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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

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 whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes