The Minnesota Somali day care scam ought to outrage people on both the left and the right. Seeing money intended to help poor parents allegedly taken by bad actors is a reminder that we have much to do to improve government efficiency.
But there is a lot to be gained from fixing public spending decisions. While partisan debates focus on how much the government will spend on a program, what often matters more is how that money gets spent.
People on the right want lower taxes and therefore are skeptical of government spending. People on the left want more government services, and so they are doubtful about tax cuts.
This debate is important. We should argue whether to spend more or less. But we should also recognize that we can do the policies better.
Take welfare programs. Federal and state programs offer a patchwork of services designed to help poor people. Do they provide relief? Do they help people out of poverty? How can governments provide needed assistance and get recipients on a path to prosperity and independence? The debate between whether there should be more or less assistance sidesteps the question of whether the programs accomplish their tasks.
When Republicans passed a budget without extra medical insurance subsidies for people well above the poverty level, few people asked whether these subsidies gave the best bang for the buck in helping people who needed help. It was a question of more or less.
When Democrats pitch their plan to add a new assistance program to cover the cost of poor people’s water bills, few even notice that we already have programs that do this. The new plan isn’t introduced to fill the gaps around that program, if they exist. It is to add a new program.
There is a better way to approach welfare policies. If the system to assist poor people is so broken that low-income households cannot afford to pay their water bills, it’s an indictment of the entire social assistance system. We have policies that are supposed to alleviate the burdens of poverty and ensure that poor households get the basics, like running water. If the system of support fails to perform that function, then another program with its own rules, benefits and eligibility guidelines isn’t going to fix the problem.
Or it could be that the problem was exaggerated in the first place. The idea that people might not be able to afford to pay for water is scary. It spurs our compassion. Politicians can score points by proposing another program, regardless of whether there’s a need or whether existing solutions have been effective.
Instead of focusing on the question of whether to spend more or less on the task, policymakers should focus on whether the money already allocated can be better spent or the program better administered. People are both denied benefits when eligible and granted benefits when ineligible. That’s not supposed to happen.
Indeed, the Minnesota day care scam would never have worked with better administration. If there had been a process to ensure that eligible beneficiaries actually received services, then there wouldn’t have been payments for day care services that weren’t being provided.
People hold powerful sentiments that encourage the debate about more or less. That the economy is oppressive and therefore people need robust assistance programs resonates with a lot of people. So does the idea that people are going to take advantage of government programs. Thinking of how to do the job better gets neglected because it doesn’t stoke those sentiments.
That’s unfortunate because there is a lot of ground to be shared by coming together to answer questions about what is working as intended and what is not. People can hear from the public servants administering the programs about the results. They can experiment and measure different ways of providing assistance.
We’ve become so stuck on the question of more or less that few people even notice when new programs are duplicative. Or whether they’re working the way they’re supposed to. Yet we’d spend less and accomplish more if people cared more about better. That ought to be something both sides can agree upon.
