Insane incentives create insane results as kids are paid to attend classes

By David McElroy · August 25, 2011

What does a government agency do when it finds out that it has unspent money? Does it give the money back to taxpayers? Does it find another department with more important needs? Or does it find some way to spend the money — to make sure it can get the same money next year?

If you made the third choice, you might have a bright future ahead as a bureaucrat. If you made the first choice, you’re living your life on Fantasy Island.

In Camden, N.J., the city finds itself with $63,000 burning a hole in its bank account, because the grant from which the money comes expires on Sept. 30. Here’s the story. The state Department of Criminal Justice made the grant to the County Prosecutor’s Office, which didn’t know what to do with the money, because its “community justice director” — yes, that’s the title — was laid off in May. So that office agreed to give it to the city, which is required to spend it immediately. Why? Here’s the key:

The money needs to be used by Sept. 30 or the city would lose its chance at receiving the grant next year, city officials said.

There’s no consideration of whether the money is being used wisely. There’s no consideration for the people who had the money taken from them through coercion. There’s only concern that if they don’t find something to spend the money on, there won’t be more money for an equally useless purpose next year.

Why is it so difficult for people to see that when a state monopoly exists, it has no incentive to spend money wisely? Why can’t people see that when the people supplying the money are so disconnected from the people making decisions about how to spend it, this sort of insanity will happen all the time?

And what’s the money being used for? Well, the slapped-together program is called I Can End Truancy — or ICE-T, since bureaucrats love cutesy names — and it will pay 66 high school students $100 each to attend classes for just a few weeks. (There are also supposed to be conflict-resolution and anger-management workshops, but the details are vague.) The kids will be paid by Sept. 30 if they’ve attended classes for the first weeks of the program, but they’re going to promise to keep attending afterwards. Ummmm, yeah.

The program is a joke, of course. If you believe that paying people to attend classes and making them sit through a few workshops about managing their anger is going to change their behavior, you and I have a fundamentally different view of how people’s values change.

The state has no incentive to spend your money properly. Even if you still agree that the state has a moral right to take money from you, can anyone deny that this coercive monopoly will always be bloated, corrupt and inefficient compared to a truly free market?

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts