The Freeman 1972 - The Ludwig von Mises Institute

1972 WELFARISM GONE WILD 269forgiveness feature, he could getan outright grant of $520. Hewould also be eligible for a workstudyprogram costing in the neighborhoodof $475. If the motherwanted to participate in the jobopportunity program, this would beworth $3,000.So this imaginary family, amother with four children, wouldbe able to take advantage of .grantsand services worth $11,513 for theyear.In another hypothetical case, amother with eight children couldtotal an annual welfare income of$21,093. 3In 1968 Congressm'an William V.Roth, Ji and his staff were able toidentify 1,571 programs, including478 in the Department of Health,Education and Welfare alone, butconcluded that "no one, anywhere,knows exactly how many Federalprograms there are."In February, 1972, administrationwitnesses testified before aCongressional committee that therewere 168 separate Federal programsgeared in whole or in partto combating poverty. But as thetotal expenditures of these 168 programswere only $31.5 billion (outof $92 billion of Federal "socialwelfare expenditures") this musthave been an incomplete list.While the Federal governmentkeeps piling up new welfare programs,under Democratic or Republicanadministrations, almostevery individal program shows atendency to snowball. One reason isthat when Congressmen propose anew program, the expenditure setin the initial year is almost alwayscomparatively .moderate, to allayopposition - the "entering wedge"technique; but annual increases inspending are built into the law. Anotherreason is that when a newwelfare program is launched, ittakes people a little while to catchon to it; and then the stampede begins.A still further reason is thatthe bureaucrats who administerthe program - eager to demonstratetheir own vicarious compassionand liberality, as well as theindispensability of their jobs - notonly interpret the eligibility requirementsvery leniently, but activelycampaign to advise potential"clients" of their "legal right" toget on the rolls.There has been a great deal ofdiscussion in the last few years regardingthe extent of fraud andcheating among those on relief.From the very nature of the problemthis can never be exactlyknown; but the evidence indicatesthat it is substantial.In January, 1971, after a doorto-doorcheck on welfare cases, theState of Nevada struck about 22per cent of the recipients - 3,000people - from the relief rolls. TheState Welfare Director reported