By Jay Kim
Americans often use the expression “who pays, who benefits” for cases where someone gets the benefit of money that somebody else paid, even though the payer should receive a benefit proportional to what they paid.
For example, the free lunch program is not free to payers, since they were forced to pay for the program with their hard-earned money. Why should they pay for it?
There is no one that dislikes anything free. People say that even the rich like free things more. Why should a couple without a child pay for the free lunch of other people’s children?
Even though I pay for the program, doesn’t it seem like the direct benefit actually goes to the politicians who take the credit for the program and get more votes in the next election?
It seems to me like those politicians are the real beneficiaries. The program should be paid with the money from reducing the salaries of those politicians who benefit.
The lunch I make for my child comes from my love of that child, no matter how meager it may be. This type of basic personal freedom and choice should be regarded as something precious.
If I give the government the money for my children’s lunch program, the government will spend half that money as “operational costs” and hire more government employees, which could lead to corruption like bribing government officials with the money from feeding children food that has passed its expiration date.
The U.S. also has a free lunch program called the National School Lunch Program. This program is run by local governments and school districts with money from the federal government, and costs about $10 billion per year.
Only the children of families under the poverty level (as defined by the federal government as families of three whose annual income is below $20,000) are eligible for this program.
Even the U.S., whose GDP is nearly three times higher than Korea’s, does not provide free lunch for every student. Only a country like North Korea coerces children into having the same lunch menu; countries like these have lines for food with empty bowls.
There is still a constant wave of immigrants coming to the U.S. from all over the world, seeking the American dream.
They are not coming to the U.S. because it offers things like free lunches for their children, but because they can make a better life for themselves with all the opportunities available to those who work hard. Americans always reward hard work.
The real American dream is to be able to buy a house, have a car, and gain a good education, not to have a free lunch program. Immigrants don’t come for a handout, but for an equal opportunity to succeed.
If Korea was known to third world countries as the home of free programs for child care, medicine, tuition for colleges, or housing, then many poor immigrants from these poorer countries would probably come to Korea.
This is not the Korean dream. This is simply politicians risking the collapse of the national economy just for getting more votes in the next election with other people’s money.
We should think about why the foreign press points out that Korea’s politics, in contrast with its cutting-edge economy, is still in the third world.
Jay Kim is a former U.S. Congressman. He serves as chairman of the Washington Korean-American Forum. For more information visit Kim’s website (www.jayckim.com). The views expressed in the above article are the author’s own and do not reflect the editorial policy of The Korea Times.