By: Ronald D. Struck
July 14, 2001
PAY DIRECT GOVERNMENT SUPPORT
AND
ELIMINATE GOVERNMENT CZARS
A July 2001 edition of the LA Times had two headlines of interest.
In one section a headline noted that the poor will be hurt
because many apartment building owners will soon be opting out of the
subsidy program sponsored by the government that provides them with
apartments at “affordable prices.”
In another section a headline noted that not enough people were
taking advantage of the food stamp programs that provides the poor
with stamps that can be used as money for purchasing food.
Why does the government have to jerry rig the
workings of a free economy to help the poor.
Why doesn’t it just send every person deemed to “deserve”
public assistance for anything – housing, food, medical care, fuel
– a monthly check to cover the total amount of public assistance
“deserved”?
We
already have an infrastructure into which all citizens are REQUIRED to
submit their income information – the IRS.
The IRS is responsible for assuring that all citizens pay the
full amount of taxes due on every source of income.
It seems a reasonable extension of that responsibility would be
to include an assessment of this income to determine the amount of
public assistance to which a citizen is entitled.
And the government already generates the data necessary to
adjust public support based upon a local cost of living formula for
each citizen.
Here's how it could work.
The government makes a determination that every
citizen is “entitled” to 200 sq ft of living space, and no family
should be required to spend more than 35% of their monthly income on
rent. A family reporting 5 dependents at home and generating an
aggregate family income of $1,000 month would be entitled to an
apartment of 1,000 sq feet at a cost of $350 monthly.
If government data indicates the average price for a 1,000 sq ft apartment in the area
where they live is $500, they would be entitled to a subsidy of $150
monthly.
The government makes a determination that every
citizen is “entitled” to a basic number of daily calories in food,
weighted by the ages reported in the tax return, and that no family
should be required to spend more than 25% of their monthly income on
food. Therefore, the
example family above should not have to pay more than $250 per month
for food. If the
government determines the average price for a “bread basket” of
food that would generate the required calories is $400, they would be
entitled to a subsidy of $150.
The government makes a determination that every
citizen is “entitled” to medial coverage, and no family should be
require to spend more than 10% of their monthly income for it.
If a basic medical coverage policy for the family, again based
up the number of family members and their ages as reported in their
tax return, cost $250 monthly, they would be entitled to a subsidy of
$150.
The government makes a determination that every
citizen is “entitled” to the fuel they need, and no family should
be required to spend more than 10% of their monthly income for it.
Fuel utilization and/or mileages, as reported on the returns,
would be determined, and the average cost at which it could be
obtained in the local area would be determined.
If that fuel cost is calculated to be $250 monthly, they would
be entitled to a subsidy of $150.
So, where do we stand in total. 80% of the family’s income is utilized for housing, food,
medical care, and fuel, and they
receive a monthly subsidy from the government of
$600, which they can spend any way they see fit. No czars or
bureaucrats are needed.
Top
