Select Page

The recent revelation that the White House, congressional Democrats, and the CBO all now consider work to be a lifestyle choice reminds me of a scenario some years back with one of my clients.

There was a person who was getting a divorce, and the couple had 2 children. One of the discussions involved who was going to pay for the children’s college. The husband offered to pay 90% of the cost since he made substantially more money, leaving 10% as the wife’s portion to pay. This seemed to be a pretty fair offer.

The wife, on the other hand, did not agree that the offer was fair. Her rationale? If she ultimately got remarried down the road and decided to stay at home and not work, she would not be able to afford her 10% portion.

Understandably, the husband was taken aback. He said to her something along the lines of “you mean to tell me that you have a responsibility to take care of your children’s education, and because you have the chance not to work, then your children’s needs and your obligations somehow aren’t your responsibility anymore?”

The wife was understandably a little embarrassed, as she had never looked at it that way before.

Have you? We ought to have the moral compass not to insist that other people pay our bills for us.

This brings us back to Obamacare. It is not in any way morally acceptable, for those of us who are working, to subsidize people who prefer not to work and stay home and call it a “choice”.

Here’s the root of programs like Obamacare and welfare. A social safety net is supposed to be just that — a temporary hand-up, not a prolonged hand-out. A steady diet of benefits creates a disincentive to work. The decision not to work unfairly forces other people (who do work) to pay for the things that the benefit receipients should be paying for. With the expansion of programs such as food stamps, unemployment, and now healthcare, we are making it harder, if not impossible, to move out of that lower class rung.