A Supreme Character Test
By Frederick J. Blahnik
March xxxxx, 2020
April xxxxx, 2020
Let’s consider for a moment this real-life scenario: What if someone offered you a bounteous sum of money which you neither earned nor deserved…..with absolutely no strings attached? Would you go ahead and keep that money? Would you celebrate your “good luck” and maybe thank God for His benevolence and charitable nature? Might you convolute logic and rationalize that you were somehow entitled to it after all? Might you use as your justification for keeping this undeserved bonanza of money the fact that untold others had similarly been offered the too-good-to-be-true financial package…..and then—following a not-long period of introspection–you subsequently discovered that you lacked the moral strength to instinctively do the right thing and emphatically turn down the offer of a “free” dowry? Yes, what WOULD you do with an unsolicited gift of money that one day just showed up in your mailbox or was anonymously deposited into your bank savings account?
A true character test.
Yes, this “dilemma” poses a true character test to any individual who finds themselves in a similar situation.
And yet such a thing has just happened throughout the length and breadth of the United States.
Just as Adam and Eve had their moral resolve tortuously challenged in the mythical Garden of Eden eons ago, so too has the entire retired population of the United States (along, in total fairness, with myriad others who are currently younger and working) been ethically tested over the past several months. And how each member of that aging demographic responded to the welfare payment (Forget “stimulus check”; “stimulus check”, my ass!; “stimulus check” is just a pitiful euphemism meant to conceal the ignominy of doling out gads of welfare money to undeserving citizens for anemic, immaterial reasons) they were proffered by a panicky, incompetent federal government says everything one needs to know about that individual’s underlying character.
During my first day spent in Economics 101 at Winona State University with blonde-maned Dr. Ellis many, many years ago (I minored in Economics in college), our classroom full of wide-eyed matriculators was taught that there is no such thing as a free lunch; you never receive something for nothing; if something looks or sounds too good to be true, it IS too good to be true. I, like all of my classmates, was taught this basic tenet of economics the very first day of class, and then the professor proceeded to hammer the point into our heads for virtually every day of the following semester given its foundational importance. Yet if you never had the privilege of sitting through a formal Economics class for an entire semester (or were forced to do so, depending on your point of view), do not feel left out: Experience teaches us the very same lesson over time. Everyone learns—or at least everyone SHOULD learn unless they are an incorrigible imbecile—that there are no “free lunches” in life. Nothing comes free. If you do not go out and earn something with either your muscles or your wits or some combination thereof, you are not deserving of it. Experience is irrefutably the best teacher, especially when it stems from mistakes made along life’s serpentine pathway, and over the course of many years of living everyone should become well aware of the seminal economic lesson I was taught in my first day of Economics 101.
There are no “free lunches” in life!!!
NONE!!!!!
Long story short, if someone is ostensibly receiving an item, a service, or just plain money for “free”, someone else will invariably be forced to pick up the tab for that gratuity somewhere down the line in either direct or indirect fashion. Nothing in life is free; someone is always left holding the tab, whether that individual is a direct beneficiary of receiving an object or service or, alternatively, an innocent third party who was not directly invested in the transaction but winds up being charged for it anyway.
There are no “free lunches” in life!!!
THERE ARE NO “FREE LUNCES” IN LIFE!!!!!
HAVE YOU ALLOWED THAT CARDINAL PRINCIPLE TO SINK IN YET?!?!?!
But let’s set abstract concepts aside now and move forward to the present time period, a volatile era that features desperate conditions facing American society secondary to the coronavirus pandemic which is ravaging our country and the world as a whole.
Offering so-called stimulus money to aggrieved parties is a good strategy and sensible government policy—Agreed!—but the crux of this matter lies in determining who in fact is an aggrieved party. Not everyone is; not even close to everyone is! Rather, that number is majorly closer to a minority of the adult American population than a majority of same. A government that is presently in debt to the tune of multiples of TRILLIONS of dollars should understandably be prudent in their distribution of welfare checks and not go crazy, panic, and consequently just start mailing out thousand-plus dollar checks to virtually every citizen of adult age regardless of need or circumstance.
Including and especially retirees.
These people have not been forced into perilous financial straits as a direct result of the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic like hordes of their younger, actively-working compatriots have been, therefore the elderly should not be gifted with lavish welfare checks under the guise of some undefined, illogical “need”. Doing so is not responsible governance and it is not right. Need should be the sole criterion for determining who will be receiving stimulus checks from the federal government, and I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how the vast majority of senior citizens living in the United States today have been uniquely victimized and plundered by the ongoing pandemic. The reason no one has come forward with a rational explanation for this query is because none exists. Retirees, and the elderly population specifically, have not been unjustly burdened by the ongoing health crisis and hence there is no earnest reason why they should be financially rewarded as though they have. It follows then that to accept welfare checks from one’s government at any level with no justification for receiving said largesse is just plain dishonest and unethical.
The solution?
Inordinately simple.
If you have not been adversely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic but have received a government stimulus check regardless, either forward it to someone who you know has been directly hurt by current circumstances or just give it back to the federal coffers and indicate that you want your share of the pie to be dedicated to paying down our astronomical national debt; this decision will honor future generations while simultaneously burnishing your legacy. You wind up creating a “win-win” scenario, in other words, the gold standard in any and all arenas of strategizing. Either of these solutions is honest, creditable, and easy to facilitate. The only way you can go wrong is by choosing to keep money you neither earned nor deserve. That action would basically define dishonesty and is only marginally better than frank larceny.
So what will your decision be? Will you choose to be honest or dishonest? Veracious or mendacious? Principled or unprincipled? Ethical or unethical? A hero or a villain? A giver or a slimy taker? Your thoughtful response to receiving a stimulus payment from the federal government in the mail will unequivocally answer all of the preceding questions.
I can only hope you make the proper decision. If so, I can hereby guarantee that you will be able to comfortably co-habitate with your conscience afterwards. And if not—NO!!!
Fred's Soapbox 