An efficient income redistribution system would be universal, simple, and uniform - but would not be the answer to welfare reform.
The real issue in the welfare policy debate is whether to reform the system and introduce work through state and locally designed and operated programs or to move toward greater national standards and controls that have as a goal an efficient system for redistributing wealth. Most of the other issues are at best secondary.
The alternatives are true welfare reform or national income redistribution disguised as work related, family-oriented reforms with national minimum standards.
Why do most proposals for welfare reform promise "a single equitable system," "uniform national standards," "simplification of eligibility requirements," and other panaceas pushed by the welfare establishment? The answer is that these proposals are aimed, not at welfare reforms based on need, but at an efficient system for the redistribution of income.
True welfare reform is inherently complicated by an infinite number of variables. Need for assistance may arise because of a death in the family or its breakup, lack of a job or training, need for child care, education, social services, medical treatment, or disability. It may arise because of a lack of motivation, sloth, greed, or incarceration. It may include all of the above, some of the above, or none of the above for an individual, and often many of the above for members of a family. Conditions may be permanent or temporary. When true need exists, aid must be prompt. When need ends, aid must be ended instantly. Welfare needs, eligibility requirements, and other factors should be verified on a regular or continuing basis to ensure accuracy of eligibility and benefits.
Tailoring assistance
No federally developed or administered system could provide for all the variables present, properly diagnose the cause of need and dependency, take steps to direct the necessary, cure, and assure adequate verification in each instance when benefits are sought or provided. A welfare system must be designed and administered at the local or state level of government in order to tailor the assistance to meet the temporary needs of the community's truly needy in a timely and accurate manner. An effective work requirement can be developed and run only at the local or state level.
In fact, the massive Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment completed in 1979 disproved the major contentions of those who supported the guaranteed family income plans of the Nixon and the Carter administrations. This major experiment found that people work less when they are guaranteed a minimum income and that families enrolled in guaranteed income programs are more likely to break up than families not enrolled in such programs.
If I were asked, as a "devil's advocate," to design an efficient system for the redistribution of the nation's income, I would recognize that such a plan must be universal, simple, and uniform. This system would really require only three characteristics:
(1)Universal eligibility: All
...
Read Full Article
|
