Recently, a small debate has raged about the workability of social programs. I think there is some merit in the idea that social programs are largely burdensome and don't do as well as they should. But the question oft-ignored by those who like to blast the "welfare state" is whether or not the faults of social programs are inherent or are they derived.

Essentially, I and many Democrats believe that social programs do not and cannot exist in a vacuum. In short, if a social program is to have success, it must be funded, enforced and properly supplied with both the monetary and the man-power necessary.

Universal Health Care is a good example of this. Recently, I had the priviledge of shadowing and somewhat assisting Sioux Valley Hospital's Dr. Roy Mortinson for about 16 hours observing the numerous issues he has to deal with as a family medicine practioner. In Sioux Valley Hospital, there are usually three family doctors on call at any point during the day. Add that to the two doctors always on call at the Clinic, Olsen's medical clinic and various medical assistants, there are about 13 direct medical attendants on duty for a town of 9,000 or so people - to say nothing of nurses, social workers and various specialists on duty.

In a town with a potential patient to responder ratio of 692:1, these doctors and assistants are kept very busy throughout their shifts. So busy that as an observer, I never had the chance to sit down. Conservatives will tell you that this means that any additional burden upon medical services will be detrimental to the quality of care, but I would say that they're drawing the incomplete conclusion. What this means, I believe, is that any attempt to increase coverage must be coupled with an attempt to increase the number of qualified caretakers and providers, as well as an increase in the level of general education in order to prevent needless visits that bog down hospitals and unnecessarily introduces perscription drugs and antibiotics into the population.

I think this is the key point that many conservatives, including the members of the USD Republicans, often miss - the quality of our public works and public institutions are all interconnected. You cannot increase the coverage of health care without decreasing the number of visits and increasing the number of providers. You cannot increase the standards of education without first increasing the number of teachers. You cannot increase the reliability of power without also increasing the quality of infrastructure needed to deliver that power.

What causes social programs to fail, I believe, is the short-sightedness of some politicians. What causes them to fail are people like our current administration who increases standards without providing for means to achieve those standards. I do not believe there is an inherent flaw with programs aimed at increasing the general good. If someone would like to point it out (using your own words, please), I would be glad to hear it. Meanwhile, though, I think it's terribly ironic that those who believe in the power of the government as an agent of social justice are called "dreamers." The real "dream" here is the idea that we can improve one area of our social institutions without increases across the board. This fruitless "dream" leads to underfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind, these blatant disregard of realities lead to ineffective social administration. Indeed, the only fantasies here are those which hold that we can "meet problems as they arrive" rather than meet future problems head on. To eliminate these problems, we must realize that the problem is not with government itself, but the government's short-sighted, too-specific social agenda. This is the true reason why social program fail - because they are misunderstood and not nurtured properly.