There is nothing that politicians like better than handing out benefits to be paid for by someone else.
… spread the benefits and shrink the burdens all across the globe.
When they [most people] get a [government] benefit, they assume that God gave them it to them, But most people don’t want to pay for someone else’s undeserved benefits.
Believe me, people with disabilities are just as concerned about benefit fraud as anyone else. Money spent on those who are not in need is money that isn't being spent on vital services to support us in the community.
Too often in Washington, we only look at the recipient side: How does the budget affect either those who receive or don't receive benefits.
The efficiency label may frequently mask special benefits for special interests. The real questions should be more qualitative ones. Who will be affected? In what ways?
Commenting on issues of efficiency in cost-benefit studies:
Political conflict rests to a very large extent on a universal ignorance of consequences, as the people who are benefited by any particular act or policy are rarely those who struggled for it, and the people who are injured are rarely those who opposed it.
Benefits should be conferred gradually; and in that way they will taste better.
The fact is that during the post-1989 heyday of globalization optimism, political and business elites did not think enough about the prospect - plainly predicted in economic theory - that trade would harm some people even while leaving society as a whole better off. The result was overpromised benefits and inadequate adjustment plans.
Public employees contribute real value for the benefit of all citizens. Public-union bosses collect real money from all taxpayers for the benefit of a few.
A bureau that benefits a well organized interest group will fare better in getting the sinews for administration than a bureau whose benefits are diffused over unorganized consumers or whose function is to restrain rather than to confer benefits.