<![CDATA[Haley2024 the Movement - Blog on Welfare to Charity]]>

<![CDATA[Haley2024 the Movement - Blog on Welfare to Charity]]>Sun, 25 Feb 2024 15:08:49 -0500Weebly<![CDATA[Growing Americans’ Political Will to Replace Government Welfare with Private Charities]]>Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:39:33 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/growing-americans-political-will-to-replace-government-welfare-with-private-charities

By Bill Haley
Americans freely donate several hundred million dollars to the government per year; however, that is dwarfed by over a thousand times by donations to private charities. Americans gave $410.02 billion to charity in 2017. At the same time, Americans overwhelmingly support candidates that vote for government-provided welfare.

Why do Americans favor charities over government welfare by wide margins and yet have such a low political will to rely on private charities by stopping government-funded aid? It is evident that the American people do not want to just stop welfare cold and wish for the best.

Will donations fund private charities enough to cover the need? Will there be the proper organization to ensure the full assortment of unmet needs are met? Will dastardly people discriminate? Will corruption thrive? What about caseworkers? Everyone has different views on the real concerns of the total reliance on private charities.

The numerous ill effects of government welfare are significant, led by the disastrous increase of fatherless homes. Americans should try to address all the issues of private charity concerns so that we can increase the political will to eliminate government welfare at all levels of government.

The Mandate to Contribute to Charities

To address the sufficient funding issue, Americans should mandate every American contribute to charities to match the current government funding. This is a switch from a mandate to help the poor through government to a mandate to help the poor through charities. Incrementally, over a decade, one means-tested program at a time would stop, and the tax rates would be lowered to match. The exact amount of the tax decrease would be mandated to be contributed to charities. To increase the political will on the Left, the Left needs to know that ‘the rich’ will pay their fair share.

A serious division of labor with experts in many different aspects of providing for unmet severe needs is essential. Assessing the needs, evaluating the reason for the needs, calculating the family dynamic, judging the best path forward, and determining the most efficient provision of the need all need experts with specialized skills and wisdom. Life coaches and many other experts will be hired to examine the best way forward for every one that falls on the mercy of society.

Charitable Distribution Associations

People will quickly have several concerns dealing with corruption and the proper distribution of contributed funds to cover all the needs. These, as well as many other concerns, can be addressed by establishing Charitable Distribution Associations (CDA’s) that accepts all mandatory contributions. The government could set up roughly a dozen CDA’s with different philosophies of how to help the poor. Every American chooses to become a member of one of the CDA’s. Every CDA must have at least 5% of citizens and no more than 20%.

These CDA’s become totally private; however, gain their authority to accept mandatory contributions by having at least 5% of Americans as members. Members would vote on their leaders of their CDA and philosophy adjustments. It is important to note that every citizen can only affect their CDA with their votes. Americans can change CDA’s at will. A CDA that loses memberships and falls below 5% will be dissolved.

As the name suggests, CDA’s distribute the funding to charities. A CDA does not do the actual helping directly. This is an important check and balance issue. CDA’s would study all the charities to determine which charities have the best model to end homelessness, feed the hungry, provide medical care, among providing for other needs.

Every charity would have roughly a dozen CDA’s to persuade to utilize their services. Those charities serving their fellow man the best receive funding and unproductive charity models would starve. This would reduce fundraising time and expenses. Quality work will sell a charity’s services, not advertising.

Case Workers

Providing food, shelter, and medical care are vital; however, if that is all charities do, these charities could start to do as much damage as government welfare. Helping people is difficult and complicated. A good life coach with the real power of saying ‘no, I will not help if you are going down the wrong path’ is essential. Each CDA would likely use different caseworker companies or give the caseworkers its CDA philosophy. This is where competition is the most vital.

One massive element of being a caseworker is requiring those seeking help to serve others. Caseworkers would use individual subjective determination. This is where charities are so much more valuable compared to the government’s one-size-fits-all welfare programs. The most significant harm of government qualifications to receive benefits is the poor’s ability to demand versus requesting benefits.

The poor need many services, and the poor can provide many services. The caseworker might team four single-parent families up to assist each other with childcare so each of the adults can work. Many could do shifts at the nursing home or gain skills in an apprenticeship program. This work, on the most part, would not be paid. This work is in exchange for charity benefits.

All charities, caseworkers, beneficiaries, and those businesses they work with would be exempt from all labor laws. The work hours from those being assisted would be able to work within any aspect of this charity system. Charitable work opportunities are substantial. This system could be astonishingly dynamic.

Accountability Organizations

If supporters of a full transition away from government welfare to private charities want to gain the required political will to pass the necessary legislation, they possibly need an additional step. Americans desire high-quality information. The essential element of individual subjective determination is by its very nature, open to abuse. They need organizations that have the authority to thoroughly examine everything in this charity system and report back to the people. This task will also need multiple organizations.

The American people have a wide variety of opinions on what encompasses proper charitable procedures and even reputable results. Just like CDA’s, these Accountability Organizations will have different philosophies of rating charities. Rating charities is so much more than the percentage going to administration costs. A dozen Accountability Organizations would be formed. Americans become members and vote on the leadership of these organizations. 5% of the mandated contributions go to the member's Accountability Organization.

If Caseworkers can put these people asking for assistance, to work helping out others in dynamic ways, accountability from a wide variety of organizations is wise. Charities having the total ability to work through religious organizations, would need oversight in the eyes of many citizens. If charities, caseworkers or CDA’s receive poor ratings, Americans would change CDA’s, demand their CDA change caseworker companies, or other needed changes to increase assessments scores.

In conclusion, the American people know that government welfare is broken and doing real damage. If those on the side of transitioning to private charities want to gain the political will to pass legislation, they need to show a viable alternative. There are dozens of means-tested programs, let us at least start with one and work out the issues.

]]><![CDATA[Helping People Is Difficult and Complicated]]>Sun, 04 Aug 2019 16:59:27 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/helping-people-is-difficult-and-complicated

Some people have unmet serious needs and fall on the mercy of society to fulfill those serious needs. How did these people advance into their bad situation? How should society help? Thousands of factors come into play. Wisdom, experience, and competition are crucial to delivering assistance. Because the needs of every person and family are different, a subjective determination is unequivocally essential. While I stay on topic with this article, I will introduce the Haley2024 Charity System as a contrast with government welfare.

The government took over the role of helping the poor. That transition yielded less religious involvement; thus, reducing one of the great motivations to help. The conversion to government welfare removed competition. Individual subjective determination yielded to a one size fits all system. Wisdom and experience of people in the neighborhoods gave way to bureaucrats thousands of miles away. The ability of charities to say ‘no,’ switched to the ability of people to demand help.

It is important to note that society is defined by all the people in a geographic region. Society establishes a government to handle specific tasks and assigns businesses, organizations, charities, churches, and individuals to handle everything else. Haley2024 proposes that society transition away from using government to help the poor and replace it with the Haley2024 Charity System built within the free enterprise system.

Living in a Society with Serious Unmet Needs Is a Negative Externality

Should those needs be met by society? Should Society be forced to meet those needs? If society were not mandated to meet those needs; would those needs be met? If there was a mandate to help fulfill those needs; what needs would be included, and how should the mandate be manifested? If society decides they should fulfill those needs; should it be met by private individuals, organizations, and churches or by government action? These questions are answered throughout this article.

Most people want to live in a society where people are not living on the street, going without healthcare, starving, uneducated, or living with other serious unmet needs. Adverse effects on everyone occurs when some people are in poverty. Property values decrease when large homeless encampments are close by. People do not like other people suffering. The quality of life is reduced for all people when additional people are in misery.

A Rating Floor on Not Becoming a Burden on Society

People have righteous anger on those that do not mitigate their and their dependents risk of falling on the mercy of society. Most people want their charitable giving to go to those that did everything right but were part of the unlucky few that fell on hard times. A high percentage of society desires those they are being helped to appreciate the help and make every effort to help themselves. When some people put themselves in bad situations that yield many serious unmet needs, they are overwhelming the resources to meet those needs.

The Haley2024 Rating System uses Rating Floors in many Sectors to ensure citizens are taking reasonable steps to not become a burden on society. The 5% mandate to contribute to charities within the Haley2024 Charity System is to ensure there are the necessary funds to fulfill the needs of those that still fall in need. This structure has an extensive division of labor, responsibilities, and competition of different charity models.

Giving food, Shelter, and Health Care

People see hunger and make food available. The homeless are without shelter, and people provide a house. Medical needs are identified, and people hire or otherwise pay for a doctor and nurse. Sure, those items are included in most efforts to help the poor; however, if that is the extent of the efforts, it would yield many adverse consequences.

The Worth of Requiring the Needy to Work

The Bible states, “If anyone isn’t willing to work, he should not eat.” Many people want to take this out of context or give a fallacious meaning to it. If a capable man states that he will not work and demands that you feed him, the demand should go unfilled. Hunger is a great motivator to work. If the demand for food is met, the hungry man and those that feed him are both harmed. The adjectives ‘capable’ and ‘willing’ are crucial.

The Self Worth of Earning

Being dependent on others injures a man’s soul, pride, and self-worth. Men instinctively know that women do not respect a man that just takes handouts and cannot support himself or his family. Many men feel threatened by a wife that out-earns him. Stay at home dads are a small fraction of stay at home mothers for an essential reason. On the most part; men look for a spouse that can raise children and women are looking for a spouse that can financially support a family.

A significant part of the Haley2024 Charity System is the notion of requiring those receiving help to put in work hours. Many people will be concerned with the notion of men and women having different priorities. Citizens having varying opinions about the nature of families, charities, assessing needs, work requirements, ethical requirements, religion, education requirements, among others is the reason there would be roughly a dozen CRA’s in the Family Law, Religion, Assessor Organizations, Charities, and CDA’s Sectors.

The Poor Are Capable: Stop the Paternalism

With only a few exceptions, everyone has capabilities that can serve others. Wise people in Assessor Organizations competing with other knowledgeable people for the best ratings will put people to work if they fall on the mercy of charities. Every Charity Rating System would decide what values they wish to weigh highest; however, moving people to independence or the greatest level of interdependence as possible would be high on most RA’s list. Many RA’s would value a sense of self-respect and belonging to a community.

Under the government Social Security disability program, people get stuck in a nonworking lifestyle. When someone is disabled, rarely they become a total invalid. People know that qualifying for that benefit is very difficult and time-consuming. One of the requirements to stay on that benefit is to not work. Everyone hears stories of that person who took a part-time job within their abilities and lost their benefits.

The disabled person just wanted to be useful and needed help to make ends meet. The workplace made some accommodations for the disability and gave the person many breaks. The government is stringent on qualifications and kicked them off the program. The person still cannot work full-time and in need of many accommodations. The doctors get flagged as qualifying someone as disabled that ended up working. The doctor is reluctant to requalify that same person because the government might charge the doctor with fraud or gaming the system.

The government, by the definition of law, cannot use subjective determination on an individual basis. The Haley2024 Charity System was built around the notion of subjective determination. This Charity Economy would specialize in putting people to work within their abilities. People could come out of the shadows of working under the table.

Teach, Apprenticeship, Life Coach

The majority of the time, when someone falls on the mercy of society with serious unmet needs, that person made bad life decisions. There are a small percentage of people that did everything right and just had unfortunate hard breaks. Either way, a life coach can come in very handy. Social workers in the current system can be beneficial; however, they lack the ability to pull benefits if bad life decisions continue.

The ability of the Haley2024 Assessor Organizations (AO’s) to require work, education, among others as a condition of receiving benefits is a crucial factor to make this system work. The reason there are roughly a dozen different AO’s is that everyone has a different philosophy of helping the poor.

Capital and Banking Law

It is difficult in the current economy to try to compete with companies with the proper machines to help make products or provide services. If an impoverished person tries to compete in business, they need capital to get a good start. The necessary high taxes for government welfare, the pay as you go government retirement system, and tremendous government debt lower the amount of capital in the system. Decreased levels of capital in the system does not reach very far into the less wealthy demographic groups.

Numerous banking laws inhibit the poor or those with poor credit from banking. A large percentage of people dislike payday loan or check-cashing stores. A proper look at banking regulations will demonstrate how those regulations push the poor out of regular banks and into the hands of the high-priced payday loan or check-cashing stores. Better regulations from the Financial CRA’s will likely eliminate those stores with competition and allow the banks to serve everyone.

Game Playing

People examine the qualifications to receive government benefits. If a person understands that they almost qualify for a benefit, they are motivated to change their circumstance to gain the benefit. Many laws include or exclude a married person from a benefit. Depending on the situation, people are encouraged or discouraged to marry or get a divorce. Some people divorce so a spouse can receive Medicaid without exhausting their retirement accounts.

Different tax laws give married people benefits, and other tax codes create a marriage penalty. Parents are giving up custody of their 17-year-olds so the teenager can access student loans and grants for college. My wife came to me and asked me to stop increasing my income at my place of employment so we could keep Medicaid as a backup option. The elderly know well that their S.S. benefits are reduced if they earn money.

Perhaps the worse example of changing one’s circumstances to gain government benefits is mothers not marrying the father of their children. The harm is overwhelming and multifaceted. This one requirement has pushed the percentage of the single-parent household from the 20s to the 60s. Other welfare programs yield large neighborhoods with 90+% of fatherless homes.

Analyzing Finances

Helping the poor is very difficult; therefore, a division of labor is essential. Within Assessor Organizations, separate people will dig deep into the finances of the person requesting help. This is done within the government system as well; however, with many different approaches from the different AO’s, varying methods of analyzing finances would be considered.

Every AO would have policies regarding privacy and not harming the dignity of the person requesting help. The Charity Rating Systems would also have access to this information in segregated and private ways. One of the main purposes of the Rating System is to stop abuses and corruption.

Stop the Government from Making It Unlawful to Work

The government created labor law, currently inhibits many low skilled, inexperienced, and those with bad reputations from working. Licenses and degrees needed to work specific professions are hard to attain by the poor. While medical CRA’s would likely mandate high levels of training to do operations, thousands of hours of training to arrange flowers or braid hair is not likely under the CRA Structure.

In Conclusion

The very nature of government inhibits the most essential elements necessary to help the poor. Simply providing to meet the need can do much harm. Wisdom, experience, training, mandating, coaching, allowing, prohibiting, and liberty are indispensable.

]]><![CDATA[Funding Charities Is More Rewarding Than Funding Government Welfare]]>Tue, 23 Jul 2019 00:35:49 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/funding-charities-is-more-rewarding-than-funding-government-welfare

On the Haley2024 Laffer Curve Page, I describe how people will make decisions on working the next taxable hour based on after-tax pay. This blog proposes the theory that a tax system that funds charities would create fewer disincentives versus the same amount of funding for government-controlled welfare programs. How the taxpayers’ money is spent means a lot.

A significant factor whether one works additional taxable hours is the reduced take-home pay from income taxes or the additional costs of sales or other embedded taxes. The full percentage of a transaction taken by the government of all taxes is the base level of the disincentive. However, the general taxpayer’s support and the sense of productive and efficient use of taxpayer money can really change whether people actively want to pay more or fewer taxes.

If a taxpayer is ambivalent about the worth and morality of government spending, the tax rate creates a base level of disincentives of working the next taxable hour. If a taxpayer is hostile to how the government is spending money, the deterrent of taxable work hours grows. If the taxpayer is highly supportive of government spending, the discouragement can decrease and even move to incentivize working the next taxable hour.

Many Americans do not like the welfare state. Both the Left and Right think there is a welfare trap where people on welfare have a hard time escaping the government system. Numerous Americans see welfare abuses, such as buying junk and ‘rich’ food. Countless Americans see some people deliberately meeting the requirements to qualify for additional welfare benefits.

Many citizens support charities. People really like helping people in need. The significant difference between government welfare and charity is subjective determination. Charities try to limit the destructive lifestyles and shy away from enabling dependency. Charities wisely and productively use scarce resources. Government laws simply cannot use subjective determination at an individual level.

Some people support the welfare state with their words; however, rarely with their freely donated dollars. A meager percentage of people pay more taxes than what they legally owe. Charities receive thousands of times more money voluntarily. A decent portion of people put in labor hours working directly for charities.

Numerous Americans understand their tax money is funding welfare and believe that fulfills their duty to help the poor. Without government funding serious unmet needs, a vast percentage of the citizens would start or increase their charitable giving.

Americans understand that charities curtailed their charitable activities when the government started to take over certain functions. A charity’s essential ability to say ‘no, we will not enable dependency,’ was dramatically harmed by the poor’s ability to demand government help if they put themselves in a qualified position.

The Haley2024 Charity System removes 100% of government welfare and lowers tax rates to match the reduction of government spending. This Charity System requires citizens and businesses to ‘donate’ 5% of their earnings to charities. Within this charity structure, citizens have many options to pick their charity philosophy. The Left could use their donations to advance organizations with their viewpoints and the Right, or Liberty-Minded citizens would help solve unmet needs using diverse approaches.

If someone were deciding whether to work additional hours for the payment of $100, they know they would only take home $95 (for right now, excluding all other necessary taxes). Typically, this would result in roughly 5% of people deciding to take leisure hours versus working. Having YOUR charities in direct competition with other charities to ‘do the most good’ and you genuinely happy with the poor being helped, in your opinion, ‘the correct way,’ would lessen the disincentive and possibly incentivize you to increase your labor hours.

The Haley2024 Charity System, along with the Rating System, encourages businesses to help the poor in productive and efficient ways. Many companies would have incentives to allow their employees doing their regular jobs to, directly and indirectly, meet the poor’s unfulfilled needs. The Rating System would be able to capture a significantly dynamic system to incentivize positive and to deter negative externalities.

Taxes and spending going into and out of a general fund hinder a taxpayer’s ability to associate their taxes with government services. Connecting a tax to specific spending can influence taxpayers’ activities. People seeing a clear connection makes it more like buying the services directly and not just an added expense. Keeping taxes and spending local can also help people see direct links. Taxing one million people for the benefit of one thousand people creates many more ‘affirmatives’ on government spending.

When someone who is deciding whether to work the next hour, hates that America is at war, they are repulsed at sending more money to the government. Their disincentive to work grows so as not to fund the war effort.

In WWII, mothers, wives, aunts, sisters, and daughters did not base their willingness to work on the money they would take home. The overriding reason these women worked 60 or 70 hours a week is to make the weapons and other supplies to give their husbands, sons, uncles, nephews and other loved ones a better chance to come home alive and to win the war they agreed with.

If citizens had many options on what charity would receive their money, the participation would increase. Many pro-life employees would not like any money going to an abortion-related charity but would be happy to contribute to adoptions and pregnancy support charities.

Citizens want to see that their donations are doing the most good. They want to see appreciation from the recipients. They want the charities to ensure the money does not enable dependency. They want to ensure the recipients have a path to independence. They want to ensure the recipients are living a respectable lifestyle. They do not want their food aid going to sodas and lobsters. Citizens should be able to state with their dollars that they do not wish to support a destructive lifestyle.

A couple hundred million dollars are donated to the government, mostly earmarked to charity-like functions such as the National Institutes of Health at $51 million (2010) and National Science Foundation $54 million or to the Veterans. That might sound like a lot; however, with roughly 110 million households in America, it is merely a few dollars per family. To pay down the national debt, the average yearly contribution is a few million dollars.

1 billion dollars is one thousand times as much as 1 million dollars.

Giving USA 2018: Americans Gave $410.02 Billion to Charity in 2017 or roughly $4,000 per household. Americans voluntarily donate to private sector charities over a thousand times as much as voluntarily donating to the government. If your company had a meeting asking for employees to support charities with extra hours of work, many employees would consider it much more compared to extra hours working to send the money to the government.

In conclusion, when people are supportive of where their mandated donation is going, the deterrent of the tax is reduced. The Haley2024 Charity System proposes that contributions are mandatory for many reasons. The Laffer Curve affects should be at the slow loss of GDP chart, and the 5% mandate having little consequence.

]]><![CDATA[Helping the Poor]]>Sat, 27 Apr 2019 12:51:38 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/helping-the-poorCreated as a web page in 2014, transitioning to a Blog Post on 4-27-2019. I will leave the post mostly unchanged; however, add QIP’s of newer posts within this page.

Many will rightfully ask about the tough cases of poverty and the real need in some people’s lives. Haley2024 outshines government poverty inducing help in this area.

First, we have Charitable Distribution Associations that will compete to have the best ratings on genuinely helping those in need. CDAs will work with the hundreds of CRAs from all the Sectors as they will also be rated on helping those in need. Every individual will choose what CDA they will contribute to and will vote daily with their purchases on products and companies that have ratings on charity.

There is a vast gulf between the left, the right, and the libertarian’s method of helping those in need. Each person will be able to choose to put their money and time into organizations with whom they agree. Haley2024 introduces share loans and volunteer hours as currency, and every CRA throughout all Sectors are incentivized to develop new innovative ways of helping within their area of expertise.

If one chooses to enter into an opt-in statism organization, they may have several ways of a top-down structured system. Many opt-in statism organizations will emerge and have many experiments in how to organize statism.

With education being privatized without government money, the Haley2024 education plan gives the poor many different options for their children's education. Without heavy taxes for government-funded schools, funds will be available for immediate education funding and long term share loans. The home-school movement has given plenty of proof of how children can be well educated with a minimal budget.

Health care for the poor has been done by charity and by doctors giving of their time before the government started to help. Government help pushes out charity. CDA’s, insurance CRAs, health care CRAs, etc. will experiment with different methods and structures and the best will continuously surpass other methods.

]]><![CDATA[The Mandate to Help the Poor]]>Tue, 09 Apr 2019 22:05:05 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/the-mandate-to-help-the-poor

Over 95% of citizens believe society should be mandated to help the poor. The small percentage of the people that do not think it is wise for the mandate; still, mostly believe that people should voluntarily give to help the poor.

America currently mandates that everyone helps the poor through government. Everyone is mandated to pay the taxes used to pay welfare benefits whether it is income taxes or hidden business taxes embedded in products everyone purchases.

America currently helps the poor through the tax code, welfare benefits, subsidies, and charities. The Universal Basic Income is suggested. The negative income tax was proposed by Milton Friedman. Almost all government mandates go through government control.

Haley2024 would like to introduce a new concept of mandating that everyone contribute towards charities as a total replacement of all government programs to help the poor. Stopping government welfare and assistance programs and mandating everyone funding charities is a new innovative reform that needs to enter the arena of ideas.

Five big issues must be addressed. First, there must be adequate funding levels to address the needs. Second, high-quality caseworkers must have subjective determination. Third, the caseworker must have the ability to require work hours from those people they are helping. Fourth, charities must have the ability to have wide-spread experimentation on business/charity models. Fifth, charities must be able to create a charity economy free of all labor laws and other government restrictions.

The Haley2024 proposal is that over eight years, the government would stop programs, one program at a time and reduce tax rates to match. The amount of the reduced taxes must be donated to charities to accomplish the goal of the discontinued welfare program. Through the transition, the amount of funding to help the poor does not change, so adequate funding levels are met. Depending on how many programs transition over, $1 trillion a year or roughly 5% of GDP would be required to be donated.

The CRA Structure creates a complete representative Sector dealing with caseworkers. The Assessor Organization Sector will have many free market companies competing for the business of being the best caseworkers. Different Assessor Organizations (AO’s) would compete on how many people become self-sufficient and no longer need assistance.

There are dozens of essential factors in which AO’s would be judged. A great caseworker is worth there weight in gold, and a lousy caseworker is worth negative hundreds of thousands of dollars. Most people are more willing to give to a charity if they know the person being helped is on the right path out of dependency.

The ability of caseworkers to require ‘unpaid’ work hours from the people they are helping can fulfill three essential goals. First, the person receiving help can get the satisfaction and pride in earning the support they are receiving. Second, this required ‘unpaid’ work stops the benefit cliff issues. Most benefit cliff issues are dealt with by the subjective determination of Assessor Organizations; however, having to work ‘unpaid’ will motivate those needing help to find a real job.

The ‘pay’ is the charity assistance they receive. Third, the work is mostly directly helping the poor such as requiring two single mothers to watch each other’s children when the other mother works. Many work hours are likely taking shifts working in nursing homes. Apprenticeships are likely. The options are endless.

Government laws for current government welfare create one narrow welfare model. Studies have clearly shown that charities are always crowded out and diminished when government provision of helping the poor grows. With a robust and healthy competition among many charities to use limited charity money wisely, many charity models would emerge. Ineffective models would yield to other models with proven results. It is entirely possible that many people will pay their mandatory contributions by providing their companies services to the poor.

It is vitally important that the government does not interfere in the Charity Economy in any way. Innovative and dynamic Charity Economy models would develop when there are no restrictions. Assessor organizations, charities and Charitable Distribution Associations must have great flexibility. The Charity Economy will give people needing help making ends meet, a quick job and benefits without an assessor. Roughly a dozen Charity Economies will compete for the best model.

About sixty Rating Agencies in Five Rating Systems will give high-quality information from many perspectives. Citizens within these systems make better decisions with better information. The ineffective and harmful policies will yield to better strategies.

]]><![CDATA[The Transition from Welfare]]>Mon, 18 Feb 2019 03:46:23 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/the-transition-from-welfare

The structure of the government welfare system entraps the poor. It is doing actual harm to the poor. The government can not fix the issues within the current structure. The system needs subjective determination and wisdom on an individual basis that is not possible with legislation. I, Bill Haley care deeply about the poor. The proposal is strictly about moving as many people out of the welfare system as a result of becoming a self-sufficient part of the interdependent free enterprise system.

Too many people stay entrapped in poverty because of how the government welfare system is structured. Government politicians do not desire to harm; however, harm is still the result.

For over fifty years, the government has held the responsibility of alleviating poverty. The redistribution of tens of trillions of dollars has occurred. The results, however, do not reflect the potential held by these resources.

The need to move to a Charity System is profound. At the bottom of this page is the full proposed system. However, the number of politicians from around this country that need to let go of power is overwhelming and highly unlikely. The proposal here is to start setting up parts of this system through state legislation. The fight against federal legislative overreach needs strong action on many fronts. The goal is to switch from taxing and spending by government to the funds directed towards charities.

The plan is to set up Assessor Organizations, Rating Agencies, and the Charity Economy. There is a full realization that legal issues will arise. However, there is a need to fight on many fronts to make this happen. While simple legislation is sufficient, a proposed state constitutional amendment could assist the legal fight.

The legislation and a constitutional amendment should be written in short, broad terms and not micromanaged regulations. The legislation would put one additional requirement of eligibility to receive welfare benefits. That requirement would be a sign off by an assessor organization. The legislation would create checks and balances within the Assessor Organization system. The Rating System would be an additional check on abuse. The legislation would create a Charity Economy.

The state law would mandate that people receiving welfare need to go to an Assessor Organization and get assessed. The Assessor Organization can assign work hours in the Charity Economy to individuals receiving welfare. The welfare recipient needs to do those work hours to stay eligible for government welfare benefits. Assessors are subjective in determining the individual situation and must sign off on eligibility.

Assessor Organizations are going to be hybrid private, public and representative organizations. They are public because the government created them and they have the responsibility to sign off on government benefits. They are private because it is not controlled or paid for by the government. They are representative because every registered voter will pick an Assessor Organization, thus determining their size and level of authority. An Assessor Organization receives its legal authority by citizen membership. Members vote for the leadership of their Assessor Organization.

Assessor Organizations are started with a small investment from the state for a three-month set-up. Every state delegate will appoint one assessor. Every state senator will appoint two assessors. The Governor will appoint twenty assessors. These 200 assessors will have 45 days to group into about a dozen assessor organizations. Every Assessor Organization must be between 5% and 20% of the 200 assessors. Each Assessor Organization will put out their philosophy of how they will help the poor and conduct their business.

All Assessor Organizations will advertise to gain the trust of as many voters as possible. Citizens choose their Assessor Organization through secure online websites as well as many government offices, schools, and libraries. By the end of the third month, Assessor Organizations must regroup if under the 5% or above the 20% limits, now being measured by the number of citizens that give their trust. After the regrouping, citizens giving their trust, vote securely online for the leadership of their Assessor Organization. Citizens can switch which Assessor Organization they put their trust in at will, and that affects the level of authority of the different Assessor Organizations.

Every Assessor Organization receives its level of authority by the number of citizens that choose or ‘trust’ them. Every Assessor Organization needs to be ‘trusted’ by at least 5% and not more than 20% of citizens. If they fall below 5%, they shut down and if over 20% they split into two separate Assessor Organizations. Citizens must change their ‘trusted assessor’ when the situation dictates. Every Assessor Organization can only take the percentage of welfare recipients that match their ‘trust’ percentage rate. Welfare recipients can choose any Assessor Organization that still has room.

Welfare recipients will not get paid for any of this work. This work is a way of ‘giving back’ for the benefits they are receiving. The government benefits are the ‘pay.’ This work is intended to train them in a skill that can translate into a real job in the economy, increase living standards of the poor and save the government money. Many of these goals are by necessity, dynamic and subjective. The method of achieving these goals are not well suited for legislation.

The Rating System is set up the same way as Assessor Organizations, yet separate. It starts the same way with 200 representatives chosen by legislators. It has 5% and 20% limitations. It has citizens choosing or trusting the Rating Agencies. That trust gives real power to the Rating Agencies and makes them representatives of each citizen because the size and authority of each Rating Agency are determined by how many citizens trust them.

Each Rating Agency rates every Assessor Organization the way they see fit. The ratings are updated daily by each Rating Agency and posted by weighted average to the public. Every three months the lowest rated Assessor Organization by weighted average is dissolved, and the welfare recipients must go to other ones. One month after every three-month dissolving, each Assessor Organization has a new vote on their leadership.

The Rating System has a two-part check on abuse. First, it does in-depth research on how each Assessor Organization is doing and fully informs the public. The second check on abuse is eliminating abusive or undesirable results by abolishing the lowest rated Assessor Organization every three months. The goal is a competition for the best results. The reason for roughly a dozen different Rating Agencies is because people have different ideas about desired outcomes and what is fair. It is also to disperse the great power given to these groups.

Welfare recipients will include almost all government-funded assistance programs. Unemployment benefits, Social Security disability, food assistance, public housing, cash welfare, and Medicaid would qualify. Social Security and Medicare do not qualify; however, many older adults will likely find the charity economy beneficial. Research shows roughly 1.5-2.5 million of the 8.4 million Virginians would qualify depending on many factors.

WRLH is the acronym for Welfare Recipient Labor Hours. People outside of welfare that choose to be a net-giver by 10% in the charity economy have the acronym CLH or charitable labor hours.

Assessors determine how many WRLH’s each welfare recipient must work and the nature of that work. Assessor organizations will determine how many WRLH’s based on the individual and family situation. Some people might get 60 WRLHs a week, and others may get none. Assessor Organizations will use wisdom in subjectively determining what is best for the individual and family. Assessor Organizations take into consideration hours worked in the regular economy by welfare recipients. Everything is taken into consideration. If assessors abuse their power, they will lose the trust of citizens and receive low ratings.

Some WRLH’s will save the government money by using labor on government functions. Some WRLH’s will increase the living standards of the poor. Some WRLH's will earn money. All money earned is used to pay for the Assessors, the Rating System and the remaining funds are used to help the poor and seek the highest ratings. Assessor Organizations can work with charities and churches. At least one Assessor Organization will need to stay secular, and none can force religion. There would be safeguards.

The Assessor's job is to move people off the welfare rolls the right way, by training them up and moving them on the right path. Apprenticeships will likely be high on the list. Using WRLH’s to train up other welfare recipients will also be likely. Using WRLH’s for child care of another welfare recipient so they can work is expected. Assessors can be dynamic with the ultimate goal in mind of making self-reliant individuals. Life coaches will be in high demand. The Assessor Organizations and the Rating Agencies will use WRLH’s within their structure.

There will be some long-term or lifetime welfare recipients because of mental or physical limitations. Assessor Organizations will have the goal of finding proper jobs in charities or the free enterprise system to earn part of their benefits and give people the self-worth of earning at least part of their living.

The national guard can use these WRLH’s and train people up in disaster relief. The cops and firefighters can train these people up to be of assistance in their jobs. Many WRLH’s could assist with road maintenance. These are examples of saving the government money. Many WRLH’s will be used to go into schools to be teacher aids or mentors. One hour a week from half the welfare recipients could give every student an individualized mentor.

Many WRLH’s will be used to assist the elderly and the poor with healthcare, which will save money in Medicare and Medicaid. Many people will be trained to increase the quality of life of those in nursing homes. Many people will prepare to educate the poor in many aspects.

Many WRLH’s will assist hospitals to compensate hospitals for uncompensated care. Many companies are involved in many ways dealing with uncompensated health care and could be assigned WRLH’s. Legal defense organizations helping the poor are usually underfunded, thus a good fit for WRLH’s. Dynamic thinking can use these WRLH’s to help many underfunded and understaffed organizations that give real support to deserving people. Rating Agencies will examine all the different models and give dynamic ratings.

Many WRLH’s will clean up poor neighborhoods, both physically and mentally by mentoring children at risk of gang involvement. The value of flooding certain neighborhoods without many fathers around, with good male influences would have a profound positive impact. The mental health field will use WRLH’s so that government resources can stretch further. Assessors will assign WRLH’s to search for jobs that match the skills of other welfare recipients. WRLH’s will be used directly by Assessor Organizations to assess and by Rating Agencies to inspect and rate.

Every Rating Agency decides what is important to them and presumably to the citizens that give them their trust. However, there are issues of common concern to most Assessor Organizations. How many people can come off welfare? How many two-parent households can we keep together? How many effective mentors can we put into single-parent households? How many neighborhoods can we improve? How can we decrease the crime rate? How can we increase education scores? How can we decrease domestic abuse and human trafficking? How can we increase the earning potential and self-worth of the mentally disabled? How can we decrease the cost of government functions with WRLH’s? How can we be wise, ethical and responsible, dealing with this power and responsibility?

The Charity Economy will allow any person or company to join if they are a net giver by at least 10%. Bringing in people that will both give CLH and receive CLH and WRLR will allow a greater level of services and more work opportunities. For example, doctors and nurses could work at a free clinic in exchange for CLH’s and WRLH’s cutting their lawn. WRLH would also be in the Charity Economy. The Charity Economy is set up similar to a temp agency, however with significant changes. Labor law does not apply because all funds, if any, go back to the Assessor Organization or the labor is just a trade.

There is an emphasis on, ‘on the job training.’ There is an emphasis on accommodations of disabilities. There is an emphasis on increasing standards of living. There is an emphasis on mentoring and life coaching. There is an emphasis on two-parent households. There is an emphasis on child care. There is an emphasis on helping Medicaid patients reduce healthcare cost by education and services that stop conditions from becoming worse. Every citizen’s choice of an Assessor Organization and a Rating Agency will allow every citizen’s preferences to have greater emphasis.

There will also be a computer application where people or companies put out jobs, they would like done and the price they are willing to pay. The price they are willing to pay could be their skilled labor or services from that business. The Assessors will match labor hours to those jobs and collect money or traded service. That money will pay for the Assessor Organization, the Rating Systems and the funds needed to fulfill the many goals they have. Assessor Organizations and the Rating System can use WRLH's to help them in their goals.

If an older adult wishes to give their wisdom in the Charity Economy by mentoring, training, teaching or other labor, Assessors will compensate them with labor hours used to help them. A school bus could go to the nursing home and bring tutors to the local school, in exchange, the elderly receive extra help and better food.

There are roughly 1,288,166 students in K-12th in Virginia. There will be more people giving WRLH’s than students. The possibilities of doing profound good are daunting to contemplate. Roughly 20% of the population of Virginia will be giving labor hours, competing to help pull the poor out of poverty.

Convicted felons often have a hard time getting welfare or finding work. Too often this hardship forces them back to the life of crime or working ‘under the table.’ They will be able to go to an Assessor and work in the Charity Economy. The prison will inform prisoners of opportunities in the Charity Economy and train them in the needed skills, so they have a plan to thrive when they are released.

The proposal is to start setting up a few aspects of charity; however, it is essential to understand that a full charity model is the final goal.

]]><![CDATA[Government Should Not Be the Helper of Last Resort]]>Wed, 13 Sep 2017 21:35:30 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/government-should-not-be-the-helper-of-last-resort

Many conservatives and Libertarians often want to differentiate themselves from liberals by saying that government should ONLY help someone AFTER they have gone to family, friends, the church, and charities. Only then, if those people/groups cannot solve the issue, should the government step up and take care of the unfulfilled need. This ‘government help as a last resort,’ simply is not possible; the law does not work that way.

The government cannot force family, friends, the church or charities to help and should not try to force them. An essential function of helping is the ability to say ‘NO’ to someone. The ability to demand help if someone meets certain conditions is one of the significant harms inherent in government welfare programs. Too often that demand does harm.

The Largest Benefit in Charity is the Ability to say No, I will Not Help
Government Enabling Destructive Lifestyles
Enabling Destructive Dependency

Family, friends, the church, and charities need their ‘NO’ to mean ‘NO.’ Often, those requesting help made bad life choices. The ‘NO” almost always comes with ‘because you will not make better life choices.’ A typical human desire is to control others, and people should try to avoid that desire on the most part, however, when someone is asking for help, it is wise to examine why they are in that situation.

The 'NO' will often change to a ‘YES’ if they study versus play video games; if they stop drugs and become responsible; if they are seeking employment versus hanging out; if they volunteer versus being lazy; if they turn away from sin and seek God; if they are kind and not cruel; if they spend wisely versus being wasteful; if they are helpful and not a burden. Most people do not say no because they are selfish or greedy. They know actions and attitudes that lead to bad results and believe subsidizing it will do harm.

People understand that those asking for help, do not need to be perfect. However, they usually need to progress in the right direction. If someone is dealt a bad hand because of an accident, disease, or another’s actions, people are much more willing to help. Every situation is different, and statistics cannot determine if help is needed. It takes a human with philosophical understanding, wisdom, and experience.

If Government is the helper of last resort, peoples’ ‘No’ is undermined. If people meet the governmental standards to get help, then they can DEMAND the help, not ask for the help. The difference is profound. People are therefore encouraged not to work or to limit their work so as not to lose benefits. Benefit cliffs are real and are holding people down and entrapping them in poverty.

Also, whenever the government gives a certain type of help, charities step back from that type. They might switch to a different kind of help, but government crowds out non-government aid. Before the great society of the 60s, many charities existed. Those charities rapidly dwindled when the government took over. Charities now try to fill in the gaps, however, are a shell of what they once were.

The sense of entitlement began to take over in the recipients of welfare. The feeling that they were owed became too common. People also became aware of what they needed to do to receive the help. Single parenthood homes rose sharply as a result of wage-earning fathers causing ineligibility of welfare benefits. A father out of the home is the most significant cause of adverse social effects.

Under the Haley2024’s Welfare to Charity reform, Assessor Organizations will play this role. They will look into a person’s life to determine the right path and changes if necessary. The biggest asset an Assessor will have is the ability to require work and education from those seeking help. The structure of Competitive Ratings Agencies and choices of everyone will safeguard against abuses within the Charity System.

]]><![CDATA[Food Aid: A New System]]>Tue, 12 Sep 2017 00:18:24 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/food-aid-a-new-system

Many people are rightfully aggravated by people with food stamps or the EBT card buying the food they should not be buying. These mostly fall into two categories, junk food, and rich food. Chips, cookies, sodas, and other foods that have high sugar and low nutrient content are often bought with taxpayer money, and taxpayers get frustrated that people on food stamps are not using taxpayer money wiser.

Another major infuriating purchase is lobster, steaks, and other high-priced foods. Many lower middle-class taxpayers without the EBT card sees items bought with the EBT that they cannot afford and are righteously angered. The government implemented choice in food aid, which has many benefits. However, it has a downside.

Government excludes (mostly) beer, cigarettes, lottery, and other ‘sin’ items. Too many people find a way around that by selling food stamps to buy the ‘sin’ items or use the EBT for the food and use their own money for the wine. Many taxpayers get upset that people use their tax dollars on food when they still have money for ‘mega-millions.’ It shows a great lack of appreciation and taking government help for granted.

All food products have a list of nutritional facts listed on the label. Every food manufacturer that wants an item considered for EBT, or the charity version of the EBT card, must submit the item and the facts. All the nutritional facts are entered into a computer. At the store level, the store uploads prices for those items. There are plenty of daily dietary recommendations per proteins, carbohydrates, vitamins, and others.

The computer analyses the best price to achieve the nutrition needed. The computer gives options within 10% of the best, and the welfare recipient picks the items within that range. The printer at the store prints out coupons for those items and those items are purchased with those coupons. This is the base of the plan, and the free market will make it more dynamic.

Manufacturers will be motivated to develop foods that make it to the top of this list. The top two issues are price and nutrition. Competition to develop highly nutritious food at low prices is beneficial. It is likely that stores will dedicate a section of the store to these items. The computer would also be able to examine other stores within a certain mileage when factoring in the best deals.

At the store level, certain items often get close to code dates and the store will be able to lower the price to be within the 10% range. Bread, produce and other perishables items are often price-reduced for quick sale before the code date, and this system will allow stores to move product and the food stamp holder to have additional options. All the CDA's will set their guidelines, and the computer programmers will be able to work things out.

]]><![CDATA[Setting Up the Structure]]>Sun, 09 Jul 2017 03:55:12 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/setting-up-the-structure

The people through government need to create four parts to the structure of charities to start the transition.

Charitable Distribution Associations, the Rating system, Assessor Organizations and Charity CRA's will all need to be set up. At the state level, the state will make a small investment to start the system. Every House of Delegate Member will pick one person to represent each group. Every State Senator will have two representatives for each group, and the Governor will have twenty. That will be 200 representatives per group. I am basing this on Virginia.

Each group will be independent of the others. Every representative in CDA’s and the Rating Systems will be given $10,000 of startup money, and the Assessor Organization Representatives will receive $50,000 each. The Charity CRA's do not receive start-up funds. This money is meant to last for three months of startup and planning expenses. This new system will generate its own revenue by having certain people on benefits, working through temp agencies. This revenue will fund the on-going expenses of the system.

Currently, labor law and welfare regulations discourage work. The vast percentage of those receiving benefits can and want to work. They do not work because they would lose their benefits if they did. This new system requires anyone receiving benefits to sign up with a CDA, be assigned to an Assessor, and do what the Assessor directs. If they do not, they lose their benefits.

These 200 representatives of each group will organize within the Charity System Structure. About a dozen groups no smaller than 5% and no larger than 20% of the 200 Representatives will be formed. Each of these groups will develop their own identity. Every CDA, AO, CRA, and RA will determine their philosophy of their roll in this system. Each group competes to have citizens choose their group. Each person picking them brings greater money and influence to that group.

All the organizations within all three Sector Groups and their Rating Systems have daunting tasks and will each compete for the trust of each citizen. All groups will develop in the first two months. The third month, anyone that wants to stay receiving assistance from the government will be required to pick a CDA. The CDA will assign them an assessor organization. Current government social services will work closely with the Assessors and turn over all relevant data to the Assessor Organizations with strong privacy regulations.

No additional payment will be given to the person doing the work (the needy), they are receiving money, goods and services paid for by the government already. Some of this work will be in temp agencies thus bringing in money, others will be working in a variety of ways as directed by the Assessors, and CDA’s. Apprenticeships would likely be high on the list of required work. Tradesman from many Sectors would be assigned people to work with them in the efforts to teach people a trade.

All labor law would be exempted. Whether it is $1 or $20 an hour, the important thing is that they are learning a trade. The pay does not go to the worker; it goes to the CDA. The workers ‘pay’ is their welfare benefits. CDA’s will determine how much is ‘overhead,’ how much goes to Assessor Organizations and money they can pour into new programs through charities. CDA’s fund Rating Agencies out of these funds. However, the amount will be decided by the leadership of all four groups in their Sector Boards.

When the Representatives organized in the CDA’s, they had a percentage between 5% and 20%. All those required to sign up in CDA’s will get to pick which CDA they wish. However, each CDA can only accept their percentage, meaning if CDA #1 has 8% of the Representatives, then they can only take 8% of those requesting help. These percentages are just for the first year. After that, every CDA will have only a certain percentage of donations, thus limited to helping roughly that percentage of those in need. However, it will be dynamic.

While elected leaders set up the system, every citizen will be able to ‘vote’ on which CDA they most support and what Rating Agency they trust. A citizen’s ID company will be required to list all their associations in these groups. CDA's percentages will be based on individuals once the system is set up by the end of the first year. This system has built-in Checks and Balances.

Rating Agencies will look at how many welfare recipients are moved out of the system or to the greatest level of independence among other issues they find valuable. If a CDA has poor results, their ratings will reflect those results and citizens will likely not pick them. As that CDA loses support, they will have fewer people on welfare that can choose them. If CDA drop below 5%, they are eliminated. Those CDA’s doing the best will gain market share, and if the CDA top 20%, they will multiply into two groups based on similar values.

Once these systems have a few years to sort themselves out, the full transition to CDA’s can begin. One benefit program at a time will switch over. Every benefit program has a cost, and that cost has a tax rate. A citizen’s tax rate is reduced, and that reduction needs to be contributed to the CDA that citizen picked. Now the CDA’s have the same amount of money as the government did in the past. Every CDA will decide how best to use that money for the goals of the program no longer being done by the government, for example, food aid.

All three groups and the Rating Systems can use these welfare labor hours to work within their groups, meaning that the Rating agencies, CDA’s, charities and Assessors will use welfare labor hours within their systems. There are no restrictions whatsoever about intermixing religion with any of these groups. However, there will always be a CDA RA, AO, and Charities CRA that is secular.

There will be concerns from many regarding CDA's or Assessors abusing their power and making some people work too many hours. There are many safeguards against this. First, citizens pick a Rating Agency that rates well on that issue. Second, citizens trust a CDA that will not abuse their power. Finally, people on welfare get to pick their CDA. To guard the other way, a CDA that is too lax on labor hours is likely to be rated low and lose market share, thus allowing fewer people to be in the lax CDA.

]]><![CDATA[Good Intentions, Bad Philosophy, Bad Policies, Bad Results for Those with Disabilities]]>Thu, 06 Jul 2017 20:17:09 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/good-intentions-bad-philosophy-bad-policies-bad-results-for-those-with-disabilities

In a story about welfare, labor law, economics and those with disabilities, the Left has shown how their desire to help, matched with terrible philosophy is doing considerable damage.

Sheltered workshops are fading away, along with a job Chris Cook had for 25 years
By Elizabeth Simpson - The Virginian-Pilot - July 3, 2017

This story is horrifying. I do not know where to begin. How many wrongheaded ideas and fallacies need to be corrected? First, stop making it illegal for people to work! The minimum wage is a law that makes it illegal to work if your productivity is not high enough for the ‘do-gooders.’ This story deals with people with limited abilities that make it tough for them to produce much wealth. Requiring higher pay than they can produce means the business must acquire money elsewhere to employ these people. If not, the job goes away.

Some great people want to help these disabled people. They search for employers for them. They start businesses that require low skilled labor and plead with other businesses to use their services that might be a little less efficient because of their low productivity. They even plead with the public to donate to their business or use it to give these people a chance to earn part of their cost of living. They explain how it brings these people self-worth and pride.

Do-gooders come in and claim exploitation and BAN their jobs. They BAN their opportunities. They BAN their business models. These disabled people are now losing their jobs, their pride, and their self-worth. Maybe these do-gooders wanted the pay to go up; however, if the productivity is not there, pay cannot go up without major subsidies. The result is the loss of thousands of these jobs. The minimum wage does not force incomes up; it just eliminates the pay range of $0.01 to the minimum wage.

A big part of this story is our welfare system that is doing much harm and not using the tax money wisely. Consider an alternative of allowing people to use the money that would be otherwise taxed for welfare and contributing it to charities. It is a full system that would yield better results.

Too often people claim that someone cannot live off minimum wage. They start listing all the expenses of rent, medical, transportation, food, among others. We all need to fully understand that a person’s needs are not the determining factor in pay.

Certainly, when one searches for a job, they need to consider how much they need. People are perfectly free to set their own minimum wage. However, they need to find someone willing to pay them that amount. Everyone has the authority and right to start their own business and sell their goods and service directly to the consumers.

That fact alone keeps businesses honest with their pay structure of labor. Any employee having the right to quit and compete directly with their former employer by selling the same product or service is a check on unfair exploitation. If an employment field or sector is not paying as much as others, everyone is free to change fields of employment.

]]><![CDATA[Charity Economy Job Opportunities]]>Sat, 08 Oct 2016 04:54:44 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/charity-economy-job-opportunities

Many will wonder what kind of work is within the Charity Economy. First, the poor need services, so that is job one. Many will train to be nurses at all levels. A nurse’s aide training is not a considerable commitment of time and very much needed. Many jobs surrounding food, shelter, medical, education, among others are prime needs.

Everyone doing their own regular job can transfer currency, thus intertwining the Charity Economy with the regular economy. Human resources CRA’s will be rated on how well their businesses help out the Charity Economy. Companies that rate high enough on assisting charities could have their employees exempt from the 5% donation requirement or at least a portion. This system could be very dynamic and thus very important to have competing Rating Agencies in the Rating System.

Training would be vital to improving productivity and efficiency which would be at the heart of ratings. Each young teenager that wishes to do volunteer hours over money would likely go through training/apprenticeships on many trades. Training these teens would likely be done by skilled workers volunteer hours. This training would also be very dynamic.

Businesses and homeowners could list jobs and can pay for the services with their service or with money. Yard work, maid service, handyman services, professional trades, cooks, drivers among many others are work opportunities. Many cannot afford the ‘going rate’ on these services, however, would be willing to trade their volunteer hours in exchange for services. AO’s could be very dynamic in assessing needs, opportunities and people’s abilities to fulfill those needs.

AO’s do not just bring in the poorest and most needy in the system but reach higher to those with extra skills and abilities. Many will join the Charity Economy without serious unmet needs, but just as a way to achieve access to the benefits of the Charity Economy and be a net giver to the system. When people give their minimum contribution in the form of labor hours, many will see opportunities to give many more hours in exchange for benefits from the system. The Charity Economy could be a big part of unemployment and disability insurance among others.

Life coaches and job headhunters will be very valuable to this system. Many people that have serious unmet needs made unwise life choices and life coaches could help. Churches and the religious community are very valuable in turning peoples’ lives around for the better and would be a blessing to this system. Mentors for children and people of all ages would yield great benefits. AO’s would need to be wise in utilizing these people and services.

Databases would be helpful to AO’s. Databases of job opportunities, the short and long-term needs would allow quick matching of volunteers and jobs. AO’s would have in the database, all the skills of all the volunteers. Computers programs and AO’s could match based off many factors such as proximity, skill, experience, greatest needs among others.

A natural disaster creates many needs. Thus the Charity Economy would come in very useful. The computer would know where everyone is that shares his or her location and availability. AO’s or others will quickly build teams with people with the needed skills. Many people will be trained to assist first responders in expanding their teams, thus their reach and abilities. CRA’s and CDA’s would coordinate for the most effective responses. Disaster Relief in a Haley2024 World

]]><![CDATA[The Work versus Welfare Trade-off]]>Sun, 13 Sep 2015 21:59:34 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/the-work-versus-welfare-trade-off

Both sides differ on the degree. However, the facts are clear, if someone loses welfare benefits when they go to work, it will lower the net value of earning that paycheck. Everyone knows economics in their own lives and reacts to incentives and disincentives. Some people claim that welfare results in a better financial standard of life compared to a low wage job. It is also important to realize that the number of hours of work or leisure is also important to consider. The pride of earning money has value compared to the demoralizing effect of dependency

Web page

If welfare offers 90% of what a paycheck could give, one would have to ask if putting in 40 long hours at an unpleasant job is worth the extra 10%. Whatever the math is in a poor person’s life, this is a major factor that creates disincentives to some to enter the labor force.

The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off: An Analysis of the Total Level of Welfare Benefits by State

BLOG

The NEW American Way of Life article below: Whether or not this stretches the truth some, this type of gaming the system is real and damaging to both the taxpayers which needs to pay higher rates and to those that are entrapped in welfare. This gaming of the system creates low self-esteem and teaches the next generation a damaging way of life.

]]><![CDATA[The Charity Economy]]>Tue, 13 Jan 2015 05:38:39 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/the-charity-economy

By Bill Haley 1/13/2015 updated 2-23-2019

The economy has a broad definition that includes work, trade, time, resources, relationships, assets, knowledge, currency among others. The most common usage of ‘the economy’ deals with two-sided voluntary trade of currency for products and services. Both sides of the trade must agree on the amount of currency and the amount and quality of products and services.

Every person is able to request products and services with currency, and every person is able to offer products and services in exchange for currency. Every person’s currency income is directly related to the products and services they provide, and every person’s consumption is directly related to what they can attain from the currency they earned.

The Charity Economy is based on the notion that some people will still have serious unmet needs within the free enterprise system. The Charity Economy can quickly put people to work providing for other people’s unmet needs in exchange for charities providing for their unmet needs. The vast majority of people needing charity are able and desire to work. Charities receive donations to make up the difference of the worth of the work done by the welfare recipient compared to the worth of the charity they receive.

The simplest way to explain the Charity Economy is that if someone is hungry, the charity provides food and ask the charity recipient to put in work hours helping others that need charity in the nursing home. The Charity might place a person in need with a regular business in exchange for services from that business; such as work hours at a hospital. If a person in need requires more charity than the worth of their work hours, they need to go to an Assessor Organization.

A good Charity Economy will seek to help as many people as possible by asking those they support to also assist others. A good Charity Economy will train people up to no longer need help. A good Charity Economy will be dynamic in their business models. The best way to increase the quality of the many Charity Economies is to allow them to compete to be the best. The best competition comes from many options and voluntary choices by everyone.

The Charity Economy will welcome everyone to join as net givers; meaning they provide more work than they receive. For most people, this will be a side or second job. Businesses will also be encouraged to join by being a net giver. Food companies could provide food in exchange for labor hours of mentally and physically disabled people that have a hard time in the regular economy.

Charities usually only provide benefits, they rarely ask for help in return. Helping people the right way is a multifaceted endeavor with skill and expertise in many disciplines. Assessing the need is difficult. Assessing the reason behind the need is tough. Assessing a path forward needs wisdom and experience. Following-up on the progress of the best path forward is time consuming and sensitive. Creating the most efficient way of providing for unmet needs takes competition and understanding. Assessing all the above is a valuable endeavor. The division of labor is critical to attain competence in all these areas. The real competition in providing these services the best increases the quality of these services.

The original 1/15/2015 Blog

Too often the government welfare system forces people to be fully in the cart or fully pulling the cart; meaning if someone needs help, they cannot help themselves or others. Government benefit cliffs are real. Benefit cliffs are when government aid stops at a certain income level, thus earning another dollar can stop a benefit worth thousands. Many people turn down career advancement and extra hours at work to stay eligible for benefits.

The free enterprise system is an interdependent arrangement where people must please others with their services in order to have the currency to request services in response. Both people to a trade become better off after the trade, if done freely, the base of ‘free’ enterprise.

There are people on occasion that fall on hard times, whether or not it is their fault by lack of planning or just bad luck. This occasional bad luck is why it is a great idea to keep family and friends close and build ‘relationship capital’ so they can help you over hard times. However, if that level of family and friend's help is not there, there needs to be another level.

The Charity Economy

Using Assessor Organizations and volunteer hour specialist among others, a person or family can enter the Charity Economy. The assessor determines the needs and the skills of those requesting help and authorizes many benefits in exchange for many volunteer hours. This system would be very dynamic and meant to be a stepping stone back into the regular economy.

This system can take many forms with different models and experiments. Before a foreclosure of a home, a charity could approach the mortgage company requesting other arrangements such as having the homeowner do extra volunteer hours and applying those volunteer hours to employees of the mortgage company.

The homeowner might have skills in improving another house that would benefit the mortgage company. The options are endless. Current government financial and employment regulations hamper such dynamic solutions. CRA's in every sector would work with CDA's to achieve the best ratings dealing with these issues.

Long Termers

There are going to be those that need more help than they can give. Some people have physical or mental issues that lower their efficiency to the point that they cannot yield enough productive labor to achieve a certain minimum standard of living. These people would be in the long term or permanent Charity Economy.

There would be people who specialize in achieving the most significant productivity and labor from those people restricted by disability. This system is best for the disabled person because they get the satisfaction of earning at least part of their living. The difference would be the reason everyone has to give their 5% to charity. This system would be very dynamic and rated to achieve enhanced results.

Getting older might mean that one does not have the energy to work long hours and the need for accommodations. However, there is no reason why agreements could not be established to allow older folks the chance to work. Current government policies from labor law to Social Security hamper utilizing the elderly. These restrictions take valuable resources from our economy and inhibit the elderly from increasing their pursuit of happiness and personal prosperity.

]]><![CDATA[Assessor Organizations]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2014 04:42:34 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/assessor-organizations

When a family has a serious unmet need and has to ask for help outside of their extended family, the first step is meeting with an assessor. Reputations of different Assessor Organizations (AO’s) and their philosophy of helping the poor, will become well known. There would be roughly a dozen AO’s that receive funding from CDA’s. CDA’s would partner with AO’s that match their 'helping' philosophy. The AO’s would make a profile and give those in need a rating.

Different AO’s would have different policies; however many would discretely dig deep into a person’s life to determine the best path forward. The AO would set them up in the Charity Economy where they would get benefits and also work to the greatest extent possible. There is so much that needs to be done to help the poor and AO’s would specialize in gaining work from those in need.

This work serves many great purposes. First, it gives those seeking help the pride of ‘earning’ what they receive, at least to the greatest degree possible. It also lowers the amount of donations needed. The person in need, gains work experiences and skills, which is beneficial in acquiring a job. Yes, it is possible and very likely most people in the charity economy will also have a regular job. The goal is an independent, moral and healthy lifestyle.

Only a few people at AO’s will need to dig into a family situation and determine whether they are on the right path out and not being entrapped in the system. Many resist helping others because they do not want to entrap the poor or have someone 'take advantage' of them.

Knowing an assessor from an AO they trust has done a complete evaluation and that those needing help are on the right path, will create trust with people donating money. Many charities would help families over a certain rating level and only from Assessor Organizations that, within reason, match their philosophy.

Those CDA’s that have low ratings with AO’s would see their donations fall and those with higher ratings would gain more donations. Lower-rated CDA’s and their affiliated AO’s and charities would have to turn away those in need for the lack of money and more of those in need will have to go to the higher rated, thus better funded CDA’s and AO’s.

These Assessment Organizations would be rated on how their recommendations result in as much independence as possible. Total independence is not possible with everyone. However, Assessor Organizations would specialize in maximizing pride, worth, work and interdependence.

There would be different models of charities and how to assess families dynamically. There would even be different opinions about what outcomes are the most desired. Many Rating Agencies would rate all these AO’s, and everyone would decide what Rating Agencies they would trust, and then they choose which CDA to fund with their contributions.

If a person in need has a good rating score from the Assessor Organization, assessors will direct help their way. People will trust certain assessors they agree with and give assurance that their work, service, and help are truly 'helping' those in need. Charity Assessor organization App’s will likely develop to match services and charitable hours quickly and efficiently.

BLOG

]]><![CDATA[Charity Volunteer Hours]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2014 01:29:00 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/charity-volunteer-hours

The Need for volunteer hours

Under my ‘A Citizen's Responsibility’ and ‘Welfare to Charity’ pages, the case is made for everyone doing their part in helping those in need through charity versus government welfare. There would be a mandated 5% of income charitable contribution by everyone with a minimum of $1,500 a year. Everyone would have the option of doing charitable hours instead of the first $1,500 by doing 3 hours a week in charitable hours. The 150 hours a year could be split up; however, the individual and charities decide.

The Feeling of Acomplishment

It is well known to many that most people receive great satisfaction from helping others. If someone were to have this motivation (instead of paying the first $1,500), to start helping others, it would be likely many would give extra charitable hours because of the satisfaction they receive from helping.

Assessor Organizations

Part of the philosophy of many people, thus the philosophy of many Charitable Distribution Associations, of helping the poor would be that we do not put those people, we are attempting to help, in a worse situation. This system would truly take very dynamic ratings, coming from many different approaches. Assessor Organizations would be at the forefront of these difficult to analyze and dynamic approaches. They would look at the family dynamic and try to determine the best approach towards becoming independent or interdependent.

Extra Hours At Your Own Job

Charities need comprehensive services, and most people's jobs are tied in some way to those services. Every Competitive Regulatory Agency would be motivated by the Rating System to work well with Charitable Distribution Associations. Many CRA’s would have systems where people could work these extra volunteer hours in their regular job instead of pay. The system would transfer the help towards charity in dynamic ways and would be rated.

Ratings Would Force Charities to Improve

Rating charities, by their very nature, will have to be very dynamic, therefore having competing Rating Agencies will be vital. Conservative and liberal among others will rate methods and outcomes differently, and every person will look at the Rating Agencies they trust to determine which Charitable Distribution Association (CDA) they will fund.

Disaster Relief

There are unique and dynamic challenges and needs following a disaster, whether natural or terrorism. The Rating Systems will rate every CRA along with every CDA on planning as well as the execution of disaster relief. Construction workers teaming up with road, utilities, garbage/ debris workers could have fast response teams ready to go. Medical CRA teams would have many quick response models that would be tried and rated.

One could envision CRA’s from every Sector developing models where they could help. It is likely that over half the population would be trained to move into action in their current job quickly. CRA’s trying to achieve the best ratings will develop very productive and efficient policies to help those in need from a sudden disaster.

Teens

The $1,500 charitable minimum requirement would begin at age 13. Teenagers would actually work; however, the idea of starting at this age would be for training. The teen’s work hours would likely be the most valuable if trained in many disciplines. A nurse's aid to learning how to help people with disabilities would be taught. On the job training under supervision would be encouraged. Every teen would be invited to have a wide range of talents needed for helping those in need. Many single parents stay in welfare because of childcare issues. Many teen girl’s volunteer hours could help solve this problem.

Volunteer hours could support the military, fire, rescue, police, or other public functions. Therefore, training for these tasks is likely. This wide variety of training would allow an individual to be very useful in his or her volunteer hours and gain valuable knowledge of professions they might consider.

While competing for the best ratings, it is likely that CDA’s will create a database of everyone and their training and certifications. Identification companies could assist in this endeavor. When a disaster occurs, teams of managers would be able to quickly develop teams of all those close to the event and put these people to work within their training.

The Elderly

The $1,500 requirement would not end with older ages. Yes, at some level of disability, the volunteer hours would be rated too low, and the person would be relieved of their responsibility of the hours or the $1,500. However, the elderly can still contribute in many ways.

Charities would have people specializing in getting the most help out of the elderly. Because of the desire for the best ratings of these hours, productive and efficient ways to utilize the wisdom and worth of the elderly would be maximized.

The elderly would yield much satisfaction from helping others, and if they gave more hours, Assessor Organizations and charities would likely provide them extra help where needed. This system creates a dynamic model of working with charities and receiving more benefits. Our current employment laws and Social Security rules impede and disincentivize the elderly from selling their labor.

The reform of CRA’s and this charity model would allow and encourage a new economy of the elderly generating value and receiving the benefits that follow. This system could bring pride, honor and a feeling of worth to many elderly that current government policies discourage.

]]><![CDATA[Ratings Would Force Charities to Improve]]>Mon, 01 Dec 2014 00:59:59 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/ratings-would-force-charities-to-improve

Rating charities by its very nature will have to be very dynamic, therefore having competing rating agencies will be vital. Conservative and liberal among others will rate methods and outcomes differently and every person will look at the rating agency they trust to determine which Charity Distribution Associations (CDA) they will fund.

While most people running a charity do not intend to waste resources, whether money or manpower, people wanting to donate to charities need a way to determine if the charity is achieving the fullest potential from those resources.

Trying to determine whether a family needs to stay dependent because of their situation or if they could contribute what they can, will be debated in a one size fits all government system. However, in a system of competing charities, trying out different models, people would be able to see actual evidence of success or failure of every model.

Currently, many welfare or government benefits are forfeited if the recipient tries to do something within their abilities. Often a doctor will determine that a person is disabled from their current job and puts that person on disability where the government will pay benefits for the rest of their lives. Just because they are unable to do certain work does not mean they cannot do other work.

Charities and Assessor Organizations (AO's) can train the person to be a valuable asset in other work. Having Rating Agencies looking at every CDA successes and challenges would be vital for quality ratings. Having all CDA's chasing better practices for the best ratings will force charities to improve fulfilling their mission.

]]><![CDATA[A Somber Report on Government Welfare]]>Thu, 18 Sep 2014 04:40:28 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/a-very-well-done-yet-sad-report-on-government-welfare

While this makes my point, I am not happy with these statistics. Although I favor charity over government welfare, I was at least hoping for some good things to come out of all the "help" citizens' hard-earned money funded.

Out of all the charts, this one hurts the most. This harm is not only a financial issue, but it is also an issue of broken families. Many children, if they had a choice, would much prefer living with both parents with very little money rather than with a single wealthy parent.

]]><![CDATA[Assessing Charities]]>Sun, 24 Aug 2014 05:37:49 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/charities-are-hard-to-assess

There are three big reasons why assessing the results of charity is difficult. First, people do not want to criticize those wanting to help. Any assessment of charities can be very problematic because of the claim "at least I am trying to help." Secondly, it is very complicated, expensive, and dynamic to take a lengthy amount of time to see the long-term results. Thirdly, everyone has very different ideas of successful help.

"At least I am trying to help."

Many people neglect to assess someone else's attempt to help when they use their own or donated money. Many people will not accept the report of others for this same reason. Unless the charity is doing apparent harm, wasting money, or using the money for their own benefit, it is rarely closely examined.

Not all charities are super efficient. They care a lot. However, charities often do not invest the needed money and time in learning the family's situation and what they truly need.

Complicated, Expensive, and Dynamic

The question of what type of help is necessary seems evident in that one feeds the hungry, heals the sick, or shelters the homeless. The fact is that helping those in need is very complicated. Should one offer a fish, or teach someone how to fish? Is a life coach needed? Everyone's needs are different. Some people are very slow to accept help, while others are very comfortable with it. A large part of the identity of a parent is how he/she supports his/her family.

How someone structures, ‘the help’ of these proud parents, can make a world of difference. If the help comes with mandatory work, it gives a feeling of self-gratification and achievement to the individual.

The complications are very numerous. The assessment of the results can be very expensive because the assessment takes years and involves many complicated family situations. Everyone and every family reacts differently to different situations.

For example, one family receives help, and the man is offered a good job, and it looks like the help was very successful, while another family receives the same help, and because of different family dynamics, the help can lead to even more dysfunction. The bottom line is that assessing the help is very complicated and dynamic.

Ideas of Success

Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians have very different ideas of not just how to help, but also how successful help looks. Conservatives consider the greatest victory to be the highest numbers of people that no longer need help, while the left has the greatest value in the number of people receiving benefits. Libertarians have several different thoughts on what is desired.

Rating Organizations

Rating Agencies working with Assessment Organizations will solve some of these issues. First, they will have an obligation to assess charity that will reduce the “at least I am trying to help” issue. Second, with mandated contributions to CDA's, citizens would have a desire for that critical data in order to fund the highest rated CDA. Third, having many different Rating Agencies to look to and trust, one would have assessments that match their philosophy.

]]><![CDATA[How Funding CDA's Is Similar to Funding a Church]]>Fri, 15 Aug 2014 20:24:35 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/how-funding-cdas-is-similar-to-funding-a-church

When you believe in a church's mission and trust their leadership, you fund the church's general fund. You trust the church leaders will handle the money appropriately. Very few people think they know better and fund the janitor or just part of an associates pastor's salary or pick what benefits they need. There is a trusted church administrator with oversight and input from many that determine the budget. They have the knowledge to ensure all areas of the church are appropriately funded.

Many will initially think that they will cut out the 'middle man' and fund charities directly. However, the value of leadership looking at the big picture is highly valuable. Many things need funding. Charities try new ways of helping. Experiments by charities need proper examination. A board that has full-time jobs looking over all the ratings, new systems, talking to investigators and Assessment Organizations and other methods of exploring the best methods will make better-educated decisions.

CDA boards would compete with other CDA boards for funding. All CDA’s would enhance their methods to be improved continuously. The board continually investigates and adjusts their funding. They will continually inform all those that fund their CDA and chase the best ratings.

]]><![CDATA[Voluntarily Donating to Charity is Better than Mandating the Donation]]>Mon, 23 Jun 2014 04:17:24 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/voluntarily-donating-to-charity-is-better-than-mandating-the-donation

There are many Christians; me included, that believe that volunteering and choosing to give is far superior to a government mandate. Charity is love, and the government cannot mandate love. I wanted to address this issue straight on. Yes, the Haley2024's Charity System does have a mandate, however coming 90% towards charity.

First, understand that we are paying taxes now and the money funds welfare. Under the Haley2024 plan, taxes for welfare would stop. The mandated contributions to charity would then begin at a lower level. Second, this plan would likely require many to do more than the minimum where everyone would be able to give how he or she wishes.

Third, if you desire to have even more control over your contributions, please realize CDA's would be able to experiment with many different models where their donors are very involved. If a CDA and Charitable CRA's wish to go through the church, they can. Rating Agencies would have to dig deep into analyzing all models and rate them.

Forth, currently, under welfare, the government controls the philosophy of how to help the poor. Under about a dozen different CDA's, many different philosophies of how to help would compete, thus allowing everyone to choose the philosophy that best matches their desires.

Fifth, the CDA's have great value. The leaders of CDA's will do in-depth research, look at ratings, receive the great value of Assessor Organizations, coordinate with other CDA's and Charity CRA's and properly distribute funds. These actions are simply beyond the ability of individuals.
How Funding CDA's Is Similar to Funding a Church

Lastly, we must all recognize the likelihood of eliminating all welfare without a replacement is very low. This Haley2024 plan replaces over an extended transition to allow charities to grow into the new role thus having a greater chance of success.

]]><![CDATA[The Largest Benefit in Charity is the Ability to say No, I will Not Help]]>Sun, 25 May 2014 07:54:22 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/the-largest-benefit-in-charity-is-the-ability-to-say-no-i-will-not-helpThe Largest Benefit in Charity is the Ability to say No, I Will Not Help.
Government Should Not Be the Helper of Last Resort.

By Bill Haley

It is far superior for someone in need of help to ask for help versus being able to demand help. The “ask,” demonstrates humbleness, where the “demand” demonstrates entitlement. A government welfare program must, if the law so dictates, provide benefits even if the help, harms the person in need. A charity can look at the heart of those in need and determine if benefits entrap a family in entitlement or enhance their chances of independence.

Many conservatives and Libertarians often want to differentiate themselves from liberals by saying that government should ONLY help someone AFTER they have gone to family, friends, the church, and charities. Only then, if those people/groups cannot solve the issue, should the government step up and take care of the unfulfilled need. This ‘government help as a last resort,’ simply is not possible; the law does not work that way.

The government cannot force family, friends, the church, or charities to help and should not try to force them. An essential function of helping is the ability to say ‘NO’ to someone. The ability to demand help if someone meets certain conditions is one of the significant harms inherent in government welfare programs. Too often that demand does harm.

Family, friends, the church, and charities need their ‘NO’ to mean ‘NO.’ Often, those requesting help made bad life choices. The ‘NO” almost always comes with ‘because you will not make better life choices.’ A typical human desire is to control others, and people should try to avoid that desire on the most part, however, when someone is asking for help, it is wise to examine why they are in that situation.

The 'NO' will often change to a ‘YES’ if they study versus play video games; if they stop drugs and become responsible; if they are seeking employment versus hanging out; if they volunteer versus being lazy; if they turn away from sin and seek God; if they are kind and not cruel; if they spend wisely versus being wasteful; if they are helpful and not a burden. Most people do not say no because they are selfish or greedy. They know actions and attitudes that lead to bad results and believe subsidizing it will do harm.

People understand that those asking for help, do not need to be perfect. However, they usually need to progress in the right direction. If someone is dealt a bad hand because of an accident, disease, or another’s actions, people are much more willing to help. Every situation is different, and statistics cannot determine if help is needed. It takes a human with philosophical understanding, wisdom, and experience.

If Government is the helper of last resort, peoples’ ‘No’ is undermined. If people meet the governmental standards to get help, then they can DEMAND the help, not ask for the help. The difference is profound. People are therefore encouraged not to work or to limit their work so as not to lose benefits. Benefit cliffs are real and are holding people down and entrapping them in poverty.

Also, whenever the government gives a certain type of help, charities step back from that type. They might switch to a different kind of help, but government crowds out non-government aid. Before the great society of the 60s, many charities existed. Those charities rapidly dwindled when the government took over. Charities now try to fill in the gaps, however, are a shell of what they once were.

The sense of entitlement began to take over in the recipients of welfare. The feeling that they were owed became too common. People also became aware of what they needed to do to receive the help. Single parenthood homes rose sharply as a result of wage-earning fathers causing ineligibility of welfare benefits. A father out of the home is the most significant cause of adverse social effects.

Under the Haley2024’s Welfare to Charity reform, Assessor Organizations will play this role. They will look into a person’s life to determine the right path and changes if necessary. The biggest asset an Assessor will have is the ability to require work and education from those seeking help. The structure of Competitive Ratings Agencies and choices of everyone will safeguard against abuses within the Charity System.

]]><![CDATA[Means Tested Welfare]]>Fri, 23 May 2014 02:59:48 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/means-tested-welfare

It is totally understandable to only want to give help to those that do not have enough money to care for themselves. However, the structure of this system can also entrap people in the welfare system. People receiving one or all 79 means-tested programs lose benefits when they start earning money.

While this takes things to the extreme, it does make the point.

The government money and benefits not received creates a very low return on working hard in a low wage entry level position, thus giving low incentives to work. Once enrolled in many benefits, work often means a lower standard of living, judged strictly in dollars.

The fix is to allow many different charities to try new ideas and methods and have Rating Agencies do major investigations, rate, and report. Everyone will decide from roughly a dozen different CDA's (Welfare to Charity), which will all have different models, how their mandated charity funds will be spent.

Under government welfare, if a mother has a chronically sick child on Medicaid, it is inconceivable for her to get a job that earns more than the means test for Medicaid. Benefit cliffs are when benefits are lost at a specific income level. If a person is earning $11,999 a year and the cut off is $12,000 per year, then earning one more dollar can mean losing a benefit worth thousands.

]]><![CDATA[Walter Williams Talks of the Cause of Black Poverty ]]>Mon, 19 May 2014 05:09:56 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/walter-williams-talks-of-the-cause-of-black-poverty

A great article on AEI- Ideas.

Walter E. Williams Sunday

1. In the video above George Mason economist Walter E. Williams talks to John Stossel about the “state against blacks.”

2. In this segment as guest host of the Rush Limbaugh show, Walter explains why he “loves greed.”

3. In this segment, Professor Williams examines the “racial double standards” in 2012 when Obama launched his racially divisive “African Americans for Obama” campaign to help him get re-elected. Walter asks, “Could Romney have launched a ‘Whites for Romney’ campaign without a national media uproar?”

4. Here’s Walter E. Williams’s “Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent” so that “they can stand straight and proud knowing they are without guilt and thus obliged not to act like damn fools in their relationships with Americans of African ancestry.”

5. Here’s the website “Suffer No Fools” for an upcoming public television documentary about the life of Walter E. Williams, produced by the Free to Choose Network:

On the major social and political issues of our time, Walter Williams is one of America’s most important and provocative thinkers. He is black, yet he opposes affirmative action. He believes that the Civil Rights Act was a major error, that the minimum wage actually creates unemployment and that occupational and business licensure and industry regulation work against minorities and others in American business. Perhaps most importantly he has come to believe that it has been the welfare state that has done to black Americans what slavery could never do: destroy the black family. Walter Williams expresses all of these provocative ideas and more in this new public television documentary produced by Free To Choose Network.

]]><![CDATA[Government Policies that Increase Fatherless Families]]>Sat, 19 Apr 2014 07:28:28 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/government-policies-that-increase-fatherless-families

Helping the poor is vitally important. How one helps is more important. There are many ways that the government helps, that has disastrous results. Out of wedlock births are greatly driven up by the structure of welfare. The biggest culprit is not having the ability to say “no, I will not help" when the help enables destructive lifestyles.

Many young pregnant unwed women are taught a very unfortunate economic lesson, that if you do not marry the wage-earning father of the child, the government will provide money, food, health care, housing among other benefits. While many try to resist this perverse incentive, over the years the rate of single parent households has risen.

Blog: The Importance of Fathers.

]]><![CDATA[Enabling Destructive Dependency]]>Sat, 08 Feb 2014 08:00:48 GMThttp://haley2024.org/blog-on-welfare-to-charity/enabling-destructive-dependencyI do not enjoy this at all! I do not laugh! I do not think I am better than these people. I am very sad that the government policies have enabled this. The government wants to help; however, the structure of this system does great harm.

]]>

The Mandate to Contribute to Charities

Charitable Distribution Associations

Case Workers

Accountability Organizations

​Living in a Society with Serious Unmet Needs Is a Negative Externality

​A Rating Floor on Not Becoming a Burden on Society

​Giving food, Shelter, and Health Care

​The Worth of Requiring the Needy to Work

​The Self Worth of Earning

​The Poor Are Capable: Stop the Paternalism

​Teach, Apprenticeship, Life Coach

​Capital and Banking Law