The Ultimate Entitlement

Politicians of all stripes compete for public favor by offering an almost endless array of expensive enticements. Voters can choose from a wide variety of tax cuts, new spending proposals, and expanded regulation in an effort to achieve all the good things that Americans are supposedly entitled to--more education outlays, safer neighborhoods, more health care, a cleaner environment, a more modern military establishment, and other worthy causes. Any detached observer of the political process must conclude that Santa Claus has serious competition in the give-away department.

Nevertheless, no matter how eager they may be for electoral success, all political candidates demonstrate a great deficiency of imagination. Despite their long lists of "goodies" aimed at different interest groups, no one now running for office has had the audacity to promise the voters that they will provide the ultimate entitlement, which, of course, is happiness.

What would be more enticing to wavering voters than a Full Happiness Law? Who could oppose such a progressive measure? It would be necessary, of course, to do much more than merely promulgate a full quota of happiness to every American. Having participated in transition planning for several presidents, I understand the importance of developing the detailed positions in advance.

For starters, the effort would require the establishment of a new cabinet-level Department of Happiness. The Secretary of Happiness would be charged with the responsibility for promptly and fairly distributing happiness across the nation. An obvious array of subdivisions would be necessary, under the supervision of the inevitable assortment of deputy secretaries, undersecretaries, assistant secretaries, deputy undersecretaries, assistant deputy secretaries, and so forth.

Surely, at the outset, a substantial group of talented sociologists and lawyers would have to be recruited to staff the section charged with defining what happiness is and then determine how full is full. Another section, boasting an array of economists and political scientists, would wrestle with a host of more specific questions: What is the desirability of privatizing the federal responsibility? Should happiness stamps be distributed to each citizen? What role would there be for vouchers? Who regulates the happiness providers? Should they be in the public sector or the private sector?

A very large division, comprised primarily of statisticians and market researchers, would be required to survey the populace to determine the current state of happiness. They also would be charged with identifying any shortfalls to be filled. A closely related division would have the responsibility of developing the specific programs, which can be drawn upon to close the gap between the status quo and full happiness. This activity clearly would require a large retinue of engineers and scientists as well as philosophers.

The largest division of the new department would be charged with carrying out the programs that provide the requisite amounts of happiness to each of our citizens (or will the effort cover all residents, legal and otherwise?). A great variety of talents would be required for this endeavor, ranging from experienced bureaucrats to broad-gauged manufacturing experts to providers of transportation and communication services. Clearly, the provision of full happiness would help to generate full employment in the United States, aside from any feedback possibilities.

Finally, an investigative division would be set up to ferret out those recalcitrant individuals who are not taking full advantage of the programs and benefits of the Department of Happiness. Suitable punishments, of course, would have to be devised and executed (perhaps an unfortunate choice of words). Volunteers could be relied upon to carry out this last activity. After all, how could full happiness be achieved without full citizen participation?

Murray Weidenbaum is chairman of the Center for the Study of American Business.

For more information ...

Regulation's Trillion-Dollar Drag on Productivity. Declines in U.S. labor productivity have largely been caused by an increase in regulation. (Center for the Study of American Business, March 1996, 13 pp.)

Request PolicyBot document #7212408