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

The Kaepernick Craze: Exposing the Nation's Fools One Conversation at a Time

The Kaeparnick craze and other viral movements haven't merely pressured people into becoming simpler caricatures of their prior selves, but they have manifestly exposed people for how foolish and uninformed they've been all along. 



In his final year in the NFL, Kaepernick ranked 17th in passer rating and 34th the year before that. 

He played through an entire season in only two of his six years in the league, and his best full-season performance ranks far outside of the NFL's top-250 single-season passing performances in the league's history. 

For reference, the oft-criticized Tony Romo posted a career passer rating of 97.1, as compared to Kaepernick's 88.9. 

Romo's passer rating dipped below 90 for only one season of the eleven seasons he played, whereas Kaepernick failed to eclipse the 90 mark on three of his six seasons, a full 50 percent of his time in the NFL. 

In fact, Kaepernick accomplished this feat only once if we are to discard those other two seasons in …

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.

It was a war that would blur the lines and jurisdictions between sovereign states, that would indiscriminately sacrifice the founding principles etched …

Institutional Racism: The Sasquatch of Political Folklore

A great confusion has arisen out of the clamor of political debate, one which presupposes that any dismissal of the merits of “institutional racism” somehow equates to one’s rejection of personal struggle. 

Whereas the struggle of any individual remains always and everywhere unique and wholly personal, his common bond of complexion with others who have struggled serves inadequately as the basis for any argument which regards this commonality as the cause, or as the reason, for that veritable struggle. 

To condemn the unidentifiable and nebulous abstraction, then, by castigating an unnamed institution which persists beyond our specific capacity to recognize its power, serves only to absolve individuals of their personal responsibility, to shift blame and culpability to a specter which exists only by the creative designs of our imaginations, which exists as the scapegoat for all outcomes popularly maligned as undesirable. 

This unactionable practice, then, swiftly and categorically excuses…