Dammit, Who Pays? A Policy Framework for Scheduling Poverty Stack Monetization in Government Tech Procurement

Absolutely. Below is the rewritten policy memo format titled:





Dammit, Who Pays? A Policy Framework for Scheduling Poverty Stack Monetization in Government Tech Procurement




Author: pacobaco




Blog Reference: 

wethemachines.blogspot.com/2025/07/hats-off-to-the-threshold.html






🔍 Executive Summary



The increasing privatization of public benefit infrastructure through VC-funded “poverty stack” platforms raises urgent questions of ethics, extractiveness, and policy neglect. While fintech startups profit by charging fees, monetizing data, and embedding compliance tools into the lives of low-income Americans, public agencies have no formal structure to assess harm, value, or control.


This memo proposes a graduated scheduling model — similar to the Controlled Substances Act — to classify and regulate technologies that interface with poverty systems. Paired with a composite readiness and ethics scoring framework, this model can serve as the foundation for responsible tech procurement and deployment in government.


Dammit, who pays?

The answer today is: the poor.

The answer tomorrow must be: those who profit, or not at all.





🎯 Problem Statement



  • Government benefit systems are being intermediated by private platforms that introduce fees, friction, or surveillance into essential services (e.g. food, housing, disability).
  • These platforms operate under MIT licenses, SaaS models, or “govtech accelerators” — without passing public readiness thresholds.
  • Regulatory frameworks treat the problem as one of fraud or eligibility — not software architecture, equity scoring, or parasitic monetization.






🔧 Policy Recommendation: Schedule Poverty Stack Tech Like We Schedule Controlled Substances


Schedule

Description

Risk Level

Example

I

Extractive, monetizes direct access to aid or housing; opaque fee structure

🚨 High

Prepaid benefit debit cards, rent-skimming fintech

II

Collects user data for behavioral profiling or compliance optimization; limited consent

⚠️ Moderate

Workfare attendance trackers, foster care dashboards

III

Open-source tools interfacing with public systems, minimal extraction

🟡 Low

Medicaid appointment systems, SNAP eligibility calculators

IV

Public-sector–controlled platforms or mission-locked SaaS with co-governance

✅ Minimal

City-built housing portals, cooperatively owned gig apps





🧮 Threshold Test: The Poverty Stack Composite Score



Require all Schedule I–III tech proposals to be scored on:


  1. Code Quality & Scalability
  2. Security & Privacy
  3. Data Dignity
  4. Public Value Alignment
  5. Ownership Model (MIT, VC, Cooperative?)
  6. Narrative Test: “Would you trust this with your own rent, food, or child?”



Minimum score for procurement eligibility: 7.5/10





🧭 Partisan Alignment


Right-Aligned (Trump-era framing)

Left-Aligned (AOC-style framing)

“Stop grift in the welfare state.”

“Stop monetizing poverty with surveillance tech.”

“Audit who’s skimming taxpayer programs.”

“Score and block extractive platforms before they scale.”

“Use business simulation licenses for benefits tech.”

“Create public alternatives and cooperative data systems.”





🗂 Implementation Steps



  1. Integrate the composite scoring rubric into OMB procurement standards
  2. Require Schedule-based self-disclosure in govtech RFPs
  3. Establish a Public Data Ethics Council to review edge cases
  4. Incentivize Schedule III–IV development via public funding and priority contracts
  5. Ban Schedule I platforms from operating without public audit






🧠 Supporting Tools








🧾 Closing



The question of “Who pays?” is not rhetorical.

It’s structural.

And right now, the answer is: those with the least.


If government continues to outsource dignity to dashboards, extractive poverty-tech will become our next mortgage crisis — scaled by APIs and dressed as disruption.


This memo argues for a new policy firewall: one based on scheduling, scoring, and the simple truth that tech isn’t neutral when it feeds on necessity.




Would you like me to turn this into a formal PDF version or submit it as a policy brief format compatible with Substack or Medium?


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Low Volume Tech Jargon Classification Scheme

while the dark web prides itself on the finger on identifying you anonymously the associated alternative classification method of keeping a secret is low circulation volume with field specific technologies jargon . so unless you were subjectively and targeted by index specifically id'd it isn't a higher level risk for publications. the circulation noise pot relies on happenstance review and browsing Publication Types Table Publication Types Table Publication Type Specific Identifier Risk Level Volume of Circulation Local Newspaper Mailman Low High Community Newsletter Mailman Low Low Academic Journal ISSN High Low National Magazine ISSN Medium High Corporate Brochure Company Identifier Low...
Read more

Dead Drop Zone Alcatraz Allegheny

The back door cybersecurity on a Martí marriage from Cuba is delicate sensitivity issues because of class warfare and the indexing search engine inventory tactic of how much I’m better than th and the frog u lent pond mirror I’ve been choking on since my cyberwarfare hacking days with Cuban dissidents at the cyberwarfare pond laboratory at the NASA knowledge management lab at FIU in the trenches of live fire cyberwarfare sandbox laptop full metal jacket at the world bank at point blank range with nothing but my guts and self esteem to pick up off the glass mirror face on my ass to clean up like a piggybacking grave of fruit.  I’ve done years with this tactic forging high level communication in sensitive regions as a dead drop zone analyst nothing to com by to lose under unified assessment assumptions that the executive back door threat is not an open notorious love letter #9 like a Jin Ping thug.  The shadow works 2 and even 3 way in the prism of the consciousness of waking li...
Read more

Wideangle Duckfuck Network Protocols Operative

We’re venturing new methods of duck call for turning the duck on in style using off the shelf on again communications methods still under developmental review as experimental duck call ignition tactics to not jack off freely or pay talk duck.   Under Keeble v Hickeringill technically duck fuck respond repeat echo duck call copy forge my duck in spirit but we lack perimeter trap on that side of bordering easement on establishment.   http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/cdonahue/courses/prop/mat/Mats_c02.pdf For experimental purposes you can eat duckfuck if you report your success rate with wide angle duckfuck net protocol still under current designed. My brother and sister are trained to criminalize me by showing la pata (the duckfuck I.e. generally gullible female peer)I have no friends so she ganderbates with someone alternative and remove my pillowcase accommodations on whim of discretionary periodic inspection.  The delivery from bridge stepped on is perpendicular to tur...
Read more