A couple I knew found the perfect spot to build a house in
Maine – great views of the water, ideal location, everything they wanted.
Except for one thing.
A nasty old fishing shack was already there, with no working
plumbing, used by generations of fisherman apparently reluctant to go outside
to relieve themselves. Taking the shack down piece by piece would be expensive
and time consuming, not to mention disgusting. Plus, it was infested with mice
and insects who’d made the shack their home for years.
So the couple made a condition of sale that the local fire
department would burn down the shack. The fire department burned down the shack
and the couple built a new house there.
The moral of this story is that sometimes you have to burn
things down to start over. It may seem drastic, but it’s a better, simpler
solution in the end.
One of the great problems in our country is that once
something is created by politicians – a law, an entitlement, a social program,
or whatever – it’s allowed to remain long past its need, or long after it’s
proven to be a failure. Instead of tearing down what’s unnecessary or doesn’t
work, politicians just build more additions to it.
Once something is in place – be that ObamaCare, green-energy
subsidies, or corporate welfare, to name but a few – politicians never put any
of those to the proverbial torch, no matter how flawed or unnecessary something
becomes.
Our politicians would rather “fix” things than replace them
with something better. Consequently, they have all of us tied to a virtual
money pit that can never be filled.
Nothing ever gets done properly; it’s always a series of ill-conceived
and expensive fixes that never really address the underlying problem. The
patches never hold. So what do our
politicians do? Add more patches on top
of the other patches. There, fixed, right?
The perfect example is our public assistance programs.
Nobody in elected office wants to admit it, but a fair
percentage of able-bodied Americans simply do not want to work for a living;
not all, certainly, but a sizable number. Instead of addressing this, politicians
keep coming up with new ways to provide “opportunities” for this group.
There’s dirt-cheap broadband to apply online for jobs they don’t
want. There are free mobile phones to aid in the job searches they’re not
conducting. There’s subsidized housing and
food so they can live comfortably while they’re aggressively not looking for
work. There are also education programs to train them for jobs they have zero
intention of ever doing.
None of these things make a damn bit of difference. If
someone doesn’t want to work, they won’t. They know we won’t let them starve. Dangling
“opportunities” to work is useless. You could raise the minimum wage to $30 an
hour and they still wouldn’t work.
They are part of an ever-growing “right to loaf” movement in
America.
Unless politicians start facing the reality that this group
will never work, no matter what, they’ll just keep wasting our time and money
on pushing a rope.
The simpler answer is to just stop all these useless
programs, give these slackers a bare-bones minimum income to buy what they
need, and let them be. There’s no fix to change their attitude about work, so
why bother? And why have countless unnecessary
middlemen monitoring, administering and implementing a host of programs that
don’t work?
Just getting rid of all those government employees and
grant-vultures will save us billions. I have to believe it’s far cheaper to pay
these people each a minimum annual salary – say $30,000, free from state and
Federal taxes – than providing them with the equivalent of $47,000 in annual
benefits. When you add the potential savings in government salaries
and wasted money on grants it’s a no brainer.
Once we’ve decided to have a guaranteed minimum income, all
kinds of things fall into place. Because the minimum annual salary is per
adult, not per household, there’s a greater incentive for couples to stay
together and share expenses. And since there would no longer be a per child
subsidy, there’s more reason to limit family size. Best of all, they can learn
to live on a fixed budget like the rest of us, which would be a valuable life
lesson, for free.
Now, what’s to prevent someone from spending all their
income on drugs and neglecting their kids?
Absolutely nothing. But that’s already happening anyway. No social
program we’ve ever constructed can keep bad parents from neglecting their
kids. If anything, school lunch
programs, SNAP and TANF have made it socially acceptable for parents to avoid
responsibility for their kids even more.
There are perfectly fine and enforceable laws on the books
to prevent parents from neglecting their kids. Another social program won’t do
anything to help those kids.
You do expect a catch to my generosity, and there is one. Well,
more than one.
You only get the annual minimum salary if you are at least
18, a verified U.S. citizen, have a valid high-school diploma, and aren’t currently
in prison. Oh, and as long as you receive the minimum annual salary you can’t
vote in state and Federal elections.
What about people who can’t meet those qualifications? Too
bad. It gives them something to shoot for. Also, by replacing all the arcane
back-alley ways to get free stuff from the government with a simple salary, you minimize the potential for fraud and double dipping.
Here’s your check. Best of luck.
What about taking away their right to vote? I admit that seems harsh, but there’s logic
to it. Remember, they don’t have to pay any state or Federal income tax on the
guaranteed annual salary they’ll get. Why should anyone not paying any part of
their income toward running the government have a say in how the government
should function?
Won’t people who work for a living resent giving an annual
income – tax free – to able-bodied people who simply don’t want to work? Sure, but
aren’t we paying people not to work already? Haven’t we – maybe with the best,
if not misguided intentions – created a system where it’s often more beneficial
to not work than to work?
If you’re working, don’t you resent that? You know there are
people who will never, ever work for a living.
So why not just deal with that reality and stop the madness?
Politicians have tried all the patches and nothing’s
worked. It’s time for drastic
action. Dump all the programs – and all
the expensive administrative machinery running them – and try something much
simpler. In doing so, shift responsibility back where it belongs.
Give those who refuse to work – but could – a minimum annual
salary and let them figure out what to do with it. Politicians and bureaucrats
sure as Hell haven’t been able to come up with a better solution so far. The
current system’s not worth saving.
It’s time to burn it down and start over.
No comments:
Post a Comment