PRENTISS SMITH
Contributing Columnist
Recently, the Shreveport City Council voted to implement a guaranteed income program that will give $600 dollars to some of the poorest households in Shreveport. The program is supported by the mayor, who evidently believes that this program will incentivize participants to look for meaningful employment and also help with childcare and other expenses.
It is a laudable initiative, but a flawed one. The vote was 4 to 3 in favor of the program, with the three Republicans voting no, and the four Democrats voting yes. I come down on the side of the Republicans, who I disagree with on most issues, but not this one. I don’t believe people should be getting monthly payments from the city unless there is some type of employment or education component tied to it.
The guaranteed income program, which is being implemented in some cities around the country, including Shreveport, is a program that provides direct recurring cash payments of $500 dollars to $1000 dollars a month to impoverished families with no restrictions on it. The idea is to provide the poorest families in a city or municipality with a guaranteed basic income that will allow them to improve their economic circumstances.
The recipients can use the money for whatever they want to with no strings attached, which is where the problem comes in for a lot of people who are opposed to these types of programs. It is hard for hardworking citizens to accept the notion that someone is getting a check every month for not working. It seems un-American.
The problem is that it is free money, and for a lot of people, including this writer, who have been conditioned to believe that nothing is free, this is not something they can wrap they can wrap their arms around. All of the money that governments are spending Is money generated from people who work hard and pay their taxes. Some of these programs use taxpayer money, and if a poll was taken as to whether the people agree with this, it would overwhelmingly come back, no.
As I said earlier, nothing is free in this country, and if money is going to be handed out, then there ought to be an employment component tied to it. Most people I know don’t want a handout; they want a hand up. Sometimes good intentions lead to bad outcomes, and the intended results may not change the behavior that people are looking for.
Yes, these are handouts—plain and simple. It is charity, and although the intention may be admirable and altruistic, the end result is that these types of programs don’t achieve what they set out to achieve, which is to give the recipients a chance to find meaningful employment.
Cities across the country are piloting these type of guaranteed income programs, and the jury is still out on them. California is one of the states that is using the program in several of its cities. Free education opportunities and job training are programs that many Americans can get on board with, but giving out money with no strings attached is problematic for a lot of them.
If these programs lead to reduction in poverty, crime, child mortality, malnutrition, teen pregnancy, and truancy, then it is money well spent. So far, that has not been the case. As I said earlier, nothing in this country is free, and if money is going to be handed out, then there should be an employment, education, or volunteer component added to it. And that’s the way I see it. smithpren@aol.com