Quotes are taken from a message written by Tom to Charles on 06/30/96...
TC>While I understand the line of thought IMO IF, and that is a big IF, we
TC>would stop allowing the system to be misused by the not so needy.  The
TC>truly hungry could have more funds for food and real basic needs could
TC>be met.  We simply make cheating and receiving handout the expected norm
TC>and the public school systems perpetuate the process to great excess.
We're going 'round and 'round on this.  I don't argue the concept of the 
need to stop cheaters, but, 1) is it worth allowing school districts the 
right to invade the individual's privacy by requesting copies of federal 
income tax forms, and 2) is it worth the additional expense to hire 
people to review these forms and thus increase the size of the 
bureaucracy?  Let's face it - cheating on the government is rampant.  We 
won't name names here, but we *both* know people who have accepted 
payment for a job at one time or another who have not claimed that money 
on their taxes - and now we may not even be talking about poor people.  
I don't see how we can stop it all unless everyone in the country gets 
morality all of a sudden.
TC>CB>You say that the free lunch program and Head Start are a waste and that
TC>>this can be proven?  I'm at a loss for words - this is totally
TC>>contradictory to everything I have read.  Can you give me a hint as to
TC>>where you've seen this evidence?
TC>
TC>CSPAN primary source during discussions of educational issues and the
TC>actual overall results of head start.  Educational material of course
TC>would give a rosy picture of title one as it is a source of funding and
TC>funding is power.  I also have a friend that makes her living from these
TC>fundings in Michigan and a couple in Arkansas.  All have through
TC>personal knowledge seen the head start "advantage" fade to little or
TC>nothing by the third or fourth grade.
Your assessment of Head Start, then, is not that it is ineffective in 
helping underprivileged children, but that the effects of the program, 
aimed at 3- and 4-year-old children, wears off by third or fourth grade? 
 Then what we have heard and read is in agreement.  So, the question 
remains, is the glass half-full or half-empty?  Since children in Head 
Start programs show significant improvements in school only through 3rd 
or 4th grade, does that mean we should eliminate the program so that 
they don't get any of the advantage, or should we perhaps consider a 
follow-up program, call it "keeping-up," for third graders?
If you had a cancer and knew that the treatment for it would 
significantly improve the quality of your life for only the next 3 or 4 
years, would you pay to have the treatment?  Or would you elect *not* to 
pay for it because you knew that after 3 or 4 years the treatment would 
stop having an effect?  And how does the notion that a new cure might be 
available after the 3rd or 4th year impact your decision?
You know I believe in the ability of social programs to improve people's 
lives - and I know that you don't.  The issue that drives me here is the 
very strongly held belief that education is the answer to many of our 
social ills.  I am firmly convinced that the way to reduce the size of 
our ghettos is to educate people so they can work for a living wage and 
*any* social program that moves us in that direction is a good social 
program.  I am all in favor of welfare reforms that tie welfare payments 
to children's attendance and success in school and programs that help 
kids in school.
It is trite to talk about the success families have had because of the 
opportunity to get a good education, but it has never been more strongly 
evident than in my family.  One grandfather of mine was a janitor all of 
his life, and my other grandfather escaped from the farm only to jump 
from one low-paying job to another all of his life.  Without social 
security and Medicaid, both of them would have lived very miserable 
lives in old age.  These "welfare programs" were a God-send.  My father 
was the first of his family to attend college, all thanks to that famous 
welfare program known as the GI Bill...without which he could never have 
afforded college.  My dad became a teacher, later a principal and later 
still, a superintendent of schools.
An uncle of mine, one of my mother's brothers, got a 4-year engineering 
degree from Purdue as an enlistee in the US Navy, another "welfare 
program."  Later still they sent him to communications school in 
California for his Master's degree - again at government expense.  He 
later became a Captain in the Navy and served for several years as chief 
officer for all of NATO communications.  When he retired from the Navy 
at age 38, he took a job as Vice-President of a think tank In D.C., 
hired because of his Washington connections.  Today my uncle brags that 
he has reached his goal of becoming a millionaire - and, although he 
does not credit the government for his success, the Navy and its 
"welfare programs" took an 18-year-old kid who could not have afforded 
college and made him successful beyond his family's wildest dreams.
I won't go into details about my wife's side of the family - they were 
even poorer than we were.  My wife is the first in her family to get a 
4-year college degree, many thanks to federally subsidized loans.  Today 
she and I are doing very well, paying lots of taxes and returning much 
of what our families took from the system to make our lives better.
Make all of the noise you want about social programs not being effective 
and I'll never stop believing.  It has become popular in some circles to 
ask the question, "Can you name one program the government has ever run 
that has been successful?"  In my mind, I can name dozens.
At least that's how I see it.
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* Atheist Xmas movie: "Coincidence on 34th Street!"
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------