Who Pays for Obama-Creation Julia's Services, and Everything Else?

Remember Julia? She was the Obama campaign's Web advertisement creation of a woman with an unfortunately Orwell-evoking name who finds true fulfillment through living a life enhanced by government programs? Conservatives charged that single mom Julia seemed married to the state, but whether or not the then and current incumbent's creation ever took the big step, she certainly lived a life of government dependency. But, according to some belated but still relevant number-crunching by American Thinker's Randy Fardal, a nation of Julia's would not only be unsustainable net consumers of government services, they would end up worse off than if they'd taken responsibility for their own lives.

Fardal writes up a lifetime cashflow for Julia in a 27-page study that gives similar treatment to an equally ambitious and upper-middle-class counterpart named "Freda," as well as an ambitious illegal immigrant with fewer educational opportunities named "Ileana," and an everywoman with less get-up-and-go named "Ankara" who started life as a so-called anchor baby. Freda, Ileana and Ankara all make a hypothetically available choice to opt out of government programs and get things done on their own without the blessings bestowed on Julia,

As Fardal writes:

A financial spreadsheet was constructed to model Julia's entire adult life, from ages 19-85.  As would be expected, fictional Julia lives the comfortable existence that the president promised in his comic book.  Unfortunately though, her federal, state, and local governments continue to pile up more debt and pension and healthcare liabilities in order to support her comfy lifestyle.  In other words, upper middle class Julia not only contributes nothing to the president's social safety net; she actually consumes all of the money -- and more -- that she supposedly provides to fund it.

Fardal anticipates that Freda will do better, since he bestows his anti-Julia with all of the personal advantages of Julia. You would expect her to be a net contibutor since she's eschewing government programs. She also ends up with far more net worth at the end of her life: $3.8 million as opposed to $698 thousand.

The real contrast, though, comes with the proud everywoman Ankara, when set against the ambitious but dependent Julia.

I modeled Ankara to be an everyday clock-puncher that is not particularly creative, ambitious, or perseverant.  She does not go to college, starts her career at minimum wage, and does not leave her employer to form her own firm.  Her salary stagnates when she reaches her early forties.  She's a female "Joe Six-Pack" stuck in a dead-end job.  And like Freda and Ileana, she lives in a nation that allows her to opt out of all taxpayer funding for and benefits from entitlement and education.

Uh-oh.  Even Ankara is better off without socialism than Julia is with it.  Ankara was born into poverty, pays her own way for virtually everything, gets better service, contributes nothing to the national debt, and retires in the middle class.  Her private-school educated son has a future much brighter than that of Julia's son.  Ankara's son is likely to spend his adult life comfortably in the middle class and her grandson probably will do even better.  That's real social justice.

Ankara ends her life with a legacy of $712 thousand.

It's certainly possible to take issue with some of Fardal's assumptions, including the various choices his creations could make over the course of their lives that result in specific costs and savings. But, he points out that if some people need a "social safety net," Julia, as a consumer of government services, is in a terrible position to fund such a backstop, while the others, as net contributors, could at least make it possible.

It's an interesting intellectual exercise, at least.

Fardal's summary article is here and his full study and data is here (PDF).

(H/T Lord Humungus)

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    a nation of Julia's would not only be unsustainable net consumers of government services

    Krugabe called, and said to remind you the government prints its own money, so everything's A-ok.

  • ||

    I bought a Zimbabwean bill on eBay, and I'm now officially a multitrillionaire.

  • some guy||

    So why haven't you retired the US debt yet? What are you? Unpatriotic?

  • ||

    I'm an evil capitalist. I just want to watch the world burn.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    I thought only a trillion USD platinum coin could be used for that?

  • Michael||

    Speaking of MC Kruggz, one of the headlines on HuffPo today proclaims his absolutely devastating takedown of Republican opposition to deficit spending. Clicking the link directs you to.....his own editorial on the NYT website.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Freda, Ileana and Ankara all make a hypothetically available choice to opt out of government programs and get things done on their own without the blessings bestowed on Julia...

    Freda, Ileana and Ankara then all join anti-government militias and get predator droned into oblivion.

  • Sevo||

    Yep, being a parasite only gets you so far.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    What about us brain-dead slobs?

    I've been re-reading 1984. About statistics:

    But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.

  • some guy||

    And our government is statistics all the way down.

  • ||

    Statistically speaking, how many tiny strokes can I have from reading "connexion" over and over again and still come out OK?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version.

    But the chocolate rations employment numbers are going up!

  • ||

    And it's all because His Holiness and Supremacy Emperor Barack I the Munificent, Praise be to God and the Empire, fought the obstructionist tea-baggers and instituted paradise on Earth.

    Aren't you even going to fellate him for it? Geez, talk about being ungrateful!

  • BakedPenguin||

    "The chocolate ration has been increased from 20 grams a week to 60 grams a month."

  • Tonio||

    Nice, BP.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Plusgood!

  • ||

    Freda, Ileana and Ankara all make a hypothetically available choice to opt out of government programs and get things done on their own without the blessings bestowed on Julia...

    Selfish Capitalist pig-dogs!

  • Tony||

    The paper is more than half full of listing its assumptions and about a third full of partisan invective. Since such a projection is almost impossible to imagine being done empirically, and given the actual content, it can only be the case that this was a conclusion in search of some data-like support.

  • R C Dean||

    So, pretty much standard social "science", then.

  • sarcasmic||

    Nope. It has to be funded by government. Anything else is tainted with profit motive and cannot be trusted. Only science funded by those who engage in force and fraud can be trusted.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Whereas the creators of Julia didn't even bother to try to use anything fact-like.

  • Tony||

    Just the written-down policy differences between Obama and Mitt Romney.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Why, other than the fact you like Obama more, is Julia more likely to bear any relation to a feasible reality than Freda, Ileana, or Ankara?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    The paper is more than half full of listing its assumptions and about a third full of partisan invective.


    Stating the obvious (i.e. Julia is a tax consumer instead of a contributor) equals being "invective" in the mind of the Progressive fuck-up.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    it can only be the case that this was a conclusion in search of some data-like support.

    So, just like the fairy tale it set out to mock.

    Does Obamacare have special coverage for liberal butthurt?

  • Tony||

    No, just butthurt in general, so it's basically a cradle-to-grave program for libertarians.

  • The Heresiarch||

    Oooh. Burn.

  • CatoTheElder||

    Obviously, fairness demands a tax regime that diminishes the prospects of Ileana and Ankara so that their outcomes are the same as Julia's.

    That's change we can believe in!

  • JW||

    I posted this in the Brickbat this AM, but it's apropo here:

    They just didn't spend enough.

    Figures released last week showed 57 percent of Greeks aged 15 to 24 are out of work, and a similar scourge is tearing apart the fabric of Spain, where some university graduates in their 30s have never had a job.

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....8W20130311

  • Killazontherun||

    I know a few near Julias. Fardal is being much too generous with his estimation of her wealth. I can't imagine her not racking up credit card debt that wipes out her supposed $698 thousand in life time earnings and then some.

  • OldMexican||

    It's certainly possible to take issue with some of Fardal's assumptions[...]


    Only because they're as plausible as Barry's. Let's move on, please.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "At this point, what difference does it make?"

  • ||

    Anyone else think those legacy numbers are way too high?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement