Comments on: Tax Us or Tailor it http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/07/09/tax-us-or-tailor-it/ Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 13:22:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Rightwoman http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/07/09/tax-us-or-tailor-it/comment-page-1/#comment-189106 Rightwoman Fri, 10 Jul 2009 18:05:14 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=4603#comment-189106 Honestly, The biggest problem is the systemic policy, often encourages, for agencies small and large to request as much money as possible and then justify using it! Umm, no that is backwards! My six year old is a master at this telling me that this week he needs his allowance upped by 30 dollars( from the $2.50 he gets LOL) Why? He wants a Bumblebee Transformers helmet he saw. So his theory is that he needs an increase that magically matched what he needs! I also got a list of all of the ways he loves me or helps. Now, he's charging about $5 per hug it seems :-) Hmm, even at age six, the lil guy knows that is not working. Honestly, The biggest problem is the systemic policy, often encourages, for agencies small and large to request as much money as possible and then justify using it! Umm, no that is backwards!

My six year old is a master at this telling me that this week he needs his allowance upped by 30 dollars( from the $2.50 he gets LOL) Why? He wants a Bumblebee Transformers helmet he saw. So his theory is that he needs an increase that magically matched what he needs! I also got a list of all of the ways he loves me or helps. Now, he’s charging about $5 per hug it seems :-)

Hmm, even at age six, the lil guy knows that is not working.

]]> By: todd http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/07/09/tax-us-or-tailor-it/comment-page-1/#comment-189101 todd Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:38:29 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=4603#comment-189101 ron, that was a very informative articles. I would disagree with one statement: "Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis. " He then goes on to give an example of how someone on the right might disagree with the approach but I don't see what disagreement someone on the left would have. For the homeless problem, for instance, if a large portion are only homeless for very short times (1 or 2 days) in their lives then basically all they is somewhere save to stay for a couple of nights while they work out finding housing with friends, family or others. They don't need counseling or job training, just a short term inexpensive solution. For the chronically homeless, yes there needs to be a different approach and one that is realistic in achieving some improvement while making choices about how to think about overall costs regardless of the "deserving" aspect. The example from the article of it being less expensive to provide a low cost efficiency apartment for someone vs. the huge health care cost that person will entail being homeless. I don't see anything objectionable in this discussion and I certainly don't see something unfair about it. Part of the problem is the institutional CYA that I think causes the one size fits all approach. ron,
that was a very informative articles. I would disagree with one statement:
“Power-law solutions have little appeal to the right, because they involve special treatment for people who do not deserve special treatment; and they have little appeal to the left, because their emphasis on efficiency over fairness suggests the cold number-crunching of Chicago-school cost-benefit analysis. ”

He then goes on to give an example of how someone on the right might disagree with the approach but I don’t see what disagreement someone on the left would have. For the homeless problem, for instance, if a large portion are only homeless for very short times (1 or 2 days) in their lives then basically all they is somewhere save to stay for a couple of nights while they work out finding housing with friends, family or others. They don’t need counseling or job training, just a short term inexpensive solution. For the chronically homeless, yes there needs to be a different approach and one that is realistic in achieving some improvement while making choices about how to think about overall costs regardless of the “deserving” aspect. The example from the article of it being less expensive to provide a low cost efficiency apartment for someone vs. the huge health care cost that person will entail being homeless. I don’t see anything objectionable in this discussion and I certainly don’t see something unfair about it.

Part of the problem is the institutional CYA that I think causes the one size fits all approach.

]]> By: ron http://sonoranalliance.com/2009/07/09/tax-us-or-tailor-it/comment-page-1/#comment-189096 ron Fri, 10 Jul 2009 17:05:41 +0000 http://sonoranalliance.com/?p=4603#comment-189096 I would add to your criteria, Gayle, the reading of this article: http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html should be required reading by all legislators and social service agencies and their advocates. The current 'one size fits all' mentality and that requirements are made for the worse case scenario and then applied to all clients is not working. Not every client needs a monthly visit just because one client went off his rocker and did some evil visit. Triaging clients and developing appropriate plans for each one is what is needed - not a cookbook that says each client needs the same recipe for success. The fact 30% of schizophrenics are 'cured' without any treatment already suggests that there is not 'one' treatment for that population. those are my thoughts. I would add to your criteria, Gayle, the reading of this article:

http://www.gladwell.com/2006/2006_02_13_a_murray.html

should be required reading by all legislators and social service agencies and their advocates.

The current ‘one size fits all’ mentality and that requirements are made for the worse case scenario and then applied to all clients is not working. Not every client needs a monthly visit just because one client went off his rocker and did some evil visit. Triaging clients and developing appropriate plans for each one is what is needed – not a cookbook that says each client needs the same recipe for success. The fact 30% of schizophrenics are ‘cured’ without any treatment already suggests that there is not ‘one’ treatment for that population.

those are my thoughts.

]]>