Reform the Safety Net; we're not "entitled" to anything
We can make a good start by banning the term "entitlement." A free American is not "entitled" to anything except the liberty to make of his life what he can and will. And open-ended programs that run on autopilot and "cost what they cost" are incompatibl
with national solvency. We should devise a new term, somewhere between "entitlement" and "welfare" to describe our national commitment to see no American destitute, especially in his or her elder years. For now, "safety net reform" will do.
Source: Keeping the Republic, by Mitch Daniels, p.199
, Sep 20, 2011
Replace welfare programs with negative income tax
Milton Friedman called it the negative income tax (NIT) and its workings, like all the best public policies, are simple to understand and implement. Any American or American family with less than a specified level of income would receive cash directly
through the tax system. As earnings increased, the amount of the subsidy would drop, but only by a fraction of the increase, so that the citizen would be encouraged to continue to work. If coupled with tax reforms, NIT could help restore the right set of
incentives while providing for the less fortunate.
Central to the NIT concept is the idea that it replace the vast array of social welfare programs we have today. Subsidized health insurance might remain. But welfare payments, food stamps,
housing subsidies, day care support, energy assistance, and the rest of what Friedman calls the "ragbag" of welfare systems would all disappear. Collectively, they cost more than what we would need to fund an adequate NIT.
