Absurdity in Public Policy

There are many countries in the world today where food is scarce, even non existent to many people
that live there. It is the reason why developed countries have aid budgets (well, one of the reasons),
and why organisations such as the UN World Food Program are operating.
However, food, like other resources is limited, with targeting of where it is needed most.
This is obvious, as sending the food everywhere in a country regardless of what part of the country
is in need of it, or what group of people are suffering, would clearly be a mistake. Policies that
advocate this would be absurd.
But what do we see in this country at the moment. We see ever increasing national debt
and high public spending, spending that is often wasted, inefficient and responsible for keeping
afloat a monstrous bureaucracy throughout multiple layers of government. Part of this spending is
the universal benefit system, or so it used to be. Change is happening and much of it might not be a
bad thing.
However, change is often resisted, and when it comes to universal benefits it is resisted
more than most. There has already been uproar about Child Tax benefit being capped, and there is
surely more political fighting to come, especially when the time comes to revamp the benefits
targeted to pensioners.
Surely, political ideology has a barring on many peoples opinion. But ideology should not
be taken to the extent that absurdity arises in the policy of government, especially when greater
threats are at stake such as debt. Therefore the strategy used in the distribution of food aid should be
used in the distribution of benefits, notably the targeting of where is most warranted, particularly
the type issued with no consideration to need.
Once the absurdity in the policy is acknowledged, more questions and arguments are
going to arise of which I am certain will be regarding the 'cut off limits' of income and age, but
these need to be asked. However these are not the only questions that ought to be discussed.
With the potential further reforms to the universal benefit system, it might be a good
opportunity to question the role of government itself. Should it really be the governments duty to
provide free TV licences to the over 75's at all? Should it be the governments duty to give Child Tax
benefit, effectively a guaranteed income if you have a child, to anyone?
There is clearly a difference in having a benefit system as a safety net, and between
handouts that take responsibility away from the individual. So whatever the outcome, hopefully
change will arise that will produce a policy that is effective in reducing waste and public spending,
and where a small part of the relationship between the individual and state is slightly more healthy.
But what must happen is the protection of the people who are in actual need of the
benefits, and not the rich, where frankly the handing out money for reasons no other than political
ideology is absurd.