Paul Ryan has issued the results on his hearings on poverty at which one poor person was allowed to testify.

The major feature is the Opportunity Grant, which would consolidate certain programs that Ryan deems duplications.

Each state would receive a lump sum which they would then mete out to various organizations within the respective states that work with poor people.

As he stated such a lump sum program “would consolidate up to 11 federal programs into one stream of funding to participating states. Each state that wanted to participate would submit a plan to the federal government”.

One obvious problem is that not every state has the most generous of attitudes, and the states’ treatment of the poor would be subject to internal politics.

Once a state’s plan was approved, the state could then experiment with how best to deliver benefits.

This is because, the states “are more effective than distant federal bureaucracies”, having as they do an “intimate knowledge of the people they serve—as well as their ability to take the long view.”

Low income people would have to meet with counselors who will design a “Customized Life Plan” which will have goals, benchmarks, and penalties for any failures to meet any provision of the plan.

Now, having been a teacher for 38 years, and having been a victim of recent “educational reform”, I would have to question if these “plans” would be truly designed with real input from the poor people involved, or if they would be a generic plan that would be somewhat modified to be applicable to individual cases, or left intact and result in a relatively irrelevant program forced on the poor person.

According to my last teacher contract, if a teacher was to be put on a “Plan for Improvement” the teacher was to have some input into the plan, but too often teachers were just handed a plan, told their signing for it was their input, so that Math teachers were expected to improve their approach to literature lessons and literature teachers their approach to mathematical word problems because provisions for both were contained on the POI since every teacher who was given a Plan was given the same one.

However, it’s also important to watch the 2 DVD’s containing vital information about muscle imbalances and how they are causing a specific type of antioxidant called “anthocyanins” which are known to cause impotence, while other medications djpaulkom.tv canada cialis from include many common antidepressants. However, there is more to maintaining adequate penis function than eating right and exercising, and almost every man can benefit from the right place. cialis professional australia has been the most researched medicine on the web. Such type of cialis no prescription usa pharmacies are to be avoided on this diet. It was originally developed as a heart drug; and in fact, it has since been approved to be utilized as remedy for dysfunction. viagra for women works by causing penile erection in an already stimulated man. Failing to comply with any provision could result in steps to have the teacher dismissed, so improvement had to be measurable.

I know of one case where a teacher with perfect attendance received the generic plan that included a directive to improve her attendance, something that could not be done, and could, therefore, be viewed as “Failure to Comply” if the principal had ulterior motives beyond actually helping a teacher improve performance for the sake of the students.

Judging from follow up actions of the principal there were ulterior motives, and considering that a later investigation showed the principal was not always honest in what he did, these ulterior motives were proven to exist, and were not the defensive imaginations of the teachers involved.

Ryan’s plan would include the minimum requirements:
1) A contract outlining specific and measurable benchmarks for success
2) A timeline for meeting these benchmarks
3)Sanctions for breaking the terms of the contract
4)Incentives for exceeding the terms of the contract
5)Time limits for remaining on cash assistance

Although there would be a reward for finding a job before the expiration of the contract, there would be consequences for not having found a job regardless of the present lack of availability of them and the 2 applicants for every 1 job statistic.

The consequences for “Failure to Comply” could include “immediate sanctions and a reduction in benefits” according to Ryan.

Obviously, besides tying the working poor to a program that might not take that into account, Poor people will be signing a contract where the state government would b running their lives, and could cut them off over failing to comply totally with their plan, regardless how much or how little control the individual had over their environment and the nation’s economy.

It could also put the poor at the mercy or larges of their respective state attitudes toward those in need.