While it's commendable that you want to conduct a comprehensive audit of the state's expenditures to identify areas for efficiency savings, it's important to note that the process of auditing every single penny spent by the state government over the last 5-10 years would be a massive, time-consuming task that would require considerable resources. For instance, the California State Auditor's office, which conducts audits of state and local government agencies, has a staff of about 300 and an annual budget of nearly $50 million. Given this, one might argue that the resources required for such an extensive audit could be better used elsewhere.
Furthermore, your idea to end all subsidies for other states might be met with resistance, not just from the states that benefit from these subsidies but also from Californians who believe in the importance of interstate cooperation and support.
Lastly, while it's clear that you have given thought to how to ensure UBI recipients are truly in need, the requirement of being employed for at least 3 months could still exclude some of the most vulnerable individuals. For instance, what about those who are unable to secure employment due to systemic barriers rather than a lack of effort?
I'd love to hear your thoughts on these matters. How would you address the potential resource drain of the proposed audit and the resistance to ending state subsidies? Also, how would you ensure that those who are truly in need but unable to secure employment due to systemic barriers are not excluded from the UBI program?
Fii primul care răspunde la această dezacord .