While you and your family would suffer economically, everyone else would be better off.
This is horse krap, Steve….. If it was an attempt at humor, if failed. If you really believe this is what I think, well, now THAT is funny right there.
Here’s an article you might find interesting….
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/247pr/258377
In the early 19th century, states legislatures began allocating money for asylums, because aged, disabled, incompetent family members were often chained in basements and fed slop, not because their families didn’t care, but because life was a struggle, doing laundry was an all day once a week affair, nobody had time to properly care for Aunt Sally. Don’t sugar coat the past.
Modern group homes (subsidized) and payments to families, SSDI, etc. are an attempt to transfer the responsibility of asylums back to families, with perhaps somewhat less cost to government and taxpayers. Its not an out-of-the-blue public payment for what families used to gladly do for free.
Some people, not all, would be better off in a well run asylum. Some need a controlled, predictable, easily comprehended environment. Some need round the clock care, and whoever provides it should work a well-paid eight-hour shift. Further, families are not under any obligation to take in such disabled relations. Then what?