Saturday, August 7, 2010

We Must Protect Gov't Programs Even If There's A Better Way??

I really don't care if some action would "gut" an existing social safety net.  I am far more interested in knowing if a proposed alternative would provide a better outcome.  The program shouldn't mean a thing - the intent of a social safety net is, after all, the protection of some distinct group of people from some perceived lack: Social Security is supposed to provide some level of income to retirees, Medicare/Medicaid, access to medical care, food stamps, access to food, etc., etc., etc.

I really don't have any issue with the intent; I don't want to see my parents - and later, my wife and I! - in poverty, with no access to medical care, and I don't want poor people to starve to death.  (Take that, Congressman Grayson [D-FL])  But I wonder if there isn't a more effective delivery system.  Unfortunately, whenever someone proposes even some minor change, there are charges that it means the program will be gutted, usually resulting in a hue and cry, and eventually a hasty retreat from the advancement of the change.

Forever unknown is whether the change might just result in an improvement for the people receiving the benefit.  But that's okay as long as some politico keeps his job because his baseless allegations keep him on the good side of the electorate, who will continue to scrape by when they might have thrived.

What absolute utter stupidity.

No comments:

Post a Comment