In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State

This book is extremely refreshing in it's premise. Murray does an excellent job of presenting an easy-to-understand alternative to the soon-to-be bankrupt income-transfer programs that exist today. This is a must read for anyone who wants to have an honest and creative debate about fixing this country's welfare programs. A couple of the negative reviews focused on the effect of inflation on the $10,000 a year payment. Murray does make a passing reference to the fact that the payment would likely need to be indexed to inflation but does not dwell on exactly what the yearly increase needs to be. Obviously, such a detail would be hammered out before such an idea goes into law. First, we need the population to open their eyes to the economic disaster heading our way due to so many of the unfunded or underfunded social programs and demand that their representatives begin to take all the necessary steps to prevent our children and grandchildren from having to deal with our mess. Murray's book gives everyone an excellent start on a solution to that problem.

I have come to believe that the welfare state is nothing more than a vehicle for egalitarians to transfer income from producers to non producers, not an effort to provide for the poor but as a method to take from the wealthy...and I think this book proves that. This book presents a plan that would do away with all current transfer programs by the government and replace them with a yearly grant of $ 10,000.00 with the proviso that $3,000 of it is used on health insurance and that $2,000 be invested toward retirement. The concept is that individuals would be more efficient and the transfers a moral method in dealing with the issue of social welfare. It is pointed out that this form of transfer would foster a return to a Tocquevillian civil society, where individuals freely provided social safety nets rather have them imposed compulsorily by government. I enjoyed Murray's discussion of the view of morality described by Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith and Edmund Burke. This to me clarifies the difference between libertarians and communitarians. I see communitarians arguing that a state must impose the social safety net while libertarians believe that the arrangements come about naturally by individuals themselves, like the invisible hand of God. We are asked in the beginning of the book to suspend our disbelief and consider the plan to be nothing more than a thought experiment, then once the plan is laid out Murray provides interesting points on why the plan is not only feasible but a realistic possibility considering rapid changes in technology, economic growth and political disenchantment.

We need more books like "In our Hands," a bold thought experiment, which questions the underlying assumptions of our current welfare state. In an era, when we can no longer truly hope for "reform" of our national economy, except through the minor adjustments of economic instruments favored by one administration over another, Charles Murray challenges us to question our tactics for fighting poverty. If we want to give money to the poor, in order to give them a "leg up," why don't we just give them a lump sum? Why do we distribute the money through several different government programs? And, why do we give it out piecemeal? Murray's book is short, because his idea and his premises are so simple and straightforward. The unfortunate effect of Murray's book is the uncomfortable realization that his "$10,000 solution" makes so much sense that it won't be approved by Capitol Hill. Of course, Murray realizes this. But, his counterpoint is even more ingenius. If we acknowledge now that the 5 trillion dollars we have spent in the War on Poverty has had no effect, then there is hope that after we have spent 10 trillion with no effect, we will actually take steps to change our tactics. At that time, the "$10,000 solution" will look like the most attractive option.

If you are a hate filled liberal hiding your insecurity and cowardice behind a phony veil of intellectualism, dont read this book, just give it 1 star and a phony review.

It is not possible to get a fair picture of Charles Murray or his writings from the popular media. His thinking is so interesting and refreshing that establishment types dismiss his ideas out of hand and mischaracterize even the nature of his discussions. They then resort to endless personal attacks through unfair and unjustified smear, innuendo, and even childish ridicule. We are all done a disservice when we are not allowed to hear Charles Murray's voice. He is an original thinker who is brave enough to say some very interesting things that we would all be better off actually discussing and considering. Even if we end up not agreeing with him, which is always fair AFTER study and debate, we will be better off by becoming clearer about what it is we do believe. This terrific book is a brief discussion of what Murray calls "The Plan" (for lack of a better term) that would actually end poverty as we know it, make everyone more free and end dependence on politicians and bureaucrats for so much of our lives. Of course, this means that anyone who benefits from things as they are is going to instantly attack this book or ignore it and hope it just goes away. I hope for just the opposite. I hope there is a big debate and the real motives and power seeking of the establishment goes on display. The Plan is quite simple. Everyone over the age of 21 - regardless of status - who has a bank account gets $10,000 per year paid monthly. Once your income reaches and passes $25,000 per year your payment begins to get taxes until your reach $50,000 where you end up with only $5,000 that year. That is really it. In return, ALL transfer programs are ended. This means no agricultural supports, no Medicare or Medicaid, no social security, and so on. He spends a few chapters discussing the reasons why this is a better deal for almost everyone (single women who don't work but have kids on a regular basis will be worse off because they will end up with less income per mouth to feed). The most interesting chapters for me were those that discuss the increase in freedom and the wonderful social implications it would mean for everyone in our society to be more enabled to take their life more fully in their own hands. People would be freer to live as they saw fit, not as someone else thinks they should. They wouldn't have to jump through hoops to qualify for this or that credit or payment. Just reading Murray's discussion reminds us about what the idea of freedom is fundamentally about. Of course, there are things that critics can pick at. For example, I saw no discussion of the effects of inflation on the $10,000 payment. Was an increase in the payment for inflation included in his costs? If not, the payment will shrink in real terms quite substantially. Maybe this is part of his plan for true Libertarian freedom. When the time arrives when the $10,000 payment is all but meaningless, it can simply be stopped and we will all be free to live as we