Copyright 2016 by Gary L. Pullman
It
may be true, as some claim, that the road to hell is paved with good
intentions, but that observation hasn't stopped governments at the
city, state, and national levels from establishing programs that,
although well-intentioned, sometimes backfire. In such cases, the
programs end up doing the opposite of what they were intended to do.
Other times, they may be partially effective, but they introduce
unanticipated problems that offset, negate, or altogether eliminate
the benefits the programs were intended to provide.
It
seems that, at whatever level, governments cannot help but meddle in
citizens' affairs, creating as many, if not more, problems than they
seek to correct. Here's our list of 10 well-intentioned government
programs that backfired.
10
School Lunch Program
Like
many American first ladies before her, Michelle Obama championed a
cause she believed would improve the quality of life in the United
States. By establishing new nutritional standards for public school lunches, she hoped her program would help reduce childhood obesity.
Instead, childhood obesity has increased. The country's students
haven't been keen on the menu changes, and, a study by the University
of Connecticut’s Rudd Center for Food Policy & Obesity shows
“the percentage of students selecting vegetables significantly
decreased from 68 [percent] in 2012 to 62 [percent] in 2013.” In
2014, the percentage dropped even further. After rising
significantly, the percentage of students who chose fruit also
dropped sharply in 2014. The study indicated “salad did not fare
much better” than broccoli, which was chosen only 38 percent of the
time. In general, the 2012 Healthy Hunger-Free Kids Act has
backfired.
9
Welfare Drug-Testing Programs
In
an effort to identify drug-dependent welfare recipients, several U.
S. states have instituted drug-testing for individuals seeking to
enroll in such programs. After spending approximately $1 million
dollars on testing, the states have discovered “needy applicants”
actually use drugs less often than the rest of the public. Critics
contend tax dollars could be better spent on job training, health
care assistance, and education. Other problems with drug-testing
programs, critics argue, is they don't necessarily include treatment
for the few people who do have a drug-dependency problem and they may
deny funds or food stamps to the children of impoverished drug users.
In any case, the expenditure of tax dollars appears disproportionate
to the number of individuals abusing drugs, and the programs cost
taxpayers more money than they save them.
8
Car-Buyers Incentive Program
Bangkok Traffic
Hoping
to jump start its flagging automobile manufacturing industry,
Thailand initiated “an incentive program for first-time carbuyers.” Instead of reinvigorating the industry, the program
created an unsustainable “boom” in car purchases. Buying
“collapsed once the tax breaks expired,” and 120,000 of the 1.2
million Thais who took advantage of the incentive program defaulted
on their loans. As a result, “Japanese automakers, who control 80
percent of the local market, reported a 30 percent drop in sales on
average in the second quarter of 2013,” and dealers' prices fell
sharply.
7
Cigarette-Recycling Program
Vancouver's
“well-intentioned pilot” cigarette-recycling program wasn't well
planned, officials admitted. The city hoped to reduce unsightly
litter while promoting environmental cleanliness as part of its
Greenest City 2020 Action Plan. In installing 110 cigarette
butt-collection boxes downtown, the city broke local bylaws, as some
of the boxes are within six meters (feet) “of doors, windows and
air intakes,” which violates the city's “buffer zone,” which
was designed to “protect people from secondhand [cigarette] smoke.”
In addition, officials are concerned that the presence of the
receptacles might suggest smoking is “more socially acceptable”
downtown. Before implementing the program, officials failed to
research whether the recycling program would affect smoking rates or
reduce the hazards of secondhand cigarette smoke. There may be
easier, safer, and less expensive ways to promote cigarette butt
recycling. Dr. Stuart Kreisman, an endocrinologist, recommended
requiring “a deposit of $1 per pack of 20 cigarettes, refundable to
the buyer upon return of the 20 butts.” He also recommended the
cigarette companies participate in the “deposit program.”
6
Payment-in-Kind Program
If
farmers agree not to plant portions of their land, the U. S.
government gives them payment-in-kind (PIK) certificates. These
certificates, equal to the volume of the crops the farmers agreed not
to plant, are redeemable
for surplus crops the government already owns. The
value of these crops is based on their market price at the time the
certificates are issued. Many farmers sell the anticipated PIK crops
before they actually harvest their own fields or receive the PIK
crops the government owes them.
Intended
to support the depressed “farming economy by reducing surpluses”
in order to match supply with demand, the Payment-in-kind Program
cost cotton farmers much more than anyone anticipated. Officials
planned to shell out 4.1 million bales of cotton to farmers, but
there was a “shortfall” of 700,000 bales. The PIK program
requires participating farmers to make up the difference, which means
they must “buy cotton on the open market, at higher prices than
their PIK certificates are worth.
In
addition, farmers are now short the cotton they've already sold,
based on their anticipation of the government's PIK cotton. They must
buy the cotton they owe their buyers, at higher, current market
prices. Thus, they are doubly short-changed. Outraged cotton farmers
made their displeasure known, and lawmakers passed legislation to
reimburse their constituents for their out-of-pocket losses. The
reimbursement has also angered voters, because the bailout will cost
American taxpayers $200 million.
5
Land Redistribution Program
In
Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez is playing Robin Hood, giving big
landowner's land to the poor. This forced redistribution of land, he
believes, will increase crop production and “end dependence on food
imports.” The program is legal, Chavez said, because the land
belongs to the state. So far, the government has redistributed 5
million acres of unused or expropriated land. Although, in a few
cases, the program has worked as intended, overall, it has backfired.
With “no irrigation” or “credit” from the government, much of
the land cannot be worked and once-productive farms now yield few, if
any, crops.
4
Foreign Workers Program “Fixes”
Canada's
Foreign Workers Program has caused more problems than it's solved.
That's what many Canadian businesses contend, and policymakers
responded, hastening, in an effort to appease constituents, to “fix”
the program's alleged contradictions and abuses. However, the fixes
themselves have garnered hostility and complaints. Temporary worker
application fees have increased dramatically. There will be more
“low-skilled” workers, too, now that this designation is based on
the minimum wage rather than “a widely accepted standardized list
of occupations.” Temporary workers are being phased out in
provinces in which the unemployment rate is above 6 percent. “Red
tape” and “higher application fees” also affect highly skilled
and professional “seasonal and transient workers” by requiring
them to repeatedly complete numerous applications. Businesses as
varied as fast-food restaurants, insurance companies, hospitals,
banks, farms,
resorts, and fish plants complain revisions to the Foreign Workers Program will make it harder, not easier, for them to find dependable,
low-cost employees and to compete in a global workplace.
3
Parking Program
Oslo
has angered residents three times over. First, they're unhappy about
higher parking fees. Second, they're irritated
that they sometimes can't find a place to park. Third, they're
outraged the parking program has cost them millions of Norwegian
krones (NOK). Seeking to “reduce vehicle use,” city leaders
required drivers to park for longer periods and upped parking fees by
50 percent. Motorists responded by finding alternative places to
park, with the result that the city has not obtained the NOK 80
million (US$9.8 million) “in additional revenue” it anticipated
collecting, and has lost NOK 85 million (US$10.4 million) of the
funds the city had budgeted. In addition, electric cars are not
required to pay to park, and their number has grown greatly in the
recent past.
2
Distressed Asset Stabilization Program
The
U. S. Distressed Asset Stabilization Program was intended to remove
“non-performing mortgages” from banks' accounts so banks could
make the terms related to the loans easier for homeowners to pay.
Instead, investors with deep pockets have made even more money from
them. “For-profit entities,” mostly “private-equity firms,”
have purchased 97 percent of these mortgages. Instead of working with
the homeowners, the companies simply “dump the mortgages,”
collecting insurance for the difference between what homeowners been
paid and what they owe on the mortgages. After foreclosure on the
properties, the equity firms rent the houses or “even sell
securities based on future rent receipts.” Instead of helping
homeowners refinance their mortgages, the program has led to more
foreclosures and additional profits for banks.
1.
Car-rationing Program
New Delhi traffic
In
an effort to remedy its pollution problem, New Delhi, India,
experimented with a car-rationing program. For a 2-week period, the
law allowed vehicle owners to drive only every other day. The
alternate days they could drive were determined by whether their
license plates ended in even or odd numbers. To bypass the law's
requirements, motorists sought to buy a second vehicle. When sold,
used cars retain their license plates, so those with even-number
plates sought to purchase cars with odd-numbered plates, and
vice-versa. The program, intended to reduce the number of cars
traveling on New Delhi's streets, backfired, as more people bought
and drove more cars.
