Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site whuxl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!whuxl!orb
From: orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Re: Government waste
Message-ID: <368@whuxl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 27-Nov-84 11:53:48 EST
Article-I.D.: whuxl.368
Posted: Tue Nov 27 11:53:48 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 28-Nov-84 03:43:47 EST
References: <20300001@hpfcla.UUCP> <331@whuxl.UUCP> <651@loral.UUCP> <218@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs
Lines: 36

> The aggregate income deficit in 1980 was
> $29.7 billion.  This is the total amount you would have to give (in cash
> or benefits) to all individuals below the poverty line to bring them all
> up to the poverty line.
> 
> Medicaid $25.8 , Misc Health Programs $1.7 , AFDC (welfare) $13.4 ,
> SSI $8.4,  Veterans Pensions $3.6 , Earned Income Credit $2.0,
> General Assistance $1.4, Food Stamps $9.6, School Lunch $2.7,
> Misc Food Programs $1.1, Job Programs $8.7, Subsidized Housing $8.4,
> Subsidized Education $4.6, Energy Assistance $1.7
> TOTAL - $93.1 billion
> 
>      My personal opinion is that the government assistance programs are
> achieving their goals, but that they are spending three times the amount
> required, i.e. 200% overhead.  Clearly there is room for improvement.
> 
> Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545

An excellent article!  I am always glad to see some facts to back up
one's opinions. I also happen to agree with the assessment that all these
programs may not be the best way to help the poor.  Some programs
(i.e. Food Stamps, Head Start (a VERY successful program as just reported
in an intensive panel study conducted over many years)) may be useful to
help the poor out of their rut.  But many could be replaced with a simple
expedient:more income.  The Family Assistance Plan Nixon proposed in
the early 70's would have put into effect a Negative Income Tax plan--
those under the poverty level would simply get money.  However it was
assaulted from both sides at once: Conservatives who objected to the idea
of just "giving people money", and liberals who thought the amount of money
being given wasn't enough. So instead we are stuck with this inefficient
Welfare mess in which we spend $93 billion to make up a shortfall of 
$30 billion.  Also much of the $93 billion doesn't go to the poor at all
but either to bureaucrats or to the middle class.
thanks for a very good article! 

tim sevener  whuxl!orb