(03-06-2013 12:22 PM)RobertN Wrote: Well, you certainly don't give Wall Street most/all the SS money. Raising the SS age will hurt those that do manual labor because they most likely won't be able to work that long not to mention, it keeps needed jobs filled longer. You don't eliminate important departments but cut them through attrition. Cutting Medicaid would hurt many seniors(talk about death panels). Eliminating voting rights for those on welfare is wrong(and probably unconstitutional.
Huh... Obama told us he could cut medicaid without hurting seniors.
It CAN obviously be done by eliminating unnecessary beauracracy and inefficiencies without impacting outcomes. If the argument is that there IS no inefficiency or unnecessary beauracracy, you haven't worked in healthcare... but I digress. For some reason, the left thinks that people who USED to make 250k working 50 hours a week will be just as willing to work 60 hours for the same 250k, or take 225k for the same 50 hours (Obamacare), or run through 20 patients rather than 15 during their 12 hour shift, without affecting the care delivered. I'm just not sure where that belief comes from.
The way to re-engage "the poor" in the process, regardless of HOW you define "poor" is to offer them choices. Right now, their choices are to vote left and get something they may or may not want/need/value, or to vote right and get nothing. It should come as absolutely no surprise that they vote left... and that politicians who otherwise lean right ALSO promise to increase spending... which means there is ZERO incentive whatsoever for any politician in anything but the wealthiest districts to cut spending, or even be particularly efficient with it.
The mechanism would be quite complex, but the procedure would be along these lines....
Let's say that the typical "poor" family gets $10,000 in support. That support obviously costs more like $13,000 to deliver... but it is $10,000 to them. It includes things like foodstamps and rent subsidies and other things. Now, a politician comes in and promises a free cell phone. For simplicity, let's assume this is a $50/month benefit that costs the government $60 to administer. The government beauracrats would argue that without the government's negotiation skills, it would be $60 anyway... but that is immaterial because it is STILL a $60 cost to the people. Even if you didn't want a cell-phone, why would you turn it down? You could "sell" it to an illegal alien for $20/month, and spend that $20 on something you want. Thus, the government has just spend $60 to give you $20. Why don't we let them "opt out" of that cell phone and get a $20 tax credit instead? Rather than encourage 18yr olds to get pregnant and have their own apartment because they get more benefits if they do that, why don't we let them choose to stay at home and get somewhat less, but more flexible benefits? Bottom line, they might prefer $8,000 in "the aid they want" to $10,000 in aid that they may not want. If the mix is $5,000 rent and $5,000 food (for simplicity), they might prefer $8,000 in food and zero in rent if they live at home. WHy shouldn't we encourage this?
Owl 69/70 has made a proposal like this involving a tax pre-fund and others have done it using VAT... but there is NO reason we couldn't accomplish this. ALl you have to do is study the black market for these things to see what the trade-off is, and how many people are making choices that the black market makers rather than the taxpayers takes advantage of.