ledeagenda.com

Few things get me as riled up when it comes to politics as does the subject of welfare. Being a conservative, libertarian leaning individual you can pretty much guess my stance on the subject. I find welfare patently offensive to the many taxpayers that have to be overtaxed to support the leeches of society. But, it seems, the tide may be finally turning against welfare. And in my mind, that is a real blessing in disguise.

Last week, House Democrats desperately tried to revive an expansion of the the SCHIP bill which will enable millions of citizens to cancel their private health insurance and the government, meaning you the taxpayers, foot the bill for their healthcare. Republicans, showing an unusual amount of spine left, stood and said, “hell no”. Maybe it was motivated, in part, to ‘heal’ their wounds with the conservative base of the party. Whatever the reason, it high time they did so.

And now this story comes on on the New York Times.

NY area landlords are quite simply saying, ‘those with section 8 housing vouchers need not apply’.

HALLELUJAH!

It is about time that business wise up to the fact that dependency on government handout for profit does little to maximize the value of your market return. Let me put it this way, why rent an apartment for $1500 a month with a tenant who will not take care of it versus and tenant who will pay $2500 a month AND make sure it exemplifies the standard of life that they wish to live. You would be asinine to accept option 1 unless your business model was intended to operate as a charity, something in a free market, you are more than able to do.

But that is not the point. The point is that until recently and landlords have had to operate their business models under a ‘charity’ guideline. At least that was until they found out that, no, if fact, you do not have to accept ‘vouchers’ from the Department of Public Housing.

And guess what, the results are general improvement all the way around.

The University of California has a study out, available here [caution, large PDF file], that notes that the less of an influence Section 8 vouchers have in a local housing market, the higher property values are likely to be and general economic conditions are more prone to be better.

How else can you word this? If you want to promote a better quality of life in your neighborhood, in your investment, or your community you would be wise to promote all individuals to be self-reliant. Build your local economy up rather than build your welfare rolls up. If you teach a man to fish……

“A rising tide lifts all boats”- Ronald Reagan

What about the poor among us? They have made their own life choices, for the most part, that have put them in the situations they are in. Why should we take pity on the drug addict when they are the ones whom continue to seek out heroin? Why should we fret over the homeless when they refuse to find a job?

But those are side points, a reflective of the most common objections to welfare. I would argue this: by building your local economy up you are going to be helping those our more than would a traditional welfare program.

How so? As local economic conditions improve so will business opportunities and different elements of the community find new markets. New businesses require new workers, workers that, under the old welfare model, would still be wards of the state. Under the economic model, they are now self-fulfilled individuals in charge of their own affairs.

What motivation is there for someone receiving welfare to improve their lives, if by improving their lives they lose their monthly rent check? Their monthly grocery stipend? There is no motivation. But if their local economy is built to benefit all, the opportunities for that same individual far out pace that which any government program could provide.

An anchor that is too heavy, it would seem, would cause the boat to capsize. A lesson that we all could benefit from to improve our local surroundings.