I have recently had the good fortune to meet an evil welfare worker. She is evil because she agrees with me about the welfare system. She is also familiar with and opened minded about in reading The Bell Curve.
A funny thing, the welfare system reflects the findings in the book but not as you might imagine. The welfare system is like most any other government system. Although popular wisdom has it that one only has to show up and apply that it not the case.
The method of getting benefits, the maximum benefits, is not that clear. Take for example applying for food stamps. One of the qualifying questions (the answer to which no one checks) is, do you share meals with others in the household? It does not matter if you have been buying the beans and sharing them, yes is the wrong answer. No matter what, the answer is no.
It turns out that the smartest of the poor know all of the answers for all of the questions for every benefit. And, as you might expect, they get all the benefits to which the law "entitles" them. The less smart, to be polite, do not know the right answers nor even everything the law would permit them.
And thus the bell curve of welfare. Were welfare to take care of the truly unemployable then there would be a different means test. Anyone who smart enough to understand the welfare system is smart enough to figure out the MacDonald's system and is disqualified. There would be house to house searches for those not receiving benefits and, upon finding they do not understand the system, would be awarded every benefit.
Obviously that is an unworkable system. But then the system we do have rewards those who legitimately could be doing something else. And this supports a suggestion in the book to simplify all regulatory processes so that people can deal with them rather than making it a test of getting through the maze of regulations. It is clear that getting welfare benefits is in fact such a test and that it selects for those least in need of those benefits.
As you might not expect, the welfare class has a group wisdom about the welfare system. Not only a wisdom where a close neighborhood or social gathering place would have work matters as a common discussion topic, discussions of welfare take their place. It is like everyone works for the same boss and everyone is sharing how to get on the good side of that boss. If you think about it, it is hardly surprising the income related matters whether from work or for free would be a primary topic of discussion.
But again, the smartest learn the quickest, can find the most obscure benefits, know the most sympathetic social workers, everything you would expect from a good employee. As they can master a system that is not designed to be simple and the interpersonal relationships and when to invoke their rights just what is it that disqualifies them from working?
At this point in any discussion the apologists for welfare usually bring up the physically disabled, those with mental problems and any other worst case they can think of. Guess what? By the present system, even though those may be the most deserving, they are also the least receiving.
Now let me form a question. There are fixed dollars to spend (or the case of welfare, borrow) on the needy. The following are two disabilities. The first is a double leg amputee who can not clean himself or his apartment nor always successfully get on to the toilet resulting in his apartment being covered with his own feces. The second case a woman whose only impediment to working is a child. Question. Which is the most deserving of limited assets?
And before anyone asks, the first case is not only true it is worse than presented.
In the first case, there is no "program" to do a minimal clean up of his apartment. It will remain that way until he ages into one of the programs that would cover him. There probably are programs and services out there that would help him but he does not know how to find them and people have to seek out all but emergency services for themselves. In the second case there is no handicap, no impediment, to work save finding a neighbor to care for the child.
Perhaps I have a perverted sense of need but I see no reason why the system we have should favor the mother simply because there is a program for mothers and no program for double amputees. Clearly there are programs for the physically handicapped, they are private not public but our low end bell curve double amputee can't connect with one. Our high end bell curve mother knows enough that having different sex children gets her a greater housing allowance as separate bedrooms are approved by the system -- not that she has to spend the extra money on a larger apartment.
By the very nature of our welfare system is that it does not care for the most needy, the truly needy. I see no reason to continue it it was it is. Reforms that cut off the high end bell curve welfare types will not harm the low end ones. It will not help them either but at least they break even. Turning matters over to the states allows for 50 times the experimentation to find solutions to the real problems.