New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is piloting a program that pays poor people for 'making good choices' such as going to the dentist, holding down a job, attending parent-teacher conferences, and etc. He's managed to raise more than $43 million in private donations for his pet project, scheduled to begin this fall.
An opponent of the bill was quoted as saying:
"It just reinforces the impression that if everybody would just work hard enough and change their personal behavior we could solve poverty in this country, and that's not reflected in the facts."
Wow. I don't know what facts this woman is looking at, but it seems to me that if everybody would just work hard enough and change their personal behavior we'd see a marked decrease in poverty in this country. Of course it wouldn't solve the whole problem, but I can't help but think it would have an enormously positive impact, allowing the government to focus its resources more effectively.
However. Paying people for good decisions just seems like a slightly tweaked version of welfare to me -- a slightly better version, granted, in that payment is for good choices instead of those that contribute to the cycle of poverty.
But the real question is -- where is personal responsibility in this equation? This pilot program is being paid for by private donations, but I'm quite sure that Mayor Bloomberg envisions the day when Big Brother will take over. That glorious day when smokers are paid a stipend from the government to give up smoking; thieves are paid not to rob; murderers not to kill.
I'm sorry, but I'm just having a hard time seeing the value of paying a parent to attend their child's parent-teacher conference. If they don't feel the welfare of their child is reason enough to show up, why would a mere $25 make any kind of significant difference? Don't get me wrong, I'd show up for $25 smackers, but I don't see how that would change the root causes for my actions...except that I might be even less inclined to go when the payments dried up.
My favorite quote in the article is this:
"Mayor Michael Bloomberg traveled to Mexico this spring to study the healthy lifestyle payments, also known as conditional cash transfers."
Seriously? He's taking advice on poverty from a country where, if I remember correctly, the first or second largest source of national income is money sent in from relatives in America? A country which publishes booklets for its citizens on how to illegally enter its neighbor and send money back?
Let me be clear -- I'm not saying we can't learn anything from countries poorer than ourselves, but I'm not convinced poverty cessation is an area Mexico is especially brilliant at. I'm also not convinced paying for good behavior is a strategy that will prove effective in the long run. If a person can't see the value in good choices and personal responsibility outside the bounds of payoffs, then I don't see how those same payoffs can have more than a transitory effect on behavior.