But I think you and others on the board overstate the percentage of them that are simply frick ups.
What is the percentage that are simply frick ups? What were the percentages that were simply frick ups at specific points in time in the past? If there have been changes in the percentages, why?
Policies that subsidize bad decisions will result in increased bad decisions. And we have policies that subsidize bad decisions. Shouldn't we review our policies to determine if the costs of the subsidies for bad decisions exceed the benefits for those intended? That would be a rational approach, but it is unlikely to occur. Another rational approach would be that suggested in the OP which would be an attempt to prevent bad decisions by limiting the ability of the beneficiaries to make any decisions, and thus fewer bad ones.