Skip to main content

Government Outreach: Paying Agencies to Advertise Their Stolen Loot

According to an article published today by The Hill, the Trump administration has declared its intentions to dramatically slash ObamaCare outreach funding from $100 million last year to $10 million this year.

Unfortunately, this budget cut is simply not dramatic enough. Simply put, outreach funding is a complete and utter contradiction, as the spirit of any government program is to cater to a specific set of initiative-taking individuals or households who actively take an interest in improving their independent lives, not to attract leeches who merely wish to swindle the taxpayers into affording them an indefinite period of enhanced leisure.


In the so-called homelessness initiative, federal and local tax dollars are spent on the same types of projects, whereby outreach staff are subsidized to meet with members of the community who appear homeless to pitch the prolific menu of programs that you, as taxpayers, subsidize through your income and sales taxes.

Those outreach teams routinely embellish, and tacitly encourage, disabilities to connect citizens with Social Security Disability benefits.

This may indeed prove to be the most nefarious and insidious of all effects of the dependency system, whereby benefactors are systematically fleeced to afford beneficiaries a padded life of systematic offerings that require little to no psychological participation, effectively rendering superfluous each of those mental faculties which would otherwise serve the individual in the independent world.

In addition to acquiring disability benefits for physically-capable social dependents, outreach personnel keep themselves busy by connecting them with housing vouchers to cover the majority or entirety of their rents.

They will pitch the splendor of the dependency system in the same way you might motivate your children to do their laundry.

The primary difference here, however, is that the social dependent is being motivated to take your money (to satisfy the quotas of those subsidized agencies) while doing absolutely nothing to pursue the apparently-overrated life of self-sufficiency and independence.

In fact, this appears to precisely satisfy the harbored preferences of the outreach staff, social workers and subsidized agencies, as this only further validates their professions and keeps their agents employable in the cushy non-profit world of more immeasurable values.

What's worse, the beneficiary is effectively emboldened to become more cynical of his potential, as his conviction about his believed disabilities will continue to be met with benefits that he could achieve in the independent world only through the laborious and expensive chore of maintaining employment.

And for the social dependent, the greatest marginal rate of taxation that he will ever face is that first dollar that he earns which renders him ineligible for the benefits he once enjoyed by sleeping in, playing video games, smoking and drinking throughout the day, and meandering around his daily life with no boss and hardly a worry in the world.

So as you ponder the social solution, remember to consider the specific and long-run ramifications of projecting onto everyone an assumed responsibility for the demands of others and the unmeasured psychological consequences to the beneficiary who yields to this advantage instead of developing an aptitude for the ultimate yet forgotten objective: self-sufficiency and independence.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. Likewise, it was a war that would witness a five-fold increase in the number of civilians employed by the federal government, as federal gove

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators -- who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes --  who have fallen victim to the group think phenomenon, spawning the nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes, and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their supposed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's report whi