As many of you already know, economics — well, anything to do with math, really — is not my strong suit. I admit that up front. And welfare is about economics, so the fact that I think welfare is a disaster (having seen its manifestations play out, in caucasian shades of alabaster, lily and grayish-tan here in one of the least racially-diverse states in the Union) doesn’t mean I know how to fix it.

Welfare! That fluorescing, metastasizing collection of expansive and expensive programs originally intended to mitigate or eliminate the immediate and long-term effects of poverty in America. Here, as in the inner city, welfare has succeeded in ensuring that the basic needs of vulnerable Americans are being met, but the cost — not just in monetary terms but in blighted human lives — is high. A program intended to serve as a safety net has instead become a trap in which families remain enmeshed for generations.

Simply put, welfare too often rewards misbehavior and punishes those who attempt to make good choices, such as seeking entry-level or entrepreneurial employment, marrying the parent of one’s children, or moving away from economically depressed areas to cities or states where there are more jobs.

One solution could be to simply eliminate all welfare programs — AFDC, Social Security, disability, Medicaid, Medicare, fuel assistance, what-have-you — and let people either sink or get a job and swim.

This draconian measure is unlikely to be undertaken, even by the most heartless conservative. Even if some might be able to tolerate the spectre of ragged, starving adults staggering through the slums, we can’t let their kids go unclothed and unfed.

But I came across an idea here on Ricochet that was completely new to me. It is called the Guaranteed Basic Income (hereafter to be referred to as GBS) and is proffered as a substitute for as many welfare programs as we can think of.

What would happen if we replaced welfare with a single, annual tax-exempt payment of $20,000 to every citizen over the age of eighteen, with no strings attached? (NOTE: I chose $20k for ease of math; member Barfly tells me that it should be an amount a frugal person could scrape by on.)

Let’s imagine a welfare recipient — we can call her Fanta — single, eighteen years old, and does not yet have either a boyfriend or a baby. She lives in an inner-city neighborhood blighted by drugs, poverty and — why not? — racism. Jobs are few and far between, and those that exist do not pay well enough to be attractive when compared with welfare.

Under the present system, Fanta’s most rational, self-interested economic choice would be to get pregnant and go on welfare ASAP. Plenty of her friends and relatives have already taken this course, and are living comparatively well, from Fanta’s point of view.

If she decides to emulate them, the implicit message Fanta will receive along with her first check is: “We are giving this to you because you are damaged, defective, and/or a victim of forces you can neither control nor resist. You are incapable of determining the direction of your own life.”

Lucky for Fanta, she’s come of age under the GBI system. On her eighteenth birthday, she receives a check for twenty grand. Implicit message? You are receiving this check because you are a full, equal, free adult citizen of the United States of America.

Immediate objection! Why give Fanta money for not working? 

Because we do it anyway and are extremely unlikely to stop doing it.

The real question is: what is the least-bureaucratic and most freedom-promoting way to give Fanta money? At present, any government “support” that Fanta will receive is processed, evaluated, and monitored by layers of social workers, program managers and assorted bureaucrats paid to enforce the byzantine rules and regulations that are intended to control how Fanta spends her money and therefore how she spends her life.

Eliminate all of that. One decent computer program could probably handle making a yearly, direct-deposit of 20k in every citizen’s bank account, including Fanta’s.

What could Fanta do with the money? If she was inclined to write the great American novel, compose experimental music, volunteer for a political campaign, or sit around on the couch watching Netflix, Fanta could pinch her pennies and live on it.

If she lived in an expensive city, she could pool resources with a few friends and live New Girl-style. Or she could move to a state or city with a lower cost of living. $20k is enough to buy a car in which to drive to, say, South Dakota with enough left over to pay the first months’ rent and security deposit on a new apartment.

Or, she could get a job. Even a low-paying McJob could make a big difference in Fanta’s standard of living, while allowing her to gain basic job skills and start on a resume. If she falls in love with a young man — as young women tend to — that young man would come with something more than sex appeal: he’d have his own $20. Naturally, so would all of Fanta’s other suitors, so it might behove Mr. Right to get a job and earn so he could look even better by comparison.

If they got married, they’d have $40k between them. If they decide they want to have a baby, the GBI might be enough to allow Fanta or her husband to stay home and take care of it, or it could pay for childcare while both parents continued to work.

What if Fanta is a drug addict and sticks the whole shebang into her veins or up her nose? What if she takes her $20,000 to Vegas and blows the whole thing in a single wild weekend?

Answer: Fanta has a problem.

She can ask her relatives for help. She can go to the Salvation Army. Both the family and the Salvation Army are, of course,  free to demand very specific behaviors in exchange for aid, ranging from budgeting lessons to attendance at church services. But Fanta will only have to humble herself for a year: on her next birthday, our wastrel will have another chance, with a new check for 20k direct-deposited into her account.

The budget-busting part of this is, of course, that all Americans get the check. I know that sounds crazy… but I’d like to get rid of the condescending “Nanny knows best” implication that comes with more targeted government aid, and emphasize independence, agency and freedom. Ideally, those of us who don’t “need” $20k could be encouraged to think of it as money to be donated to charities and causes we care about but that — arguably—the government shouldn’t really be funding. (Big Bird?)