My parents often forward me things that get passed on to them via email. Some of the sillier things are things that have 18-point font and lots of all-caps, bold, and exclamation marks (a little like a Leon Uris novel). Most of these things get a cursory read before I either check Snopes and find them to be frauds, or are just too silly to pass on and I click “delete.” But once in a while, they’re fun to contemplate, just as the movie “Dave” was fun for seeing an average guy (who happened to be a dead ringer for the president) with the ability to balance his own checkbook taking over a budgetary meeting at the White House.
It seems the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times Business Section that asked readers for ideas on how to fix the American economy. One respondent answered as follows (with my edits for hyperbolic font, etc.):
Dear Mr. President,
Please find below my suggestion for fixing America’s economy. Instead of giving billions of dollars to companies that will squander the money on lavish parties and unearned bonuses, use the following plan. You can call it the “Patriotic Retirement Plan.”
There are about 40 million people over 50 in the work force. Pay them $1 million apiece severance for early retirement with the following stipulations:
1) They must retire. Forty million job openings. Unemployment fixed.
2) They must buy a new American Car. Forty million cars ordered. Auto industry fixed.
3) They must either buy a house or pay off their mortgage. Housing crisis fixed.
It’s that simple. And if more money is needed, have all members in Congress pay their taxes. And while you’re at it, Mr. President, make Congress retire on Social Security and Medicare. I’ll bet both programs would be fixed pronto!
It’s a bewitching notion, solving three major problems for a scant $40 million, but what are the holes in this argument? I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to economics, but a million dollars doesn’t go as far these days as it once did. To find oneself suddenly out of work and forced to buy a car and a house could use up a good chunk of that (especially if one lives inside an eruv). I can imagine many of those working people suddenly out of a job would be without health insurance (unless Medicare goes down to age 50), in need of Social Security, and who knows what else. If they’re used to frittering their money away, they’ll keep doing it, and soon be a burden on the economy, just in a different way.
People smarter than me (and there are plenty of you), what else do you see wrong with this rosy picture?
Shimshonit 
His basic problem is the fact that he thinks he can force an American to quit his job and buy certain things. Last time I checked, Americans were fierce individualists. Would you want the government to make you retire at the age of 50?
In addition to westbankmama’s response, what makes one think the unemployed are capable of filling those jobs of those people in their fifties? Those are probably some of the hardest working, experienced and in some cases high-skilled workers in this country.
Actually, people in their sixties are capable of being productive as well.
40 million people times a million bucks apiece is not “a scant $40 million”; it’s 40 trillion, no?
Great responses! Thank you one and all.
Westbankmama: Good point. And since government intervention has never been popular, this could actually be a very unpopular program.
Leora: I’m sure you’re right about the expertise and productivity of the senior members of the workforce. Since in many cases they’re the ones mentoring and training the younger ones, there could be a serious impact on the efficiency and quality of the companies in question.
Bev: $40 trillion, yes! See, this is why I need you smart cookies to help me. Cheap program this is NOT.