For all my ideals, I might not be considered "Liberal" on fiscal issues. Which seems about right to me, since I think I'm a centrist, staring in horrified amazement at the wackos on both sides of the spectrum.
I think it's a step in the right direction to require drug-testing for welfare recipients. And although we already have social workers who look out for the kids, I'm fairly certain that there are parents out there who don't put their checks to good use...you know, food and school supplies and clothing and such. I'm reminded of the film Precious, in which the mother, played to disturbing effect by Mo'Nique, tells Precious to "get down to the welfare" instead of continuing her education. Why shouldn't the government make sure that it's money is being used for good instead of "subsidizing people's addictions." The problem is...basically every state is in a budget crisis (maybe except for the Dakotas?) and drug-testing could cost millions (according to a labor union). Not to mention the pesky 4th Amendment, which prohibits search and seizure without probable cause. Applying for welfare is, as of yet, not probable cause for a drug test. Read more about the issue in this very informative blog here. So I say "right direction," knowing that there are people out there who will do anything for a fix and that the government might not be able to do anything about it.
Here's the issue that hits home for me though: banks have been lacking "confidence" lately, not loaning and guarding their capital like medieval dragons hoarding treasure. The smallest (and in my opinion, most nefarious) result of the nervous bankers is new fees...and old fees. I've been hit lately with a low minimum balance fee. And I was kicked out of the points-earning program. For not earning enough money. And is that really my fault? Many who figure out what I studied and what I want to do with my life would say "yes." To study the arts and be an idealist is to deserve poverty. And the fees that come with it.
As I said before, though, I'm a centrist, so I don't think the government should (or, let's be honest, could) step in and stop the fees. Banks want to make money...and they found a way to do it that relies on widespread unemployment and under-employment. You gotta keep an eye on those trends. Yet from the individual perspective, looking at a depressing bank statement, these fees and restrictions seem to say "you are not worthy of holding a bank account." As a friend of mine said, it's like the banks just want us to bury our cash in a jar.
And maybe that would be best. I've also started a new part-time job lately, and until Direct Deposit goes into effect (perhaps 2 weeks), I'm supposed to use this strange little debit card. I have yet to figure out how to use this card without a fee. There's an ATM fee (three, really, counting international), balance-check fee, heck there's a monthly service charge! Why can't they just mail me or give me a check? I can cash that for free (so far) at my fee-loving bank. My cynicism is whipped into a frenzy solely by the fact that I did not choose to use this card. I did not elect for this third-party company to profit off my measly paycheck. Why are they doing this? Because there are millions of us vulnerable under-employed who need the "convenience" of yet another debit card to use instead of cash.
While we're lamenting the sore lack of money in our accounts, private corporations are seeing nothing but dollar signs. And that thought ruins my afternoon.
No comments:
Post a Comment