For The Wowsers 1

US welfare spending

The United States spends $746 billion on welfare. That's just federal spending. States also spend their own money lifting the total to $1.03 trillion. Makes your eyes water but it's still less proportionately than NZ welfare spending.
 
It's almost impossible to do a direct comparison to NZ because the US figure includes medical assistance. The Washington Times article suggests medical assistance makes up 46 percent of the federal spend leaving $403 billion, and most of the state spend. So my guesstimate is $500 billion all-up.

NZ spends $11 billion on welfare. Doing a straight comparison, we're spending half as much again per capita (11/4.4 x 312). That is, if the US spent as much per person they'd be spending $780 billion - not $500.

But our spending is mostly cash transfer whereas in the US its mainly in-kind assistance:

Mr. Kogan said the cash assistance figure was “a shockingly small amount of money” in the scheme of things.
“Virtually all the rest is in the form of in-kind assistance: Medicaid, SNAP, WIC, housing vouchers, Pell Grants, LIHEAP and child care vouchers; or in the form of direct services, such as community health centers, Title 1 education, foster care, school lunch and Head Start,” he said.
Rather than straight transfers, those other programs provide support for services Congress has deemed worthy of funding. SNAP is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program that used to be called food stamps; LIHEAP is the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program; WIC is the Women, Infants and Children nutrition program; and Pell Grants provide assistance for college costs.

Willie Jackson on Mike Tyson

In the NZ Herald, Willie Jackson asks some pertinent questions about NZ's refusal to allow Mike Tyson to visit:

The hypocrisy of this matter raises several questions. Why is it No to Tyson, but Yes to so many other criminals who have come to this country?
Australia's most notorious criminal, Chopper Read, and the triple murderers the West Memphis Three are recent examples of that. And every second rock band that comes here has someone in it who's committed a crime.
And why was it that a Pakeha organisation, Life Education Trust, got approval for Tyson to come into this country with virtually no questions asked, yet my organisation - which is committed to turning around Maori offenders - wasn't considered good enough to be given a reason for Tyson's rejection.
And why is it that so many people think they know what's best for us and patronisingly tell us who should and should not come on to our marae?
Metiria Turei offered to enlighten us about why we got it so wrong and especially wants to talk to the women in our organisation. I can assure Metiria that they, too, are looking forward to talking to her.

I asked some of my own in last week's Truth column:

New Zealand’s a country that produces advocates for justice like QC Peter Williams, prison reformer Kim Workman and social worker Sam Chapman. They maintain that every man has the potential for rehabilitation into society; that many had childhoods so loveless only belated adult affection and acceptance can heal them.
Redemption has always been an article of faith for the political left. One of the few that strikes a chord with me.
So there’s a surprising and uncomfortable hypocrisy in this country’s attitude towards Mike Tyson. By all accounts Tyson has stayed crime-free since his 1992 rape conviction (a crime he steadfastly denies). Guilty or not, liberal Kiwis would normally celebrate the ensuing absence of reoffending.
But not when the crime was rape it would appear.

More

Other Truth columns here
(with a recommendation you read the editor's, Joe Lose)

Question for MSD: How is dominance 'diversity'?

The graph below is from the just-released MSD Annual Report. 
 
It's quite funny really. They state, "We aim to have a diverse workforce that reflects the whole community."

A workforce that is dominated by females reflects the whole community?

The rest of the Public Service is a closer reflection of the "whole community".

Based on their "aim" MSD should be adopting a new policy of only employing NZ European  males.

One in fifty on benefit because of psychiatric/psychological problems

The September quarter benefit fact sheets have just been released. All benefit categories show reduced numbers except for the sickness benefit.

The percentage of people who receive a sickness or invalid benefit because of a psychiatric or psychological condition has gradually increased over time.

There are now just under 2 percent of the working age population (18-64 years) on one of these benefits for psychiatric or psychological problems - 0.91 percent on SB and 0.92 percent on IB.

Around one in fifty. Or maybe someone in every 16th household.

That's very high.

The percentage relying on one of these benefits for any reason is over 5 percent or one in twenty of the working age population.

That's very high too.

The good news is the overall benefit dependency rate has fallen to just under 12 percent of the working age population. Around one in nine.

One in four children at medium or high risk of poor outcomes

Statistics NZ has just released a report into vulnerable children and families. The findings are from a survey of 8,000 individuals aged 15 or more. First they identified risk factors (as they applied to the survey respondent) and then categorised children by the degree they were exposed to those factors.

Risk factor	Percent
Current cigarette smoker	21
Victim of crime in last 12 months	20
Living in a high deprivation area	20
Feeling isolated some, most, or all of the time	17
Poor mental health	15
Victim of discrimination in last 12 months	12
Low economic standard of living, based on ELSI	11
More than one housing problem	10
Living in an overcrowded house	9
Limited access to facilities	8
Poor physical health	8

Number and proportion of children by risk group April 2010–March 2011 Number of risk factors Number of children (aged under 18 years) Proportion of children (%) No risk  0  328,000  30  Low risk 1–2  482,000  45  Medium risk  3–4  201,000  19  High risk  5+  67,000  6  Source: Statistics New Zealand Then they looked at the correlation between benefit income and risk

And the correlation between family type and risk

 

Remember ex Minister for Social Development Steve Maharey and his claim, "I know of no social science that says the nuclear family is more successful than other kinds."

I don't think the Tui billboards were around then but this absurdity would have been a prime candidate.

The report also looks at ethnicity and age of mother and turns up no surprises.

 "Nearly 43 percent of households in the high-risk group had a Māori respondent, compared with 8 percent in the no-risk group"






"1 in 5 high-risk and medium-risk households contain a young mother, compared with 1 in 20 in the no-risk group."



NOTE finally that the report states,  

"The selected risk factors are related to health, housing, income adequacy, neighbourhood, social connections, crime, and discrimination. The measures are not exhaustive and information on other possible risk factors, such as parental drug or alcohol abuse, is not covered by the survey. As some risk factors are linked to the individual respondent, not the household as a whole, this report will understate the number of households and children at risk."

So the actual picture is probably worse. Considerably.

Arse about face

Regular readers know that I monitor the MSD site daily and blog about any interesting new information. But lately - at least over the last three to four weeks - I have been frustrated by their search function not working.  Typically I'll be looking for evidence to support something I'm writing and will remember a certain study and go searching for it. I like to use government research wherever possible to deflect accusations of using "right-wing think-tank propaganda". Government research suits my purposes.

But now this message is appearing far too frequently:

There are too many pending search requests, so the search appliance cannot respond to your query at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.

Can't achieve legitimate access to information. It's all arse about face.

Dane Moeke

I blogged a couple of weeks back that Dane Moeke is back, this time trying his luck on New Zealand's Got Talent. I love this kid. In this performance I don't think he really hits his straps till around half way in and the dancers the idiot producers put behind him are nothing more than an utterly irritating distraction.  But if you like what you hear and want to help him on from the semi-final text 'Dane' to 8981

Political disaffection amongst French young

Stephen Franks has written  about a new French political movement launched in early October. Below is the  'declaration of war' from Generation Identitaire. The link takes you to the video with English subtitles and young French people reciting the declaration. It's deeply disturbing but in some respects totally understandable. And there is a universalism about the themes. Sexual liberation, broken families, over-burdened social security, anti-white racism.

"The Generation of National Identity" – A Declaration of War

We are Generation Identitaire.

We are the generation who get killed for glancing at the wrong person, for refusing someone a cigarette, or having an "attitude" that annoys someone.

We are the generation of ethnic fracture, total failure of coexistence, and forced mixing of the races.

We are the generation doubly punished: Condemned to pay into a social system so generous with strangers it becomes unsustainable for our own people.

Our generation are the victims of the May '68'ers who wanted to liberate themselves from tradition, from knowledge and authority in education.

But they only accomplished to liberate themselves from their responsibilities.
We reject your history books to re-gather our memories.

We no longer believe that "Khader" could ever be our brother, we have stopped believing in a "Global Village" and the "Family of Man".

We discovered that we have roots, ancestry and therefore a future.

Our heritage is our land, our blood, our identity. We are the heirs to our own future
We turned off the TV to march the streets.

We painted our slogans on the walls. Cried through loudspeakers for "youth in power" and flew our Lambda flags high.

The Lambda, painted on proud Spartans' shields, is our symbol.

Don't you understand what this means? We will not back down, we will not give in.
We are sick and tired of your cowardice.

You are from the years of post-war prosperity, retirement benefits, S.O.S Racism and "diversity", sexual liberation and a bag of rice from Bernard Kouchner.

We are 25 percent unemployment, social debt, multicultural collapse and an explosion of anti-white racism.

We are broken families, and young French soldiers dying in Afghanistan.

You won't buy us with a condescending look, a state-paid job of misery and a pat on the shoulder.

We don't need your youth-policies. Youth IS our policy.

Don't think this is simply a manifesto. It is a declaration of war.

You are of yesterday, we are of tomorrow.

Unbelievable (updated)

I went to the Work and Income website to see if there was any media release about the Kiosk catastrophe. But look what I found:

Don't give too much away

09 October 2012

Find out how to keep your information safe so you don't become a victim of identity theft.

Have you ever thought about how much information about yourself you freely give away and what could be done with it?
Dig into someone's wallet, look at their Facebook profile, or go through their rubbish and you will find a wealth of valuable information. Simple personal information, like your name, address, date of birth or bank account number is all that is needed for someone to pretend to be you and do harm.
Identities may be stolen to commit many different crimes, such as obtaining credit, false proof of age, IRD number theft and tax avoidance or to evade police. It varies from false Facebook pages, which can seriously damage people’s reputations, to organised crime syndicates using false identities to perpetrate serious crimes. In the past, New Zealanders have not had to worry so much about identity crime, but it is a growing problem around the world and is likely to affect more of us in the future.
The most unfortunate fact about identity theft is that the victim not only suffers, but also ends up being the one who has to clean up the mess. As many details about you don’t change much over time, victims can continue to have problems long after the initial theft.
You may think that identity theft is a problem on the Internet, but it happens in the real world too. There are some steps you can take to keep your identity safe.

• don’t give out personal information unnecessarily
• don't be afraid to ask why the information is needed and how it will be used
• don’t write down PIN numbers, or give them to people,
• don’t throw out bills or statements (shred or burn them)
• be wary if you receive unusual mail.

For more information, or help if you may have been a victim of identity theft, visit

www.identity.govt.nz/

Talk about adding insult to injury.

UPDATE: The press release headline and link was on the front page . Not now. I tried searching the release title and source and found this. "The page you are trying to access doesn’t exist on the Work and Income website. It may have been moved or renamed."

I suppose we should take comfort in the fact they acted, albeit belatedly.

Ramifications of MSD leakage

Just wondering what the ramifications of the MSD leakage will be in light of other current activity

"ACC sent apology letters in June to sensitive-claims clients and offered to pay them $250 if they agreed to stay silent, after one of New Zealand's biggest privacy breaches in August last year.
The "insulting" offer came after ACC mistakenly released the names and details of 6500 claimants, including 250 sensitive-claims clients who are victims of sexual abuse and violent crimes, to claimant Pullar.Wellington lawyer John Miller, a specialist in taking on ACC, said more than 100 claimants affected by the massive Pullar breach had approached him to take the case. He said those wanting to pursue ACC were sensitive claimants who generally had long simmering feelings of being poorly treated by the ACC system. "

Who knows what MSD information is now at large? Will the Privacy Commissioner advise MSD that clients will have to be notified that their information may no longer be private? How does this stuff work?

And how many aggrieved clients out there would happily accept an apology from the Minister? The relationships between WINZ/CYF and their clients are often far from hunky dory as it stands.

I do not think I am overstating this situation as a nightmare for the government. Do you?

New portraits

The first is philosopher and Austrian School economist, Ludwig von Mises. A life-size oil based on the following black and white photo:

 Then economist, Milton Friedman,

They're now on sale in the US at a relevant conference. Not actually sure what the name of it is. I was drawn to these particular shots as they portrayed men with warm and intelligent faces and the lighting on the subjects was perfect. A deadline meant I had to leave them a tad under-worked. A couple of things I'd like to slightly adjust but then I am never 100 percent happy with my paintings. The main thing is that the painting conveys what I was getting from the photograph.

Children's Commissioner says sole parents should be working one year after giving birth

 A 'special report' into child poverty ran in the NZ Herald. It looked at the report the Children's Commissioner recently released:

"The group's initial "options paper", on which submissions close next Friday, proposes targets to cut child poverty, a food in schools programme, changes to welfare and housing subsidies, a "warrant of fitness" for rental housing, and passing on child support from absent parents to custodial parents instead of siphoning it off to pay for sole-parent benefits.
On the first key poverty driver, jobs, it suggests a carrot-and-stick mix.
"Carrots" include more flexible childcare subsidies and giving parents priority for job subsidies.
The "stick" is to turn the DPB into a "young child-carer benefit", make sole-parents look for part-time work one year after giving birth, and stop the benefit completely when their youngest child turns 6, "when there would be an expectation of full-time work".
Family tax credits would be raised for young children in the short term. In the long term, the group proposes a universal child payment higher than existing tax credits for the first year after giving birth, then stepping down gradually and becoming a targeted top-up like the current tax credits from age 6.
On the second key driver, disintegrating marriages, Wills says the reforms would reduce the current incentive for young parents to separate so that one can get the DPB.
The universal payment would lift couples' incomes in the first year, and beyond that the proposed DPB-replacement would be much harder to get.
He believes that passing on child support, usually from absent dads to custodial mums, will also encourage dads to take ongoing responsibility for their children."

Now I am sure that report did not recommend making sole parents look for part-time work when their child turns one (which I agree with). The Commissioner, Russell Wills is also sounding sensible here saying the DPB replacement should be much harder to get. But I don't recall that in the report either.


The report says:

"In conjunction with the Child Payment, we propose changes to the benefit system to help more sole-parents  into  employment  when  their  child  starts  school.  The  research  evidence  suggests that between the ages of one to five, part-time work is likely to be beneficial for most children of sole-parents. The benefits are two-fold: high-quality ECE aids child development; and the extra income has positive impacts for the family. We therefore propose that the sole-parent benefit (DPB) be re-named the Young Child Carer Benefit. The Young Child Carer Benefit would end at age six, when there would be an expectation of full-time work, except where the needs and best interests  of  the  child  rule  out  full-time  work  (for  example,  if  the  child  had  a  disability),  or if sustainable full-time employment cannot be found."

That's it.

And the summary of the report doesn't mention a DPB replacement at all.

It appears the Children's Commissioner is improvising and improving the recommendations made.

This news also prompted me to  check the supporting Working Paper, Reforms to the Tax, Benefit and Active Employment System to reduce child poverty.

Here are the recommendations that I believe were played down in the final report:

104.  Work testing from when the youngest child turns one year old is consistent with the current approach to job protection in the parental leave system. Job-protection exists up until age one, where the system then provides a strong signal that it is time for a return (often part-time in actuality) of the parent on leave to work.

105.  The reason for one year of job protection is that: (1) having someone at home with an infant is good for the child, and (2) longer periods out of the labour market are likely to   be   increasingly   damaging   to   the   human   capital   and   positive   work-related behaviours and attitudes of the care-giver, and hence the child. 

106.  The belief that early parental re-attachment to the labour market for sole parents and high quality ECE of children is an integral part of the Nordic welfare systems, and this approach has achieved the lowest levels of child poverty in the OECD. 

107.  When  the  youngest  child  reaches  an  age  where  full-time  parental  work  is  child  age-appropriate,  the  YCCB  could  terminate.  If  the  sole  parent  cannot  obtain  full-time employment  thereafter,  they  will  make  a  transition  to  the  jobseeker  benefit  with  a full-time  work  test.  If  they  have  health  barriers,  a  health-related  benefit  may  be appropriate.

This advice should be taken into account during the debate over the next welfare reforms. The government is currently proposing that the new Sole Parent Support will only be part-time work-tested (10-20 hours per week) when the youngest child turns 5; full-time when they turn 14.

I hope the Office of the Children's Commissioner will be submitting these recommendations.

Mike Tyson

My Truth column today supported the granting of a visa to Mike Tyson. I can't reproduce it yet due to my agreement with the publisher.

But I have had a couple of additional thoughts not expressed in the column.

A number of people have suggested that admitting Tyson into New Zealand is to down-play rape. On Radio Live Rodney Hide asked a caller supporting Tyson if he also condoned rape? He went on to muse about there being no degrees of rape.

More often than not I agree with Rodney but thought this line of questioning was unfortunate. Why? I think of it this way.

Should the same question be put to the women who marry convicted rapists and bear their children? In their act of forgiving and redeeming a convicted rapist, are they apologists for rape?  An ACT conference had one such guest poised to take the  stage some years back. His background mirrored the sort of upbringing Tyson had. His wife was in the audience. I remember her eyes when she turned and looked at audience members. They seemed to say, Give him a chance. Some attendees didn't want to hear from the man. I did. Others did. And Rodney did I believe.

Similarly, consider the bureaucratic argument about assessing the risk Tyson poses. How much risk does the woman who wants to rehabilitate a criminal take? It is her trust that makes him want to stop offending. She trusts him for a lifetime  - not a mere 20 hours.

I'm ashamed and embarrassed of  New Zealand's attitude to Tyson.

Truth column October 5

My Truth October 5 column (reproduced in full because the print version was edited changing some of the sense.) Since I wrote this there have been further developments but my sentiments hold.

I just can't get excited about the Kim Dotcom affair. Which leaves me with a niggling sense of guilt. My inattention and disinterest must surely be quite negligent? And I am usually quick to criticise indifference or apathy as personality traits go. But if I'd got Carry On Kim Dotcom out on DVD I'd have given up well before his attempts at rap had me diving for the remote.

The only actual exposure to the German I've had - speaking that is - left me with the impression of a very good communicator, especially with English as a second language. In fact, he'd leave most New Zealanders for dead. I get what his MegaUpload site is about and can understand his arguments regarding lack of culpability. I appreciate that any ensuing court action and outcome will set important precedents.

It's also comprehensible to me that people are highly agitated about the involvement of New Zealand authorities in illegal surveillance in cahoots with United States authorities (but I'm too lazy to look up the exact monikers for the parties involved.) My interest is slightly piqued when the mention of civil liberties arises. Still....

Here's my problem. It's overblown. The media is milking it dry, as are opposition politicians. This case has become less about injustice and illegal process, and increasingly about the opportunity to damage the government. Opposition MPs  remind me of my Beagle before breakfast, though her drooling is more discreet. Now, as I said, their behaviour may well be justified but their ceaseless clamouring just turns me off.

See, I am even struggling to make up my quota of words this week but Bomber wanted to do Kim Dotcom. Perhaps I should let him borrow some. He'll doubtless have stacks to say.

83 percent of child abuse and neglect cases are from families on benefit

Thanks to Brendan for alerting me to the fact that 83 percent of child abuse and neglect cases are from families on welfare. That's according to Professor Rhema Vaithianathan interviewed for Radio NZ lunchtime news.

I returned to the study cited this morning to see how that percentage compared to 1994-5. Information held in the CYF computer was compared to that held in the Social Welfare system. A 'match' indicated the subject of the care and protection order had a caregiver with a Social Welfare Number (SWN).

Table 1 Matched Cases Between SWIFT and SWis Systems

	Care and Protection		Youth Justice
Match/No Match	Number	Per cent	Number	Per cent
Match, with SWN	236	79	256	85
Match, but no SWN	10	3	7	2
No Match	54	18	37	12
TOTAL	300	100	300	99*

So 82 percent of the Care and protection cases involved a caregiver (usually mother) who had a SWN.

However, "In a substantial minority of these matches, 107 cases (36%) in the care and protection sample and 80 cases (27%) in the youth justice sample, no current income-tested benefit was being paid nor was there a benefit paid over the 1994-95 period."

This would drop the percentage significantly.

So I'm still keen to know what the source is for the Professor's claim. Some questions I think.

UPDATE. I have been in touch with the Professor who has very quickly responded and provided a link to their study. Here is the exact wording:   "Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83% are seen on a benefit before age 2, translating into a
very high “capture” rate."

Useful research for a change

It's pleasing to see some really useful research being undertaken. The NZ Herald article I linked to in earlier post contained the following:

The model was developed by the University of Auckland after assessing 52,000 children born between 2003 and 2006 whose parent or parents were on a benefit, and monitoring them for five years.

The apologists for welfare who refuse to acknowledge a link between long-term benefit dependence and child abuse/neglect will be dismayed to read the above.

A 1996 study revealed that a CYPF Care and Protection notification was 3.8 times more likely to occur when the child lived in a benefit dependent home. I asked MSD if they were going to repeat the research and was told there were no plans to.

But the Auckland University has been working on an exercise that would probably reveal something similar. Will have to investigate.

Big Brother for the bad guys

The development of a database for at-risk children is a good idea....I think. When unsure about something I work it out by writing.

Yes, it's state intrusion. However, the state has a legitimate role in protecting children.

But let me give you a hypothetical case of one child who'll be going on that database (as a result of being present at a domestic dispute the Police were called to). We should be relieved that 'other' people involved in her life will be made aware (IF they use the database) of the potential for exposure to further violence.

But at this stage how many 'other' people would be in her life? A doctor? She wasn't born in the city she now resides so may not be enrolled with a GP. A social worker? Probably because the Police have to notify CYF when a child is at an address where a family violence incidence occurs. But there won't be any teachers. She's too young.

Now, it's the first year of life that is riskiest for babies. Will the new database help? It will apparently put up an alert if a 'high-risk' adult moves into the home. But adults don't necessarily use their real addresses. Especially if they are moving into the home of someone on the DPB. For obvious reasons. (In this case even the baby's father, who has past convictions for violence, isn't registered in the database at the same address. His 'official' address is elsewhere to enable the mother to claim the DPB.)

As it stands the family is on notice that another incident will lead to the (at least temporary) removal of the child. But another incident may be one incident too many. The database can't predict if, when or how severe it will be.

My invented scenario happens all over the country.

Invasion of privacy? If people break laws intended to protect others, and abuse welfare, they give up certain rights. Yes, I imagine some people are going to also abuse the database. We've seen that sort of infringement with police and WINZ databases. Some klutz might even email its contents or part thereof to an unintended recipient!

But, on balance, I can support the database. Don't expect it to be the silver bullet though.

Cut Super to reduce child poverty!

I've been waiting for this suggestion and am only surprised it took so long.

The 'solutions'  to child poverty - and its so-called manifestations like abuse - will cost around $1.5 - 2 billion by the Children's Commissioner calculations.

Where could that kind of money come from?

Raising the Super age to 67.

So says Children's Doctors Patrick Kelly:

"My personal view, and this is my personal view and not the view of the Paediatric Society, is that I would raise the age at which people get national super, because life expectancy has changed hugely since about 1905 when national super was introduced and there are many healthy, active people in their late sixties who ... do not need financial support from the Government.

1898 actually.

I support raising the Super age for the same reason expressed here. But I do not support a massive transfer of the money saved into potty ideas like a universal child benefit, state-funded school lunches, and paying the IWTC to beneficiary parents. That isn't going to stop abuse and neglect. That will only reduce when we stop paying people to have babies they don't want and can't care for.

NZ could use the saved money to pay down some debt and in other ways that would help the economy.

Kelly continues:

"If those who are middle-aged now want to be supported in their old age, they will be voting for a Government that spends money on the children of today."

Not me. That's exactly the government I won't be voting for. The last thing NZ needs to do is grow the welfare state.

Rebutting The Spirit Level

I'm way behind the eight ball here but have intended for ever so long to look up the rebuttal of The Spirit Level, the new bible of the left which purports to show that income inequality is the source of many social ills.  Previously it was sufficient for me to know that the hypothesis was flawed but I hadn't taken the time to read about specifically why.

A post by James Bartholomew prompted me to go looking. In case you are interested, here it  is:

This report shows that The Spirit Level has little claim to validity.  Its evidence is weak, the analysis is superficial and the theory is unsupported.  The book’s growing influence threatens to contaminate an important area of political debate with wonky statistics and spurius correlations.  The case for radical income redistribution is no more compelling now than it was before this book was published.

(There may of course be other rebuttals I'm unaware of).