I will preface this idea by first explaining that I personally believe that the redistribution of wealth is wrong. Being a Christian, I conclude that redistribution is actually sinful. Just the ten commandments, in and of themselves, indicate as much. "Thou shalt not steal" and "Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's goods" both indicate that God made us in a way that includes ownership of personal property. He made it a point to direct that it is a violation of His will to even desire what someone else owns, and most certainly to steal it. What is compulsory payroll-confiscated taxation for the purpose of redistribution if not stealing?
It is also true that God wishes for us to take care of those in need. "Whatsoever you do..." is precisely about that, but I believe that God's intention is for us to give willingly and not through confiscation. In fact, it is my personal belief that God bestows grace on people who help those in need, and by having a Government that forcibly takes it, one could argue they actually rob us of the opportunity to choose to be generous.
All of that is a bit of a diversion, but I wanted to make the statement because I recognize that my beliefs on this issue are not what the majority of Americans want. It is very clear from the outcome of elections for over half of a century, really since the Great Depression, that most Americans believe that the Government should provide some sort of safety net. I believe the sentiment to be a good one, even if a bit short-sighted.
What I am about to suggest as a simple solution is bound to cause a lot of disagreement and possibly controversy, but I ask that you consider it with an open mind and think about the long-term goal of such a plan. In a nutshell, it is simply this:
Replace all federal government assistance programs with one program that pays any citizen who asks for it.
I got this idea after hearing on talk radio that the government expenses (at all levels) is something just north of $60,000 per year for each family in poverty. That number is absolutely shocking, and it occurred to me that the biggest part of our welfare problem isn't necessarily giving help to people, it is the huge bureaucracy that is required to manage all of the multitude of litmus tests for qualification!
In addition, requiring qualification is what creates a good deal of the power and corruption in government. To have bureaucrats dictating what you can and cannot do, what hoops you must jump through in order to get help. Anyone who then needs that help becomes a slave to those who are making the rules and giving the benefits. This simplified system would end all of that.
What I propose is that the only litmus for getting assistance is that you must prove citizenship (and be living). The left (leadership) will undoubtedly decry this as being unfair: "why should the rich get any assistance if they don't need it?" The answer is simple and logical: every citizen is treated equally. This is at the very core of who we are as a country. In addition, this should be an easy sell for those currently getting assistance. No more long lines, no more litmus tests, no more paperwork, no more wondering if you will qualify this month.
So, what should this assistance look like? We would need The Heritage Foundation, or someone far smarter than I, to run the numbers, but I firmly believe that we could give every adult citizen who asks for it $2,000 per month tax free (see my post On Taxation) plus an extra $500 per month for each dependent under 18, and the cost would still be less than what all welfare programs cost today.
Think about what it would replace:
Eliminate the food stamp program
Eliminate Unemployment
Eliminate Social Security
Eliminate Medicare
Eliminate Medicaid
Eliminate ACA (Obamacare)
Eliminate all other forms of assistance like home heating oil, etc.
It would be a monster project that I am sure Heritage and many others would take on, to sift through every single law on the books that provides assistance and write a new law that repeals each and every one of them.
In addition, the bureaucracy would shrink from what it is today, with bloated salaries, pension benefits, vacation days, seminars, "continuing education" etcetera, down to one administration that does nothing but verify citizenship and issue payments.
But, what about people who abuse it and spend the money on drugs or gambling instead of feeding their children? This is America, and it is time for grown-up citizens to start taking responsibility and acting like adults. There are always charities that will provide more help if needed, but I believe in the American people and that the vast majority will do the right thing once they actually have the responsibility thrust upon them. Besides, today's litmus tests do nothing to ensure that assistance is spent correctly. People already sell their food stamps for drugs. You know it, and I know it.
We desperately need a leader who will point out that the leftists who want to "help" you are really saying they think you are too stupid to help yourself!
Perhaps someone has already had this idea, or maybe it is truly revolutionary. It does continue a form of Socialist redistribution, but does it without the Government taking control of everyone's lives and becoming all-powerful. It is a true safety net. In order to sell this to the left, it could even be dubbed something like New Socialism (a hard name for us libertarian-minded people to tolerate, but something the left would have a hard time dispelling).
The only citizens who really need help are those who truly are physically or mentally disabled. Some form of assistance for them would need to be put in place, possibly by making them a dependent of an able-bodied adult or something along those lines.
That is my simple solution for replacing the current welfare systems with a true safety net. This is a work in progress, so feel free to chime in, and thank you for taking the time to read it though and think it over.
