Accurate poverty alleviation can't stop in the plan.

Nowadays, the enthusiasm for accurate poverty alleviation is running high all over the country, and they have accurately identified poor households and formulated poverty alleviation plans. However, is one household one policy equal to "precision"? It still depends on whether this "policy" is approachable and effective.

Visiting a poverty-stricken county, the poverty alleviation plan has been refined to households. For example, for poor households with labor force, the goat precision poverty alleviation project has been mainly promoted, and 10,000 households have been helped out of poverty in three years. With government subsidies, bank loans, enterprise services, and insurance, county cadres say, "as long as there is labor at home, there is no worry about getting rid of poverty." But good projects may not be accepted, and although some poor households are included in the plan, they simply say that they cannot do it. A poor household said that when the child goes to college, the old man is sick all the year round, and the family needs cash every month, while raising goats does not make money until the peak of fencing three years later. Others say that the children in the family are young, the elderly are inconvenient to live, and they are willing to raise sheep, but they do not have that time.

The causes of poverty are diverse and multiple needs are superimposed, which reflects the complexity of the current poverty situation. "support who?" "who will help?" "how can I help you?" Solving these three propositions is the key to accurately getting rid of poverty. At present, many places have found the real "poor" and found the real "poor" through accurate identification and filing, and the problem of "how to help" has begun to emerge. In some places, poverty alleviation plans are listed on the table, but they are not in line with the reality of poor households, and farmers do not buy them; some go into poverty alleviation industries and go into them without a clear understanding of the market. as a result, they are not satisfied with the soil and water, and the investment is wasted. "in the first year, it will be broken up in one shot and two in the next year." In the final analysis, these problems are still unrealistic and meticulous.

Poverty alleviation and development has entered a new stage, and the reason why the "hard bones" are "hard" is that the remaining 70 million poor people have a poor foundation and weak development ability, and it is very difficult to rely on "one move" and "one model" in the past, and it needs to be based on reality. I am afraid that the conventional preferential policy will not be effective at a later stage, and it is necessary to eat the "partial meal" of the preferential policy. The more we go on, the more difficult it is to get rid of poverty, and the more we should be problem-oriented and scientifically implement policies, instead of "grasping eyebrows and beards", we should "open a lock with a key." Really sink into the countryside and explore a multi-channel and diversified new path of accurate poverty alleviation in order to prevent a poor family from falling behind on the road of being well-off in an all-round way.

Come up with an "unconventional" approach. To get rid of poverty is not to take off your hat for a while, but to achieve stable poverty alleviation. To change the traditional way of helping the poor, we need to change our ideas and go deep into thousands of households. Only by understanding the facts can we prescribe the right remedy to the case and make up for what is missing, so that poverty alleviation plans can be reasonable and key measures can be taken in the right way. Ask for a new way to reform, some explore the asset income model, convert project funds into shares, tilt the project funds to poor households; some through property rights reform, let poor households own land and share agricultural value-added benefits.

There are "unconventional" operations. If there is real poverty, there is nothing to be afraid of. What we are afraid of is false poverty alleviation and poverty alleviation. Getting rid of poverty is a "field of responsibility", and there must be a contingent of cadres who can sink and do solid work. Grass-roots cadres should dare to take responsibility, ignore conditions, "break their legs" for the family affairs of poor households, and smooth the "last kilometer" of poverty alleviation before they can hand in qualified answers to poverty alleviation.

There is an "unconventional" system. We will improve the baton of the assessment mechanism, link the effectiveness of poverty alleviation with assessment, and squeeze out poverty alleviation. Whether the poor households have been lifted out of poverty should not talk to themselves. They should let the local people make their own evaluation, listen more to the feelings of the peasants, get even with the masses, and ask the masses to accept the accounts.

To lift the rural poor out of poverty by 2020 is the "most arduous task" of building a moderately prosperous society in an all-round way. We believe that if we make more efforts on the word "solid" and make more precise efforts, no matter how hard the bones are, we will certainly be able to gnaw them off.