Is the “problem” in America the virtual economic wall between the haves and have-nots? If we listen even briefly to President Obama and the democrats (who have a splashy new logo that looks like Otis Elevator may have a trademark issue … going down), it certainly seems that if we can just push more money down a few rungs then all will be better. But we’ve been doing that since at lease LBJ’s War on Poverty, and after countless billions of dollars, the problem persists.
No matter how uncomfortable and easy to criticize it may be, perhaps the issue is more culture than economic, more choice than compelled.
A post is making the rounds on Facebook. Check the “related posts” here. It describes a recent experience by an ER doc with a young-adult patient. Medicare. High-quality (read, “expensive”) tattoos. Top of the line sneakers and cell phone. Smoker. Fast-food as primary food choice. The patient reflected, according to the doc, a series of economic choices which included blowing off the purchase of insurance and good health.
I’ll add my own vignette. As a federal public defender, I represented a young man on cocaine and crack dealing charges. He was 18 years old. He wasn’t the direct dealer. The folks with cash and weight came up from Philadelphia, purchased a home in his name, and proceeded to placate his naive view of life with cash and video games as he oversaw the receipt and distribution of drugs.
He and his mother took the bus from a neighboring city – about 15 miles – to attend a hearing. It was on my way home, so when they asked if I would drive them back, I agreed. My client’s mom was in her late 30s or early 40s. A bit of a heavy-set frame, but not obese. She explained to me how she could not work, and received Social Security Disability, because she “has the sugar.” When we got close to their home, he said he was hungry and she asked me to drive through McDonald’s. He ordered two Big Macs, super-size fries, and what appeared to be a half-gallon of soda. At age 18, he resembled more of a bowling bowl than a young man in the prime of activity.
I’ve reflected on the choices made by my client and his mom several times. While they would probably choose a more affluent lifestyle if available, they seemed focused on staying precisely where they were – poverty, poor diet, taking government handouts rather than work, and all the license to complain about “rich people” that comes with it.
And therein lies the key: “If available.”
We have created, fed, and coddled a culture in America that makes it easy to merely fill out the forms, sit back, and receive food, shelter, and clothing. Since a portion of assistance is either cash or can be sold for cash, we have no control over diverting that portion into the cycle of poor decisions. Hence expensive tattoos, sneakers, cell phones, and fast food.
We can (but won’t) spend time here on the fluid nature of the folks receiving government assistance. Nor am I going to argue which group – the fluid or stagnate – is the exception and which is the rule. I’m content with anecdotal evidence in practically every situation I’ve observed: iPhones, Playstation 3’s, fast food, and (at best) Medicare.
We have a large segment of society that is perfectly content to receive, to demand more, to complain, and to not take personal responsibility.
And now we have a president that is an enabler. Ironically, his takeover of the college-loan program, the so-far private war against the for-profit colleges, and coddling of teachers’ unions will only enhance the opportunity for this segment of society to stay on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
The answer is easy to state, but difficult to achieve: We need to structure to the highest and best extent possible every government-assistance program so that the fluid portion of the population receiving assistance is optimized.
How? Broadly we need it to be uncomfortable to receive assistance. (Oh, liberals, stop what you are thinking! Yes, some people need long-term assistance, and such should not be “uncomfortable.” Quit defining the rule by the exceptions. Makes you sound retentive.) Under Elizabethan Poor Laws, they evolved from cash assistance to Work Houses. Not working wasn’t an option. And working in traditional society was a whole lot better work than the Houses.
Next, to the extent that discomfort is accommodated, we need assistance to end according to a calendar. We’ve done this on welfare, but the Social Security Disability population quickly ballooned. That bump in the rug has not been addressed. It needs to be. Quickly.
Further, we need to rework the distribution of assistance to remove the possibility of selling it for cash. For example, with the switch from food stamps to the plastic-card approach, we may have stopped selling food stamps on the street, but we still have recipients shopping for other folks and receiving cash in the parking lot.
While it may seem harsh to create food-distribution centers, it would stop the billions of dollars of welfare fraud occasioned by the current approach.
It’s easy to attack specific suggestions. But I ask that instead you look at the underlying premise: It is too comfortable to receive long-term government assistance, and as a result we have created a culture that contributes significantly to the economic problems in this country.
When we address the “comfort issue,” then perhaps we can solve the broader problem.
