Since I heard this on...

talk radio you have to take it with a grain of salt.  I did.  But if true, it is very illustrative of why the people who are in favor of a "minimum to survive" system of hand outs just don't get it.

The woman hosting the talk radio program I was listening to told the story of a Lithuanian woman who emigrated to England to be a croupier.  She lost her job and has chosen not to go back to work because it makes no sense for her to do so.

She's getting the following from the English government:

Monthly cash payments that amount to $23,000 per year.
A free apartment.
Free food.
Reduced utility bills.
A clothing allowance that she's using to buy Robert Cavilli clothing.

She says "I'm highly educated, I speak six languages and why in the world would I apply for a job as a cleaner or a cashier?"

She has a point.  Where is the incentive for her to go back to work, ever?  Because from what the talk radio host was saying, these benefits continue indefinitely.  That's the problem.

We need social safety nets.  We really do.  Unemployment is a good thing.  But the idea of unemployment is to take care of people until they can find work.  When the economy sucks and work is harder to find, unemployment needs to be flexible and take care of people.  However, there is a difference between temporary unemployment benefits and indefinite care-taking. 

When someone is unable to work, because they aren't physically capable, that's different.  We have disability programs and as long as that person can't work, they should be provided for.  We have welfare programs that were designed to get people off of them after a period of time, but those seem to be in flux right now and that's a topic for another blog.  The issue here is this silly notion that every single man, woman and child deserves a "minimum to survive" paid for by the labor of others.

If there is no incentive to work, why work?  If there is no incentive to contribute to society, why contribute?  If government is willing to tax those who do work and do earn money to pay for the rest of the populace to just sit around, surf the web, shop and watch TV, why would those people do anything else?

Here's the crux of the matter.  When someone physically CAN'T work, they are deserving of our support.  When someone CAN'T work because they can't find a job, it isn't a question of ability but one of opportunity.  That is also deserving of our support.  We need to provide unemployment and find ways to boost the economy to provide employment opportunity.

But when someone WON'T work when they are able, the issue is ability.  The issue is the choice to not work.  The other issue is that we simply can't afford to give everyone this so-called minimum to survive.  We're already spending ourselves into a debt crisis of epic proportions.  Adding new entitlement benefits or expanding the ones we already have is not possible.

So let's fix the economy.  Let's restore opportunity.  Let's maintain those social safety nets of welfare, disability and unemployment.  Let's try to get people who want to work back to work.  And let's make it clear to people who can work and are choosing to do everything they can to avoid it, we will subsidize inability.  We won't subsidize laziness.