The way I have opened all of our podcasts is, “...with today’s personal, financial and political Thought/Action message." At the outset of this podcast effort. This communications mission, was my desire to communicate three different sets of rules, ways of thinking, required for success in each of those three areas; personal, financial and political--politics increasingly affecting all of us. The more I thought about it, the more it became clear that the basic, the fundamental rules were the same in all three areas. Things like hard work, taking personal responsibility, having a win-win attitude, and helping others when they are working hard to help themselves, apply everywhere. Sure, we can use specific rules like the rule of 72 when investing, starting with the outside fork in a fine dining setting, and knowing that you need to raise a ton of money to win a political campaign, but the core rules are the same. Like in baseball; hit, hit with power, run, throw and catch. Those are the basics. And there are basics we need to practice in order to succeed in all of life.

Let’s work together to get this topic Handouts right. Hands out vs Handouts? Having your hands out means that you want something. When we talk about handouts, it usually means that someone else wants something. And it is not a complimentary term, usually implying a request, even a demand, for unearned and undeserved cash, products or services. Remember the term “Welfare Queen?” That was quickly countered from the other side with, “Yeah, but what about corporate welfare?” The two sides would rage on, like two televisions broadcasting at each other. And if the other TV showed no signs of listening, the volume got turned up. And up. Extending this metaphor, today we can see rows of TVs, people, lined up on opposite sides of a street, shouting at each other. Like TVs, everyone is on broadcast, incapable of listening. And you can see where that is getting us.

Most of us see others as the ones with their hands out. Rarely do we see ourselves that way. Let’s look at that together.

As we, correctly, criticise the excesses of the welfare state as unfair to both taxpayers and the recipients, taking unnecessary money from the former, and robbing the latter of important life lessons, loss of dignity, and helping to launch generational poverty, let’s also look at:

As we age, do we demand that Social Security remains “as promised” even with the massive, unanticipated changes in demographics? When the first Social Security check was issued in the amount of $22.54 in 1940, the eligibility age at the time was 65; life expectancy then was less 62. In other words, most people were not expected to draw a single check, even a small one. Life expectancy in the US is now 78, and more benefits are being paid to more types of recipients for far longer. Would we support changes, reductions, actually, that would lessen the huge additional amounts now needed to be paid out under the original rules if those changes gave us less money? Or do we want it all? If we do want it all, aren’t we asking for/demanding a handout from our kids and grandkids? They are the ones who will get the bill.

If you are on a taxpayer-supported defined benefit pension plan that is woefully underfunded, and they are all massively underfunded, are you going to use the political power at your disposal to, again, have things delivered “as promised?” Unlike private company pension plans, taxpayer-funded plans are not negotiated between two parties, each of which have a direct financial stake in the outcome. Politicians, often financially supported by the very unions seeking the benefits, are not spending a dime of their money. And their compensation is not tied to negotiating a fair, but cost-effective plan. They are promising taxpayer money in exchange for individual pension-recipient votes and, when present, union support.