The Beagle and Bass Model

Not to be confused with the modern Freehold of Beaglesonia, the Beagle and Bass Hunting and Fishing Club was an organization of which my father was a member back in the day. At one point it was decided to assess each member an additional $100 above and beyond the annual dues that they were already paying. Now a hundred dollars was a lot of money in those days, and some of the members would have been hard pressed to come up with it. It was a popular proposal nevertheless, because everybody wanted the club to do more of what it had already been doing.

The club held an annual fund raising dinner-dance to which the tickets cost one dollar, so it was decided that, for each ticket a member sold, one dollar would be credited towards his $100 extra assessment. They had also agreed to do some fencing work for a certain farmer in exchange for hunting privileges on his land. It so happened that the minimum wage at the time was exactly one dollar, so it was decided that, for each hour a member worked on Oren's fences, the club would credit him with one dollar towards his assessment. So there were three ways that a member could pay his assessment, in any combination he chose. Some members would rather sell tickets than build fences, some members chose to do a little of both, making up the difference with cash, and some members would rather just pay the hundred dollars and get it over with.

This is not hypothetical, it's a true story taken from real life. I chose it as an example because the math was easy, even for me, but I suppose you could plug in any numbers that you wanted to, as long as the various methods of payment were of equivalent value. The point being that, if you want to get something out of an organization, you first have to put something in. Ideally, every member should make an equal contribution but, if you limit the contributions to cash only, it puts an unreasonable burden on the poorer members. Some people have more time than money, some people have more money than time, and everybody is not equally gifted with the same skills. Nevertheless, everybody should contribute something before they are allowed to draw anything out. Otherwise, the pot will eventually be empty and no good to anybody.

Social Security was supposed to be self funding, and it was until just recently. If present trends continue, however, there will soon be more people drawing out than putting in, and the system will go bankrupt. Taking money from another program is not the answer, at least not for the people who are currently benefitting from the other program. If Social Security is to be "saved" in its present form, they will have to increase the inflow and/or decrease the outflow, either of which is likely to make the system a lot less popular than it has been up to now. I have already drawn out more than I ever put in, so it's no skin off my nose. They could discontinue the program entirely and I would be money ahead. It's not my fault, I never voted for the thing but, if people want to throw their money away, I'll take it.

I don't remember hearing that the single payer medical plan was ever officially proposed. They might have talked about it, but I don't think that it ever came up for a vote. Furthermore, the Republicans didn't "let" Obama do anything, since they were the minority in both houses at the time. They stalled Obamacare as long as they could, but they didn't have the votes to kill it.

Is any of this really fair? Is life itself fair? Who knows? It is what it is, and it's all we've got to work with for now.