I have a theory that “welfare” and “charity” for the poor, at least as practiced in the US, is frequently an exchange: impoverished people abase themselves in front of a representative of the government or some charitable organization, and they get benefits in exchange for portraying themselves as suitable members of The Deserving Poor. A program that merely gave money to people who don’t have any money, even if it was more efficient (because of lower overhead), would be politically unsustainable.
A local paper here just ran an article¹ about how a state rep was indignant because, out of about $50 million the state gave out in welfare-benefit debit cards last year, about $200,000 was spent on “non-essentials” (principally, at liquor stores²). $827 at Victoria’s Secret outlets! $664 at pet supply stores! For shame!
A local paper here just ran an article¹ about how a state rep was indignant because, out of about $50 million the state gave out in welfare-benefit debit cards last year, about $200,000 was spent on “non-essentials” (principally, at liquor stores²). $827 at Victoria’s Secret outlets! $664 at pet supply stores! For shame!
¹ http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view.bg?articleid=...
² I don’t know if these guardians of the public purse confirmed that this money was spent on liquor and not on, say, chips and peanuts.