Entitlements

The Sick Economy Party.

by asmwizard

Of course, they don’t really want the economy to be sick (with a few possible exceptions), but the Democrats are the party of the Sick Economy.  Their priorities say that government should be big, should control all aspects of life, and should do all it can for the poor and the middle class.  They believe business has to be regulated – can’t be trusted – so they favor all sorts of laws and rules to do that.  They create huge entitlement programs that take immense amounts of money to run, need lots of bureaucrats to oversee, and therefore need heavy taxes.  Because they spend more than they can raise through taxes, they print money or borrow and let the debt increase.  Big government, heavy regulation, heavy taxes, and running the government on credit or inflated money are the factors which guarantee the economy will be sick.

The Democrats have instituted several programs that actually pay people to exist and do nothing useful: the Earned Income Credit, a sort of reverse income tax, which pays people who don’t earn enough; food assistance; Aid to Dependent Children (the more fatherless babies you have, the more we’ll pay you); disability income (OK if the people are really disabled, but many aren’t); and infinitely extended unemployment.  So, fewer people want to work.  The government taxes a shrinking work force more and more, to pay for an increasing group of people who don’t.  Now, it’s almost an even split.  Democrats have a sneaky ulterior motive for promoting this: people who depend on government for their livelihood will vote for Democrats. 

Democrats bully big business with big taxes and heavy regulation.  They spout a constant theme: big business is evil – after all, they want to make a profit, and that’s at the expense of the little guy.  Never mind that a business cannot exist long without a profit. The Democrat propaganda constantly accuses Republicans of being the party of “the Rich” and of big business. 

American businesses are over-taxed.  The tax rate they pay is among the highest in the world.  With extremely high labor costs as well, American business doesn’t compete well in the world markets.  They are also clearly over-regulated, and have to spend a lot to satisfy government demands.  This means that cheaper foreign goods are imported and outsell American products, while American manufacturers go bankrupt and jobs move overseas.  This has been going on for decades, and is a major reason we have high unemployment.

To summarize, with huge entitlement programs, high taxes, big government, the tax and spend philosophy, and relentless regulation of business, Democrats are hamstringing our economy.  In fact, increasing government spending and taxation may cause out economy to collapse.  It’s that serious.  They aren’t likely to change anything, and have never considered reforms seriously under Obama.  As long as Democrats have the power, our economy will be sick.  There will be high levels of unemployment, few business start-ups, more people living in or near poverty, and fewer people achieving the American dream.  They have put our economy into a death spiral.  The Democrats are the party of the Sick Economy, and America’s economy, which hasn’t improved since Obama took power, won’t improve until Republicans take over the government. The sad truth is, that may not happen until after an economic collapse.

   

 

 

  

A rational and sustainable universal health care system.

by asmwizard

As an enemy of the Affordable Health Care Act, I want something else, yet I see the need for universal health care.  So, here I outline what I believe would be a sustainable and fair system of health care that would cover every citizen and would work in the United States.  I believe it would be far superior to Obamacare, if designed according to these principles.  It’s modeled after but differs from the Australian Medicare System, established 1984.  Link: Health Care Australia.  Australian Medicare covers 20 million people, or about a fifteenth of the number of people in the US.   I chose Australia because their system is more recent than the UK’s, it seems to work, and I suspect Aussies in the mass are a bit more rational than Americans.

Any universal health care system needs to satisfy the following goals:

  1. It needs to provide a reasonable level of care;
  2. It should be affordable for the patients, properly remunerate providers and hospitals, and be sustainable for the public purse;
  3. It should be free or nearly so for the poor and of moderate cost to the middle class.  The wealthier population should not be covered;
  4. It should be designed to minimize fraud and cheating by the public and by providers;
  5. It should allow competition from the private sector;
  6. It should not impose unnecessary regulations and restrictions;
  7. It should cover all aspects of health care including physican services, hospitals, pharmacy, rehabilitation, hospice, and long term care;
  8. It should cover major medical expense;
  9. It should make some provision for pre-existing conditions.
  10. It should totally replace the current Medicare, Medicaid, Federal Employees Health Plan, and Tri-Care plans, as well as care for inmates of federal prisons.  Like them, it should be funded from the public treasury with revenue from special taxes.    Except where lives are at risk, providers should not treat any person without ability to pay.  Hospital emergency rooms should no longer be clinics for the poor and uninsured. 

My plan:

  1. Issue a National Health Card (NHC) to every citizen or family requesting it.  It would be assigned a unique number.  Providers would charge fees to this number.  Duplicate cards would be given on request to each family member.  Family members would use a suffix on the NHC number to establish which patient is being served.  Each card would contain magnetic identification information,  as well as essential medical information such as blood type, chronic medical conditions, and date of birth.
  2. Establish a centralized health record in a national database accessible only by providers.  This is similar to the database provided for in Obamacare.  It should contain photos and fingerprints as well.
  3. Establish a health tax: say 2% off the top of all income.  No deductions, all would pay, including businesses.  The percentage is only a suggestion and would be adjusted as necessary to fully fund the National Health System (NHS).  The tax on business would be exactly equivalent to a sales tax, as businesses would pass the tax on to their customers.   Exceptions: food sales, medical expenses, and utilities would not be taxed.   Real estate and auto sales would not be taxed.
  4. Establish means testing: single persons with more than (I suggest) $100,000 income and couples with more than $170,000 income would not be eligible for NHC benefits.  They would need to purchase insurance or self-insure.  Persons with incomes up to three times the poverty level (3X poverty) would receive full benefits; above that level, benefit amounts would progressively decrease so that patients would have to pay more from their own resources.   Means testing parameters are only a suggestion and could be adjusted.  Means would also be tested by evaluating the patient’s net worth.  If more than $250,000 but less than $500,000, an NHC+ card is issued regardless of income less than 3X poverty.  The card for someone who earns more than the poverty threshold would be an NHC+ card for which there would be two levels of deductible.  The member would pay all charges up to say, $1000, and half of all charges above $1000 and less than $3000.   NHS would pay the remaining charges.
  5. A patient with a NHC who earns less than 3X poverty pays nothing at a hospital or clinic.  The NHS is billed by the provider, but does not pay the provider until the encounter is authorized by the patient.   With an NHC+ card, the patient pays any due amounts to the NHS. 
  6. Patients are free to take  out insurance to pay for their medical care, or to pay the percentage deductible. 
  7. The NHS would also pay for nursing home, rehabilitation, in-home, mental illness confinement, and hospice care on the NHC card.  It would also provide prescribed medical devices. 
  8. A patient who loses income and net worth may apply for an NHC anytime within a year.  The means test is applied annually; the NHC must be renewed annually.

Notes:

  1. Some health services would not be covered by the NHC, including: cosmetic procedures, sex change, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases, contraception, and conditions caused by drug/alcohol abuse.  Cosmetic repair procedures would be paid for injury or illness related disfigurement.
  2. The Department of Defense would still provide health care for military personnel without change.  Civilian employees and contractor personnel posted outside of the United States would be treated by the military health service, but Tri-Care would go away. 
  3. The Veterans Administration and the Indian Health Service would continue unchanged.
  4. The President and Vice-Presidential health plans would not change.  The health plan now available to Congress would be eliminated.
  5. Medicare, Medicaid, Tri-Care, and FEHP (Federal Employee Health Plan) will be totally eliminated.  The changeover might require as much as a year or more to implement.
  6. Once voted into law, no amendments, modifications, exemptions, exceptions, or rebates to the plan may be granted without being passed by a two-thirds majority vote of Congress and an endorsement by the President.
  7. The greatest potential for defrauding the NHC is in fraudulent billing by doctors, clinics, hospitals, and other approved providers.  For this reason, my plan would require a three  entity approach to provider reimbursement.   During a medical encounter, the provider will swipe the patient’s NHC to obtain current eligibility, and give the patient or representative a receipt with provider number, encounter number, and date.  The provider will render a statement of billed services, itemized by patient, to the NHS.  The NHS will forward it by mail or email to the patient (or designated representative) who would have to affirm the service was provided and return it with the receipt or the receipt information to the NHS, responding within thirty days.  If properly authorized, the NHS will forward payment to the provider, who eventually would be paid even if the patient failed to respond.   This system may prove too cumbersome, but there may be a workable variation.
  8. If a patient or representative fails to respond within thirty days, their NHC would be invalidated and they would be subject to a fine to reinstate it.  The medical provider will receive payment as if the charge had been authorized.
  9. The NHS will investigate discrepancies.  If fraud by a provider is proven and the patient or representative has authorized an invalid statement, the patient or representative would be subject to prosecution.  If the patient denies the charge the NHS would charge it back to the provider, who could submit it to adjudication at their discretion.
  10. Providers will be free to decline service to anyone who cannot prove capability to pay, without legal liability, providing the patient is not in immediate danger of death.  Prudent business practice would allow providers to take a deposit of credit card, cash, or proof of insurance from patients they do not know.
  11. It might be wise to take some of the revenue from the taxes and use it to subsidize education for more doctors and nurses.
  12. There will be a need for an arbitration process for patient-provider disputes, and a limitation in malpractice awards.  Malpractice should be redefined as deliberate injury or gross negligence.  Remembering that medicine is more art than science, no physician who has diligently worked to help the patient should be penalized if the result is unfortunate.
  13. The NHS will set reasonable fee schedules for each service to prevent providers from overcharging.  The NHS should take care to allow providers to thrive and prosper.
  14. Data collected during the billing process would allow extensive computer analysis to detect provider fraud, patterns of unnecessary services, and excessive charges for supplies and equipment.   
  15. Patients who walk in without an NHS card can give information to allow the provider to pull up their NHS record.  Undocumented non-citizens or persons with expired visas would be treated, but the police will be called, who will arrest and turn them over to the INS for deportation.  Non-citizens with work permits will be able to purchase an NHC good for two months, paying a fee of about $30.  Travelers entering the US will need to be insured.

In effect, the NHC would be a means-tested national health insurance plan funded by taxes, but it would not substantially dictate the fee schedules of providers, and would allow insurance companies to still provide services.  Patients would be free to choose any doctor or hospital who will accept them.  The only acceptable reason for providers to reject new patients is lack of capacity to treat them.  Doctors and hospitals would be free and encouraged to provide services outside of the NHC system.  If the tax rate is set at the proper level to balance revenues vs. expenditures, it will not drain the public treasury or add to the federal deficit.

Direct payment by the NHS might be controversial.  Many schemes try to generate competition through insurance.  My plan has some competitive pressure due to deductible payments for NHC+ members, who will pay two thirds of the first $3000 themselves, and would therefore be wise to accept providers with reasonable rates.  I believe these features of the plan will help to reduce costs: malpractice redefinition and award limits; deductibles, reduction in unpaid provider fees, and possibly subsidized medical education to train more doctors and nurses.    

Universal health care in the United States will be very difficult to sell, because the American public has been accustomed to high cost but has received high quality care.  The crazy patchwork of care programs we have now (individual insurance, provider unpaid, Medicare for the old, Medicaid for the poor, Tri-Care for the military, Federal Employee Health Plan for the federal employees, etc. ) is what we’re used to, and other than individual insurance, most of the cost is paid by the federal government — directly or indirectly.  The idea of more taxes to pay for a health care system is abominable, yet those taxes are built into our tax bill now.  I believe my proposed system would actually reduce health care costs, because unpaid provider costs would decline, and this would bring provider fees down. 

A final comment: the NHS tax should be set at a level to fully fund the system.  It might cost quite a bit to start.  Yet, Australia is currently taxing at 1.5 %.

 

General observations about the U.S.

by asmwizard

A quick recap: America’s government began in revolution against the British king.  The colonies had to cooperate in order to field an army of rebels, and they did so by means of the Continental Congress.

Following the revolution, it seemed logical for the various colonies to form a confederation, and the United States of America was born with the United States Constitution, adopted September 17, 1787.  The Constitution set up a division of power with three supposedly co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial.  We have a representative democracy, in which the states elect senators and representatives – the people are not allowed to vote directly on any issue.  This system worked well, for the most part, and not counting the contentious times around the Civil War, until about the year 1992, when Congress and the President began to be at odds.  The first government shutdowns occurred under Bill Clinton in 1995 and 1996.  The attempt to impeach Clinton probably began the great increasing trend in polarization between the parties, no doubt intensified by the Bush-Gore election and the second war with Iraq.  Hard feelings between parties continued to grow until we have today’s situation.

In my opinion, the equality of power between the three branches of government has seriously deteriorated since Clinton’s time.  The three branches are no longer co-equal.  The executive branch has become dominant.  What we have now is almost a dictatorship.  The president fails to enforce whatever laws he doesn’t like.  He stonewalls investigations into improprieties in his administration.  He issues Executive Orders to change the laws and regulations without consulting Congress.  The House is likely to investigate his action to extend the timeline for corporations to adopt Obamacare requirements, which they consider extra-legal; he did it without authority. 

The Attorney General and various other officials have managed to totally flout Congress.  The House seemingly has no power to enforce cooperation in its various investigations into misconduct by government agencies.  A Contempt of Congress citation against Eric Holder is meaningless until he leaves office, since he won’t prosecute himself.  Even afterward, a Democrat in the office may refuse to initiate proceedings. 

The Supreme Court often votes along strict party lines. One might think law is different for the two parties.  There are also two ways of looking at the Constitution, apparently.  Democrats seem to believe big government should be able to totally ignore it.  Republicans like to think there are some things the Federal government should leave to the states.  Almost certainly, Obama will be able to give liberals the majority within his last three years of office.

State’s rights don’t seem to mean much now.  States receive so much money from the Federal government that they almost have to go along, even if they aren’t mandated to cooperate. 

The Federal government has become a giant money collector, borrower, and distributor.  Politicians spend a million dollars the way an ordinary citizen would a nickel.  A billion dollars is like a twenty to Congress and the President.  But, when you spend a few billion here, and a few billion there, they add up.  A thousand billion dollars is a trillion, and our Federal debt is about 17 of them.   We have the most wasteful president in history, and the government agencies he is supposed to manage seem to think they can do anything whatever with government money, including having lots of parties.  After all, there’s an endless supply of it.

Being elected to the House or Senate is like winning the lottery, and most politicians think only of their re-election.  They pander to the voters and support huge giveaways to them.  They vote themselves high salaries and great benefits, including retirement.  Many become old in their job.  Proposed amendments to the Constitution to impose term limits and make Congress members have to follow the same laws as everyone else don’t seem to be going anywhere.  At this moment, many members of Congress are trying to exempt themselves from the Obamacare regulations for their own offices.  There are a few good public servants in the group of 500+, but good ones who follow conservative principles are rare.

The majority of the electorate is either totally self-serving, uninformed, or stupid, in my opinion.  After all, they re-elected Obama after four years of miserable performance.  They allowed Democrats to retain control of the Senate in 2010.  Nevada re-elected Harry Reid. 

Overall, the Federal government is ineffective.  They haven’t agreed on a budget since 2007.  The party in power takes no interest in cutting back spending or addressing the deficit and debt.  The Congress can’t get needed reforms done, or even agree on what is needed. Incompetence is rampant in the State Department and the IRS.  Legislation, totally dominated by Democrats since 2008, has been immensely overcomplicated.  Obamacare was voted into law by Democrats who never read the bill – no human could read and understand it in less than a month.  No one knows who wrote the bill of more than 2000 pages.  It’s an immense social experiment and no one knows how our medical care will be affected by it.

Barack Obama came to the office without any significant accomplishment and was totally unqualified.  He’s intelligent and well-spoken, but – his is a weird personality.  He doesn’t lead, never proposes detail. He controls everything but is responsible for nothing. He just tells Congress he wants legislation of a certain kind, and leaves it to them – knowing that the Congress is divided and incompetent, and can’t agree on anything.  He apparently despises conservatives and never listens to Republican suggestions.  He spends most of his time campaigning, fund-raising, traveling to make unneeded speeches on the public budget and visiting foreign countries for no apparent reason. I have never figured out whether he’s incompetent or is deliberately trying to wreck the economy, but the effect is the same. 

About the time the Roman Empire collapsed, I imagine some people were saying similar things about their leadership.

As I have often said, I’m not totally satisfied with our present administration, but of course you’d never figure that out from what I’ve written here.

How to eliminate the IRS

by asmwizard

(As published in two parts in the Leavenworth Times, June 6 and 11, 2013)

Can you imagine life without the IRS?  No federal income tax, for example.  If you’re one of the shrinking bunch who actually works for a living, you would get to take home all the money you earn (except for state & local taxes; we wouldn’t have the payroll tax — the bite for Medicare & Social Security.)   You wouldn’t have that complicated tax form to file.  You wouldn’t have to worry about deductions.

More benefits: the government would have one less huge weapon to use against its political opponents.   No more tax audits.  There would be no more need to classify organizations as profit or non-profit.  There would be no leftist ranting about how the rich need their taxes raised, or how “unfair” the tax code is.   The government wouldn’t have to know how much you earn, or what deductions you take.

People would be a great deal more honest – no need to cheat.  Even Congress would get more work done, because they wouldn’t have to keep modifying the tens of thousands of pages in the tax code.

Businesses would have much less regulation to worry about.

Of course, every silver cloud has a dark lining: there would be fewer lawyers, accountants, and tax services making a living by charging money to fill out your tax forms.  But I can live with that.

Here’s how: there are various versions, but this is the one which has been most seriously analyzed: (link): The Fair Tax.  It really is fair to tax spending, if necessities aren’t taxed.  Rich people spend much more than the truly poor, so they would pay the bulk of the taxes.  Here’s an intelligent analysis of it from 2008, when Mike Huckabee advocated it (he still does.)

(link):Huckabee’s fair tax plan is brilliant.

If it came into existence, the Fair Tax would seem tough at first, but the economy would adjust.  People would get used to it.

The alternative plan which many favor is the flat tax – which is still an income tax, but is much simpler.  That’s a different discussion.  I’m for that too, if it comes with a VAT tax, because I believe that taxing consumption (commonly known as spending) is the only fair way to tax.

There are cons as well as pros to the Fair Tax plan; here’s a (link):Analysis of the Fair Tax which lays out the pros and cons very well.

I personally don’t like some details of the plan.  I don’t like the idea of paying poor people a “prebate” to cover necessities.  The government should never pay people for anything.  It’s a license to steal.  The plan says, the sales tax would not apply to imports, goods used by businesses to produce other goods, or used goods.  I’m iffy about exempting business.  It should apply to imports, high-ticket used goods, and perhaps businesses should not have to pay it for their purchases.  I’ll discuss my reservations and the changes I’d make in the next post.

The IRS has become a weapon of the Obama administration, and is feared by its political opponents.  But even the left should like to see it eliminated, if nothing else because Republicans may win the White House some day, and what goes around, comes around.  When the Republican IRS goes into action, who knows what rocks they’ll turn over when they investigate the heck out of Democrats?  Let’s make government impartial again, or better yet, eliminate the IRS altogether.

========================

How I would change the Fair Tax Plan

In my previous post, “How to get rid of the IRS”, I referred to the Fair Tax plan.  The bill,  Link to HR 25, Fair Tax Act of 2013 has about 64 sponsors in the House, is stalled in the House Ways and Means committee, won’t pass.  Possible reason: it has some provisions I consider hokey or scary, and maybe others do as well.  I’d like to offer some changes which I think would simplify the Fair Tax and make it more workable.  Maybe if you read further, you will agree with me.

We need tax reform.  The IRS has become the political arm of the Democrat Party, harassing conservative donors (to Romney, last election) and organizations.  Even if they straighten out and regain impartiality, the tax system has become onerous.  There are several proposals for reform, all involving drastic simplification.  The flat tax, for example, would eliminate most deductions and hit the earner’s income with only one or two rates.  But the simplest tax possible is a tax on consumption rather than earnings.  The Fair Tax Plan is a package based on a tax on sales.

Features of the Fair Tax Plan (HR 25) as proposed:

   1. Sales tax of 23% eliminates all federal taxes on income.  The rate is a combination of the lowest tax rate on income now (15%) and the FICA tax (7.65%).

   2. Everyone receives a prebate, paid to the taxpayer family by the federal government, of the spending allowance times 23%, paid monthly.  Prebate explained.

   3. Imported goods will be taxed.

   4.  Services will be taxed.  The guy who mows your yard will add the Fair Tax to his bill.

   5.  Used goods will not be taxed.

   6.  Businesses may purchase goods and services without paying the tax.  This will lower their cost of goods sold and the price charged to the consumer.

7.  The 16th Amendment to the Constitution would need to be repealed, so that the government could no longer level taxes on income.  We don’t want to end up with both.

These features are thoroughly discussed in the Frequently asked questions (FAQ).

Here are my thoughts on the features:

   1.  Big ticket items, such as homes and cars, would be much more expensive.  I think anything that comes with a deed or title should have a maximum tax of 5  to 10 percent, and I’d prefer 5%.

   2.  I don’t like the prebate idea at all.  I don’t think the government needs to pay anyone anything.  People below the poverty line could just have slightly improved income.  They will still have food stamps, housing support, etc.  The prebate is a really bad idea.

   3.  Don’t charge tax on rent.

4.  Allow the tax on real estate or other big ticket items to be financed with the mortgage.

5.  I believe the 23% rate is too high.  I think it should be a few points lower.  Don’t forget, the advocates of the Fair Tax (rightfully) claim the economy would run much better under Fair Tax.  Many more people would be paying the tax.

6.  I would tax resale of used big ticket items – again, anything with a deed or title – at the 5 to 10% rate I previously advocated.

7.  I would treat businesses a bit differently.  If they manufacture, I wouldn’t tax their raw materials, but everything else they buy should be taxed, in my humble opinion.  There may be good arguments for letting them pay no tax on anything, but that just provides a way to cheat the system.  Everyone would incorporate.  It’s much simpler to let them be tax free on raw materials only.

8.  I think you’d have to have very severe penalties for cheating the tax, particularly on corporations.

I think the results of implementing the Fair Tax would be awesome, particularly if my changes were incorporated.  By awesome, I mean awesomely good, not awesomely bad as in the present system.

The Poor: How far should government go?

by asmwizard

(As published in the Leavenworth Times Community Blog, May 2013.)

   There is no greater mess than public assistance (PA, for short) in the United States.  Kenneth L. Gentry writes:  Americans have long been known to be a charitable people. Unfortunately, government intervention could be changing that. The government has entered and gained monopolistic ascendancy in this field as in so many others. Being charitable makes it a bit difficult for us to speak out against public welfarism, lest we appear to be unconcerned for the needs of the poor. However, there are numerous compelling reasons why we can legitimately decry public welfarism and still maintain — even emphasize — our concern for the less fortunate in our society. Link to: The problems in public welfare   Dr. Gentry lists numerous problems.  It’s worth reading.

   A general discussion of public assistance can be found at Link to:  Wiki article

   As I see it, public assistance is fraught with fraud, political chicanery, and bureaucratic inefficiency.  It is unsupportable – more people are becoming dependent on fewer workers.  But, it’s necessary.  It varies a lot by state, because states administer it, often with federal funds.   

   I’d like nothing better than to list several things wrong with PA and propose a direct, effective solution for each.  But, it isn’t that simple.  Every family or recipient has a different situation.  Some people want to work, but can’t.   Others work part time, but can’t make enough, or blow what they make.  Some are poorly educated, perhaps can’t read.  Many are dishonest, and try to cheat the system.  They have different abilities, or none at all.  They have children or spouses with various needs.  Some do drugs or gamble.  Some have prison records.  Some are mentally disturbed or deficient, or have no sense of purpose.  I’m forced to admit, one size doesn’t fit all.

  There are some principles I’d like to apply, and these pertain to how much government at all levels should support PA.  Many of these principles are already being applied.

  Cash is a temptation to cheat, so the government should deal as little cash as possible.  Give benefits in kind, if it can be done.  To the extent possible, make sure that money from the government is spent for its intended purpose. 

First, limit the benefit total from all programs.  We’ve all heard stories that some people receive a total benefit that puts them well into the middle class.  There should be an absolute limit of something like 1.5 times the poverty rate.

  Second, pay the recipient very little directly.  Instead, provide vouchers or debit cards.  To a large extent, this is done now: Section 8 housing assistance is paid in vouchers; The SNAP program for food assistance comes with debit cards, etc.  The government has actually gotten quite a bit smarter – note how tough it is to get SNAP if you’re not a Hmong or a Martian.  Ultimately, people with little or no income need a bit of cash – but if the government provides it, it should be on a card.

  Third, make it possible for the government to review their participant’s spending.  Every participant should be reviewed at least quarterly.  This may require someone to visit the participant.  When they do, they should take pictures of the recipient and dependents to prove their existence (and leave an audit trail – you have to watch the social workers, who could cheat too.)   If the family has an income of 1.3 times poverty level or more, the only assistance they should be receiving is for health care. 

  Fourth, shut down the underground economy to the greatest extent possible.  Many people work for cash only, and don’t report their income.  Make the penalties for that severe – on both employer and worker.  People who work and are paid in cash may be cheating the government (and all the rest of us) by claiming they have no income.  It might be possible for people on public assistance who do odd jobs for individuals to bypass normal taxes on the payment, if the worker reports it.  The government needs to know about the income, not necessarily collect revenue out of it.

  Fifth, and this will be controversial but I’ll say it anyway:  when a woman on public assistance has a child (for a total of two or more) benefits should not be increased.  The government should offer to pay for having her tubes tied.  The worst possible thing is to keep having children that must grow up in poverty.  TANF — The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act  is a pretty good solution. 

  Sixth, no benefits whatever to illegal aliens or people on drugs.

  Seventh, luxuries owned or subscribed to by PA folks should be taken into account – and should reduce PA benefits.  Example: the recipient subscribes to cable and has HBO (a premium).  The cost of HBO should not be paid by the taxpayers – subtract it from his benefits.  Only basic cable should be subsidized, and then only if broadcast reception isn’t available.  The taxpayer pays extra for premium internet service? – deduct it from his benefits.  The recipient owns or leases or makes payments on a car that is worth more than some reasonable amount (such as $20,000), or owns two cars but only needs one?  Deduct.  You get the idea.

  Finally, the government should check, check, check on benefit participants, particularly those claiming disability – if they claim they can’t walk, they shouldn’t be discovered running marathons.  The social worker should have authority to disqualify them on the spot for cause.  Dependents claimed should be personally verified and photographed in their homes. 

  Charities might choose to help families with money or benefits.  That’s very welcome, but they should follow the same principles.  They might help in finding people who need assistance and showing them how to get it. 

  Public assistance is a necessary evil, and should only function as a safety net for those who have no other choice.  It should provide a “no-frills” existence, with adequate food, shelter, and clothing for the needy, but should be unsatisfying for the greedy.   It shouldn’t be an opportunity to scam the government or become a permanent way of life. 

  It appears that government at all levels is following many of these principles now.  It’s a constant struggle.