To Blue: it’s not just semantics! Without having read the book, I’ll bet that a key part of the argument is that much of current welfare money is wasted on bureacracy. Also, cash is *empowering* in a way that a long list of programs (food stamps, Section 8, blah, blah, blah) is not. For example, people who have ambition but currently no resources could pool their funds to start small companies.

To Tom: many on the libertarian/center/right have at least as much compassion for the poor as those who embrace “liberalism”; the key disagreement is over means not ends. (I know it’s fashionable in many quarters to demonize the right, but it’s mostly wrong and certainly counter productive.) To cite just one example: Milton Friedman has been talking about a similar idea for decades.

To Jim S: $14K/yr for a couple (married or not), $28K/yr for 4 roomates who share a house — just to pick 2 scenarios. No, it’s not living high on the hog, but it looks pretty decent for someone who doesn’t have a job.

Libertarianism is all about the freedom of people to make choices; not sure why you are so hostile to that philosophy.

Libertarianism, the only philosophy dumber than communism.

I am more and more sympathetic to the proposition that in the lottery of life some people come up with the short end of the stick on a whole bunch of different dimensions. It’s not so bad if you don’t have an IQ of 130 if you’re beautiful, charming, or industrious. After all, there are all sorts of bundles of qualities that make it very hard to rank people from “high” to “low.”

It is also true that there are substantial numbers of people who are not that smart, not that beautiful, not that charming, not that industrious, for reasons that they have no control over — and they’ve gotten the short end of the stick. So if I’m talking about using government to redistribute some resources to that person, I’m not going to lie awake nights thinking that I’ve done some awful thing by helping them out. I’m happy with this compromise.

Welcome to liberalism, Mr. Murray.

THEN start talking…

Well, that’s the plan Charles Murray’s new book….”

Hate to spoil the party here, but that’s $10K per annum.

Let them suffer? How very Republican of you! ; )

What I’m saying is that certain people are going to fall through the safety nets, regardless of whether we like it or not. This plan isn’t going to fix it, but it’s a start towards providing people with real money that they can spend to empower themselves.

Nobody wants $10,000 a year if everybody else is also getting $10,000 a year. They want the big score and they want more than the other guy.

True, people want to compete, but I think you’re ignoring the other side of this coin. So, I’ll throw some of them out there. Having this extra capital will help people create more of an ownership society. It will encourage more homebuying. It will encourage more marriage. And it could certainly help the hopelessness that plagues many who are below the poverty level, and don’t have the skills nor the means to climb out of it. There will be still be competition. People will still want to make more money. But an even, fair distribution of the money would create a more equal society on a whole.

Listen, we need new ideas. This is one. There will be more. But what’s bugging the $#!+ out of me is how easily people will ignore this without really digging into it.

Another problem is that for this to work there has to be the political will to allow those who spend their $10,000 imprudently to starve, bleed to death, or die of exposure.

That’s happening right now in every major metropolitan city…and those people are getting nothing from the government because they have no address.

Listen, we can’t cure all of these problems, but giving people the means to find shelter and adequate healthcare is important. And so here is a plan. Like it or not, Murray’s ideas tackle them head on and actually save us a TON of money in the long run.

Let them suffer? How very Republican of you! ; )

I should read the book too, but I wasn’t assuming the $3000 would be earmarked for a health plan. I assumed it would be available to cover deductibles, co-pays and out-of-network expenses. But maybe it’s only for those who don’t otherwise have healthcare.

It’s not like they get to spend it on a new TV if they don’t elect to spend it on a needless visit to the emergency room.

Well, if people buy healthcare, they’re buying a plan…not just trips to the emergency room. But maybe I’m not understanding you correctly.

Also, in regards to people who don’t save their handout, are you willing to just let them suffer?

Individuals over 21? Yes. Children? No. And Murray has a plan for children too.

In any event, I’m going to read the book and get more info.

It’s easy to write the words “subsidies to business” but removing them will be much, much more difficult. One of the key problems is that the subsidy recipients don’t see them as subsides: they seem them as their due. Patents, copyrights, licensing, highways, and air traffic control are all subsidies to business. The common law system is a subsidy to lawyers. Avoidance of malpractice, i.e. accepted practice, as the standard for doctors (rather than harm) is a subsidy to physicians. Bankruptcy law is a subsidy to business (and individuals).

Nobody wants $10,000 a year if everybody else is also getting $10,000 a year. They want the big score and they want more than the other guy. Each and every constitutency will fight to defend its subsidy for its very survival (in a lot of cases that’s pretty much what it means).

It’s politically impossible. The sort of thing that comes out in a dorm room bull session.

Another problem is that for this to work there has to be the political will to allow those who spend their $10,000 imprudently to starve, bleed to death, or die of exposure. Otherwise you’re just piling $10,000 per person per year on top of our existing system. The Swiss could manage it. We can’t.

Also, in regards to people who don’t save their handout, are you willing to just let them suffer? Sure the fault would be theirs but the burden will still be ours. I’m not at all opposed to spending government money to help Americans out, but I don’t see where just dispensing cash like an ATM is the best course of action. Money alone does not create opportunity. There has to be more to it, I think.

And yes, true, some people would spend it unwisely. But that’s their cross to bear since there would be nothing else to fall back on.

I have a strong aversion to any such magic-bullet solution.

Give everyone welfare so we don’t have to call it welfare anymore.

In my mind, his “solution” is just a semantic one.