April 19, 2006

The Mayor's second term is off to a strong start.  Some, relying on mayoral history, predicted a slowdown as senior commissioners departed, and successors became harder to recruit.  That does not appear to be happening; so much the better.
 
An unusual event this week may have provided a Sister Souljah moment for the new Bloomberg administration.  Monday’s Times reported that senior head officials said the city would ask Washington to give New York City a waiver of the Federal rule prohibiting able-bodied adults who decline to work or to seek work from receiving food stamps (in effect, free food).
 
We quote from the article by Sewell Chan on page A1 in Monday’s Times:
 
“The waiver now being sought by the city, which is expected to be approved by the federal government, would affect adults ages 18 to 49 who are not responsible for a child or incapacitated relative and are not physically or mentally unfit for work. The federal welfare overhaul of 1996 imposed a three-month limit on food stamps in any three-year period for this group, known as able-bodied adults without dependents…
 
“The three-month time limit does not affect those adults who work at least 80 hours a month, participate in job-training programs for at least 20 hours a week, or are enrolled in workfare, performing a job like raking leaves or answering phones in exchange for benefits.”
 
In Tuesday’s Times, again on A1, Sewell Chan reported new information:
   
“Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg took the rare step yesterday of overruling his own top two social service officials, deciding not to pursue a federal waiver that would make it easier for able-bodied childless adults to receive food stamps."

The mayor's decision was praised editorially today in the News and the Post.
 
The official responsible for social services, Deputy Mayor Linda J. Gibbs, backpedaled gracefully, saying that the city would not seek the waiver "because we believe that every New Yorker who can work should work."
 
That proposition, although reasonable, is not entirely accurate.  Thousands of New Yorkers who can work do not work.  They are loosely called "trust fund kids”, but the term encompasses all those New Yorkers whose parents or other benefactors have provided them with sufficient funds so that they need not engage in any sort of toil.  One can say that, in fairness, these people should work, whether for a salary or for charity.  There is, however, no legal requirement for people to work unless they desire to eat at the expense of their working neighbors, in which case the consent of the state is required to support the lifestyle they have chosen.
 
Some idlers do not require money for shelter, they are housed by relatives or friends whom they may or may not provide with nontaxable nocturnal services.  Clothing is cheap and easily obtainable from charities.  If they want stylish duds, there are thrift shops, or they can rely on the generosity of those who give them shelter.  Food, therefore, becomes their principal expenditure, apart from cigarettes, narcotics, alcohol or other substances that help some of them pass the idle hours.  The question becomes, should we taxpayers feed them and their hosts or guests at public expense?
 
One reason we have a national food stamp program is to subsidize agriculture, and it is in the interest of American farmers to enroll as many people as possible, so more food will be purchased and consumed.  But an increasingly obese America should devour enough food to keep the wolf from their barn doors, and farmers' economic desires should not determine urban social policy.
 
The food stamp contretemps strengthens the mayor because it shows him unafraid to overrule his commissioners.  It should also remind his staff not to leak unless they have received clearance.  We do not know whether his press secretary or communications director approved Monday's story.  If they did, Ms. Gibbs deserves private exoneration.  If they did not, we assume this is the last time she will leak, since every dog is entitled to one bite, but no more.  In this internal issue, it is most likely that Rule 30-T applies: “The truth lies somewhere in between.”
 
This is the bottom line question: "Should able-bodied people who refuse to work, or to seek work, be fed at public expense?"  We all oppose hunger starvation, so why should everyone not be fed?  But the world is not a giant restaurant, where everyone dines at his/her pleasure, regardless of effort.  Society has accepted the idea that adults pay for food, whether by barter, cash or services.  Soup kitchens and shelters serve the homeless, but the city does not currently subsidize a permanent lifestyle of individuals stuffing themselves on the taxpayers' dime, while declining, to lift a finger to earn their keep.
 
In New York there flourishes among professionals the social work mentality, which rejects the concept of personal responsibility, and believes that the benefits of life should be available to all, regardless of whatever they do or refuse to do.  This viewpoint has many supporters, in academia and in foundationland.  Some day their lawyers may find a court that will find a constitutional right to eat without working, but with the unlikelihood of that viewpoint being adopted by a less expansive Supreme Court, the advocates must rely on elected officials to make those decisions.
 
We agree that people who are physically or mentally unable to work should not be required to do so.  We agree that people who are actively seeking work, or enrolled in job training or work experience program, should be assisted.  Mayor Bloomberg’s apparent decision applies only to those like Bartleby, the scrivener, who when asked to copy a document, or perform any other service, simply said: "I choose not to." 
 
The requirement of work for food is an historic principle of society.  It is set forth in the fables of Aesop (c. 620-560 B.C.), written in ancient Greek and translated into many languages.  Our class memorized a French version of the timeless fable:  "La Cigale et la Fourmi", by Jean de La Fontaine (1621-95).  In English, that is "The Grasshopper and the Ant".
 
We learned the poem in our ninth-grade French class, taught by Mr. Clement, at Junior High School 52, Manhattan.  We are told that forty five years later, the fable was committed to memory by students at Andries Hudde Junior High School (240) in Brooklyn, who were then required to recite it in front of the class.
 
Today such instruction, derided as “rote learning” by those whose desideratum is self-esteem, is not in fashion at the Department of Education, where educrats have similar distaste for multiplication tables and other educational procedures they deem antiquated. 
 
We read that the mayor has not made a final decision on this issue of waivers.  We hope he follows his own common sense on the matter, rather than listening to the institutional insiders or the chattering classes.  If these sages are not nattering nabobs of negativism, they are surely devout defenders of dependency.


#291 4.19.06 1202wds