Ballooning federal deficits threaten all social spending in this country, but in kind programs for vulnerable women and children may be most at risk. In 2002, only 5 million people received cash welfare under TANF, while more than 30 million people participated in other safety net programs. The attack on the federal safety net has several prongs including allegations that programs “don’t work,” that programs are riddled with fraud, waste, and abuse, and that poverty alleviation is best left to state and local government.This article assesses these arguments, and argues that each is mostly myth.This contribution may be interesting to weblog readers for several reasons. First, we have been following Currie's related work on WIC in earlier posts. Second, the journal's publisher, bepress, has a novel business model which holds hope for reducing the power of academic publishing oligopolies and lowering the price of information. Third, one of the co-editors, Brad DeLong is one of this weblog's favorite weblogging economists. See, for example, his recent coverage of the social security debate.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Janet Currie on threats to in-kind programs
UCLA economist Janet Currie writes about threats to food stamps and other in-kind transfer programs in the new journal, The Economist's Voice:
Posted 10:22 PM