Question: Should the US government pay reparations?
Answer: Due to potential issues regarding responsibility, distribution, and cost, the U.S. Government should not award monetary reparations to the descendants of slaves. Wether or not the current government is ultimately responsible for the treatment of slaves, providing reparations, or monetary repayment for the government’s transgressions towards slaves, for the descendants of slaves may not be the most practical of beneficial solution. Instead, the government should focus on funding schooling, medicare, and communities of disadvantaged people of color.
A major flaw in the distribution of monetary reparations is determining which individuals or communities are descendants of slaves. Because slavery ended over 150 years ago, “most institutions don’t have good enough records to trace the actual descendants of slaves” (Jones). The potential inaccuracy in identifying descendants could lead to overspending on reparations, potential accusations of fraud, and countless other complaints.
	Responsibility also plays a large role in determining if or how to distribute monetary reparations. While plantation owners are notoriously considered slave owners, “the Catholic Church was among the largest institutional slaveholders in the Americas” (Jones). Other large corporations which took advantage of the American slave system include both insurance and railroad companies: “Insurance companies sold policies on the lives of enslaved people (for their owners’ profit, of course) or underwrote slaving voyages. Railroads used slave labor and profited from transporting cotton or rice produced by enslaved plantation workers” (Jones). Given that both religious and industrial groups also had a rather large influence on the American slave system, the responsibility of the government to repay the descendants of slaves seems unreasonable. 
To be able to pay the descendants of slaves, the government would also have to spend an excessive amount of money. Payment for slave labor requires adding up 24 hours, 365 days, for 246 years, plus inflation, the overall amount estimated to be upwards of $10 trillion. Even in smaller amounts “seeding each account with $25,000 would cost the government $100 billion a year, equal to ‘about 2% of federal expenditures now’” (Huddleston). Is that amount worth it? During his testimony, Beckett argued that money reparations are meaningless. Throwing money at a problem won’t solve it: it won’t end racism and it will cause the economy to plummet deeper in debt, creating more issues than it solves (Beckett). Not only would these reparations be a waste of taxpayer money, but it is understood that “the majority of Americans were not slave owners and even in the South, only one in five owned slaves,” more convincingly, “many Americans today have no connection to slavery at all since they immigrated here after 1865” (Source G). 
Arguments could be made for the imbalance of reparations, as minorities such as Native American tribes have been given land and monetary reparations by the U.S. government. While these minorities have received reparations, these reparations directly to the victims. A table of previous reparations payments made to minorities/racially targeted groups that span from 1952-1990. The most recent and largest payment was in 1990, from the US government to Japanese American citizens, of $1.2 billion (about $20,000 each) in response to the Japanese encampments during World War II (Source D). While these payments were made to these minority groups, all these reparations were ordered while the original victims of the injustices were still alive, not over 150 years after the fact.
The complete dismissal of reparations, however, should not be administered. Focusing our attention on better ways to repay the descendants of slaves would be generally beneficial to the country, as Nathalie argued that descendants have no wealth. Given that a major source of wealth is inheritance, the lack of black property ownership means a less distinctive inheritance among black families for future generations (Nathalie). While reparations can be spent in the communities of descendants and underfunded black families, this affects people who may not be descendants, not specific to victims: “Recipients of reparations should be ‘the direct victims of the injustice or their immediate families’” (Source G). Despite this, former President Barack Obama stated that “the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed,” and that those reparations could potentially “take the form of government programs to help struggling people of all races” (Source E). During her testimony, Michelle agreed, claiming that using reparations as a way of creating better schools and jobs for people who are struggling is a more beneficial way to use these monetary reparations (Michelle). Overall, the U.S. government, rather than distributing payments to individuals or communities, should focus on funding underprivileged or discriminated communities of traditionally black descendants, as this approach would create more opportunities and equality for discriminated black communities.