> Could be things like scrubbing graffiti off a wall. Filling a pothole. Or any other community improvement (like taking care of a park).

All of that requires funding. Where would that funding come from? If the answer is "just spend more money", why is it better to spend money on public works programs than paying it out via means-tested welfare programs?

> Where would that funding come from?

Taxes. Ideally higher income taxes or even better a wealth tax (but that has dubious constitutionality).

I also wouldn't mind pulling $100B, $200B, or $500B away from the military budget for such projects.

> why is it better to spend money on public works programs than paying it out via means-tested welfare programs?

Means testing requires someone to do the means testing along with additional bureaucracy to enforce it. It's, in fact, more expensive than just having an open program. Why would I actually care, for example, if we paid extra money for a billionaire's kid to get healthcare if that meant the 99% of the population that isn't billionaires got healthcare?

A public works program is a welfare program. With the benefit that beyond just giving money to people that need it, it also improves public spaces for everyone. And, I think nobody would actually object to allowing anyone to participate in public works. Would you really care if a millionaire got a little extra cash cleaning a highway?

But beyond that, it's better to spend money on people with the least amount of money because they drive the economy way harder than everyone else. A dollar given to someone poor is far more likely to be spent in the economy than a dollar given to a rich person. A healthy economy is one where money moves more frequently.

A good example is what's predicted to happen with the medicaid defunding. Rural hospitals are likely going to shutdown as the majority of them receive their funding from medicaid. That hurts everyone in a rural community even if they aren't on medicaid.

Now imagine the reverse. If that rural community had government works jobs, that'd be more money in the community which would ultimately mean more opportunities for new businesses in the community to exist. Where it previously may not have made sense for a grocery store to exist, now it might because more of the population has a stable income they are willing to spend.

>Means testing requires someone to do the means testing along with additional bureaucracy to enforce it. It's, in fact, more expensive than just having an open program. Why would I actually care, for example, if we paid extra money for a billionaire's kid to get healthcare if that meant the 99% of the population that isn't billionaires got healthcare?

How is means testing (ie. reviewing some paperwork) going to be cheaper than running an actual public works program where you need to decide what needs to be done, plan the thing that needs to be done, recruit people to do the thing, procure equipment/material so those people can actually do the thing, supervise/train those people to do the thing, inspect their work, and remit payment for them? Sure, a public works program might produce beneficial outcomes that justifies some of the costs, but the hassle of herding a bunch of casual workers (compared to having full time staff) and paying them is probably going to take orders of magnitude more money than means testing. If your argument is just that the government should tax more and use that money to spend on full time government jobs, that's just a generic "tax and spend" argument, not a "small jobs board" or whatever.

> How is means testing (ie. reviewing some paperwork) going to be cheaper than running an actual public works program where you need to decide what needs to be done, plan the thing that needs to be done, recruit people to do the thing, procure equipment/material so those people can actually do the thing, supervise/train those people to do the thing, inspect their work, and remit payment for them?

Means testing is not just "reviewing some paperwork". It can be a quiet laborious effort up to and including enforcement actions. It doesn't just happen once; it has to happen frequently as salaries change. And further, because it's generally based on things like salaries/net worth, it requires background checks and verification that isn't necessarily readily on hand. There's also the need to review the work of the person doing the means testing.

I'll grant that it'd be a smaller portion of the cost for something like a CCC program. However, for other welfare programs such as heating assistance, the means testing can quickly outstrip the cost of just giving the assistance in the first place. Hiring a department of people to make sure someone doesn't get assistance costs money.

> If your argument is just that the government should tax more and use that money to spend on full time government jobs, that's just a generic "tax and spend" argument, not a "small jobs board" or whatever.

Yes, I believe tax and spend is in fact more beneficial to the economy and public good as I've outlined. Absolute government efficiency is not an absolute good.

The small jobs board, though, is something that we could actually do more efficiently in the modern environment. You could track that information far more efficiently then you could in the 1940s. That means you don't really need the full blown work camps of the 40s to get most of the same benefit that CCC provided.