Of course I've been busy, but the reality is that I have been holding out on updating because I was without a camera, and I am a strong believer that images make blog entries stronger. This is mainly because I'm not as confident with presenting myself with just words. But alas, I am still camera-less, and I don't have the financial means to purchase one that I want.
What has happened since May? I have been working my ass off, working out, and studying a lot for my second round of LSATs. (Let us not talk about it, because I don't want to.) I also moved to a new apartment because my lovely roommate moved. I moved into a beautiful room that I would show you, if I had a camera. One of the best/worst things about my room is that I have a TV now in my bedroom. I don't have cable connection but I somehow get the Foodnetwork, so I have spent many-a-unproductive hours in front of the tube. (BTdubs, some of these shows are really irritating.)
Anyhoo, I mentioned reality at the beginning of this post, so I'm going with that theme today. Lets get real.
For as long as I've been working (all but 4+ years) I've always been at a workplace that was at least partially dependent on public funding, providing services to a specific population. We just started a new fiscal year. States should have already passed their budgets and should have already funded appropriate program. New York finally passed theirs, after delaying it for about 15-20 weeks. I'm sure California is/was overdue as well. Every year that I've been working, there's always talks about cuts to programs because of the increasing state deficits.
This is when I thank my lucky stars that I'm not brilliant enough to be in charge of who gets what kind of money.
If you ask me at work about who should get funding, I would stand by my work place's policy positions. If you ask me privately, though, I wouldn't be able to answer as quickly. It's so sad to me that programs have to fight against each other to represent their specific population, when what we're all doing is providing assistance that the public can't afford or manage. It's sad to me that when one group gets help, the other gets shafted. I think about it as a huge water balloon with holes all over, more holes than could be covered. You try to plug one, and water starts spewing out of the other hole. A classic example is a cut that one of my programs experienced, because the money had to go into gang intervention programs. Was our program more deserving of the money than the workers helping to prevent gang violence? Apples and oranges. You couldn't have put a quantitative worth on one over the other. Of course, there are situations where the needs of one population are greater than another. Starving children vs. starving adult is an example. That's why food stamp requirements are more strict with adults. I understand that. I suspect most cases aren't easily determined like that.
When I hear about the security of certain funding that we have and about other people's cut, I always wonder the long-term effect and what it could mean for the state, and therefore the country. It's pretty hard to understand how to decide the allocation of things like that.
I suppose I don't really have to worry about it too much since it's not my job. But I can't help but wonder.
Will be back for more!