On to welfare and social spending:
First, I think that the sounder the economy, the better off those at the bottom of the ladder are. There are more jobs, they are likely to pay better, and there is more opportunity to advance. In addition, the more prosperous a society, the more money there is available for charity and social spending.
Second, I think that most social spending is best pursued by states and localities, since it makes sense to take into account local conditions. For example, in the Bay area, real estate is so expensive, it takes much more to live than in North Carolina. There are no one- size- fits- all solutions. The federal government has a role, for example, in ensuring that poorer states are not too stuck with an inadequate tax base for their burden, but it should be narrow.]
Third, social spending should be targeted to the truly needy. For example, there is no reason to socialize medicine generally, whereas there may be reason to provide more subsidized clinics and other forms of care to the indigent.
Fourth, there are moral hazards to making welfare too attractive for the able- bodied, or not providing basic job training. There are teenagers who get pregnant to get their own apartment; there are people who would rather spend their time getting high than look for a job; there are people who don't know how to dress or act for an interview. Thus, I favor welfare reform. My idea is to get people off the rolls as soon as possible, and provide more and better services for the most needy.
Fifth, the foregoing applies to schools as well. Federal aid should be mainly channeled to school districts with large immigrant populations, to help them cope, and to the inner cities, to alleviate classroom crowding, promote better discipline, and devise programs like afterschool enrichment sessions for latchkey kids.
I think that is enough on social spending for right now...... |
