Tackling entitlements -- on-the-ground observations.

Last fall, we were all talking about "change". We were talking tough -- about the need to face up to costs and balances, to budget honestly, and the need for people to come off their high horses and live within their means.

So much for that.

It's become clear to me lately, that these are no hard times in entitlement circles. Costly programs that previously were put off by state budgets are now being green-lighted, thanks to all this extra federal surplus floating around. "Spend it, consume!, that's the only thing that's going to bring the boom times back..." so the thinking goes.

Today, I want to address just one small piece of the puzzle affecting social services in this country. A bit of history, a bit of policy, a large dose of reality.

IN THE BEGINNING... there were no social safety nets, outside of family, religion and community. You saw many people step up in those days -- women who did not work outside the home often contributed significantly to their schools, towns, and the welfare of the people around them. They weren't paid in dollars for their services, yet many lived highly prosperous lives practicing the Golden Rule. Good health, long lives, a feeling of contentment and purpose.

Religious communities also played a big role in establishing and running hospitals, educating students outside their own faiths, and meeting the daily needs of the poor, who will always be with us, of course. With workers who had taken a vow of poverty, and with daily practice in sacrifice, skimping, and making do ... you often saw miracles come forth from people and places that years before, you might not have given very good odds of success.

Of course, teaching self-respect, self-discipline and self-sacrifice often accompanied the services received. (meaning, you can attend our school tuition-free, if you agree to play by the rules.) (or, we can help your daughter bear her baby and pay for her shelter and medical costs, but if she's not ready or capable to care for/pay for her child herself or with family help, it's probably best for the child and it's extended family to adopt it out to someone who can.)

Now, I can hear you now readers: "but, but ... wasn't that a bad thing taking the babies away from young poor mothers and adopting them out" or "I don't want a Catholic nun delivering my baby and how can I help it if the only hospital in my community is Catholic?" or "why should a child have to attend a school outside of his own faith in order to receive a decent education in some parts?" or "That was a horrible when women were not paid for their contributions in the public realm. Are you advocating a return to the past?"

No. Let's be clear on that last one: no. I think options are wonderful, for everyone -- man and women. But I also am a realist enough to realize that all choices have consequences. And it takes not a little bit of bravery, and brains, to recognize them before you take action.

Today, I'll take on Disability Payments for children. Some of you may know a bit about this system, some of you may not. But it's an interesting game that is being played out there by plenty of single mothers, and it's a sad one for plenty of children. Let me explain:

Social Security enables disabled workers, and their families, to receive monthly monetary payments. Years ago, the welfare program was structured so that each little baby was another increase in the monthly paycheck, up to a limit. When that was done away with, modelled nationally on Wisconsin's welfare-to-work program, mothers didn't get paid just for being poor and having children (and as I understand it, rarely would a poor woman stop at one -- the incentives were to continue breeding for a living, that is how one increased the "paycheck".)

When we did away with welfare, there was no payoff (minus the complex tax credit system) per child. So, many mothers found another way to qualify their children: get them a medically disabled rating.

My friend Brenda has a disabled child, who is now 21 and attending college. Brenda's car went off a cliff in her parent's native Puerto Rico when she was many months pregnant, and the first country hospital they took her to once they extracted her from the vehicle just was not equipped for such a complicated delivery. (no word on the denomination of the hospital, for those readers who might be guessing)

Brenda's child was born with CP, but mentally, she is all there. She's had surgeries to cut her hamstrings to stretch them out, and she doesn't walk, but otherwise, I am so proud of my friend for never treating her child as a "victim" and concentrating on what her daughter can do, not focusing on her physical limitations. Bilingual, an excellent student, and such a kind, patient and mature young woman, I have no doubts that she will find her role and contribute greatly to society. (exploring emergency dispatch careers, at this time)

There are many parents with disabled children who benefit greatly from that monthly check, specialized services, and the government help. I know that. I support that with my tax dollars. But I know the system is being abused, and I wonder how long it will be before someone has the nerve to tackle this problem, much like we took on the welfare crisis and consequences.

If you're like me, it might be hard for you to believe that a parent -- a mother -- could ever hope that their child be labeled as disabled. If they are not. But think back to that welfare history -- how non-working women who were no longer rewarded for simply bringing a life into society, who were not willing to work, would pay their bills?

How about ... off their child's monthly disability check? It happens, folks, due the perverse incentives now set up. You see, the Social Security disability listings are much easier to meet when one is under 18. Where an adult has to essentially prove how the physical or mental disability has affected their ability to work or perform activities of daily living, we substitute children's standards for those under 18. (for example, can the child tie their shoes at the same time as their peers? Speech, socialization, learning skills?)

Where no adult with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder alone would qualify for Social Security disabililty, a child can. Thus entitling the parent to the monthly benefit check.

Again, just so we are clear: surely there are youngsters struggling with mental and physical disabilities who need extra help outside the home, who indeed are medically diagnosed -- accurately -- for their own good. With a good treatment plan, active parenting in conjunction with the schools' special education programs, and COMMITMENT TO THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE CHILD, many can prosper in society and go on to function as tax-paying workers who someday can afford to raise families of their own.

But... what of those parents who urge a behavioral disability listing, who are thrilled when their child qualifies them for a monthly benefit? Who speaks for those children in this skewed system?

If we want to tackle entitlements, and sooner is always better than later if you ask me, let's start here: with the increasing numbers of special education students who graduate high school (because the schools, afterall, have financial incentives of their own) who are re-evaluated at age 18 for their disabilities using the harder, adult listings, and no longer qualify as disabled.

What becomes of these young adults, some who are now not qualified to even complete a job application independently, much less get hired and hold a self-supporting job? In my state, we call this the "transistion" period, and committees have formed to address the over-18 problem -- what then?

So often, like so many non-disabled young adults in their late teens and early 20s, these former children drift. Perhaps experimenting, perhaps engaging in criminal matters -- minor or significant, perhaps not knowing what to do with their newfound freedom if the educational institutions never really addressed life skills like working, budgeting, and paying one's own way through life.

I don't like to see children medicated for the wrong reasons. I don't like to see schools, parents, and our social programs intentionally or not rob these children of productive and fulfilling futures. College is not a realistic goal for many children with behavioral and mental limitations, yet with a committed team of parents, teachers, and vocational resource workers, surely some could learn the necessary skills for plenty of vocational and service jobs. I know they can, because I have seen it work in the places where it's not just all about the money, where there really is some honest emphasis on the disabled child himself.

Finally, let's talk about the public-interest sphere today. Not too many taking vows of poverty these days, and again, not that there's anything wrong with that. Wonder why so many women -- particularly women from high- and upper-middle income families go into public interest work? Because students who have tuitition to pay, and bills of their own to meet, rarely can take the unpaid internships and low opening salaries that these jobs pay. But with a higly paid spouse, a public-interest career can be lucrative -- particularly if one is looking to work part-time hours to raise a family of one's own, or if a divorced working father is looking for a family-friendly place that he can cut out early, say, if it's his weekend with the children.

I don't have all the answers -- never said I did. But I can look the problems in the eyes, see the skewed incentives, and wonder where all this is going to end up.

Those poor, poor kids... and I don't mean monetarily either.