> 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.
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.