Should Congress strengthen work requirements in the food-stamp program? Should working be required of certain Medicaid recipients? These questions are the subject of active debate in Washington and state capitols around the country.
It seems to me that the debate often starts in the wrong place. Whether such requirements are effective at increasing employment, for example, presumes that increasing employment is the right goal. In my latest Bloomberg column, I suggest taking a step back and considering ethics and cultural norms.
Whom does society expect to work? In an normative ethical or cultural sense, should a man in his 30s or 40s without prohibitive health conditions or young children in the home be working? Does that man owe some share of his creativity and energy to the rest of society? Or is it nobody’s business but his whether he works? Rather than requiring work as part of a social contract that includes a safety net, should society view not working as a valid, private, personal decision?
There are other questions to ask, too. What is the nature of these programs? Are they social insurance, income-tested benefits, or programs designed to make employment more accessible? Are these safety-net benefits primarily for the adults who head households, or for the children in those households? On a fundamental level, should society send away a hungry person without food? Under what conditions?
I come down on the side of favoring more aggressive work requirements in safety-net programs, in part because of how I answer these questions.
I flesh this out more over at Bloomberg. As always, your comments are welcome, whether or not you agree.