Sometime back, a systems improvement firm had a series of advertisements based on “what if?”. The message was that the best solution should be based on the evaluation of all options from an objective, cost-benefit viewpoint, eliminating any emotional or ideological influences. I wish there were magic words that would force our governmental legislatures to take this approach. Won”t happen because it requires dealing in specifics, rather than the “glittering generalities” that don”t get anyone in trouble! We Americans need a lot more clarity and specifics to let us understand and judge what is going on in Washington.
For instance, when we are told that a poll shows that a slim majority of people “don”t like “Obamacare”, why are we not also told that the basic question was an “all or othing” question and while someone may like “most” features, not liking a small fragment forces a “disapprove”. What does “defunding” the act mean? Defunding, without specifics, means nothing one can put his/her mind to. On the other hand, I seriously doubt if there is anyone who wouldn”t like a/some changes made in the vast healthcare act, and that, of course, puts them in the “dislike” column! And what happens to the “sunk costs” already spent ? Waste is the worst kind of spending. After all, is not the country”s goal to achieve the lowest medical expense over all?
Some in congress would like to see food aid reduced.
Sadly, in a country who refuses to let people starve, and federal food support is reduced, who pays the difference? Are we just passing the buck from the country to the states? A lot of us really feel there should be work requirements, need appraisals, reproductive sanctions, and random drug tests tied into the system, but the “civil rights” of some seem to override the civil rights of others! Specifics would surely help evaluation.
A somewhat similar problem is found in unemployment, and what to do with those who find themselves without jobs. Let”s face it, a free market economy is not sociologically fair. Freedom of opportunity is fine, but once given that opportunity, if you don”t out perform your competitors, it is back to square one. With the “shut down” scare, people in government are complaining that supervisors will have to rank their workers as a basis for determining layoffs. Why on earth has this not been a regular part of management? Where advancement procedures are not overruled by union rules, how does a supervisor have a basis for promotion without ranking?
Why all this rant? It is because I”m so old I remember WPA and CCC and how much good was done-way beyond those joke about leaning on shovels. At what point do we come to the conclusion that it (just) might be a better deal for America to put many of the unemployed to work rather than pay “unemployment insurance”? Let alone the fact that the country might even get some (infrastructure and such) benefits from its investment. Again “cost benefit” should be a guide for our government. But “one never knows, do one?”
Guthrie “Guff” Worth
Lakeport
