gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg J Kuperberg) (11/29/84)
> 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 Three cheers for Negative Income Tax! For once, I agree completely with Tim Sevener. Indeed, this is Reagan's objection to the social programs: the money doesn't go to the poor. Unfortunately, he's going about it in the wrong way. In fact, overall social spending is still going up (more quickly than in inflation at that). --- Greg Kuperberg harvard!talcott!gjk "Eureka!" -Archimedes