(5 of 5)
To measure in terms only of dollars and cents, however, is deceptive. An income supplement would not cure the illness of American cities, but the illness may not be curable without it. All the poverty programs that are now in existence and all of those talked about still reach indirectly for the same goal that income supplements would reach directly—to put money into the hands of the poor. The argument that no one should get something for nothing is not easily dismissed, but it is simply not as valid as it used to be, in a society that has potentially overcome scarcity and made a state of plenty possible for all. Ideally, of course, income supplements
ought to be considered only part of the cure for poverty —merely one-half of an equation that would include education and equal opportunities enabling almost everyone to work for a decent living.
Though the roadblocks are many, the U.S. may, in fact, already be moving toward income supplements.
Some social scientists are encouraged by the discussion that has already made the concept respectable, and predict that income supplements will be adopted within the next decade, or at least before the end of the century. In the meantime, a handful of welfare agencies are making a little progress toward humanizing the present system. In a few places, the degrading means test has been abolished in favor of a simple affadavit of need;
if a recipient lies about his income, he is subject to prosecution, just as if he lied to the tax collector. Some departments, prodded by Congress, are also discovering incentive, letting their clients keep a percentage of the money the clients earn themselves.
Other even more important changes could be made by the 91st Congress. Since poverty is basically a national problem, the Federal Government should probably assume all of the welfare expenses. At a relatively minor cost to the Federal Treasury ($3 billion out of a $186 billion budget), cities could be greatly helped. At the same time, rules and benefits could be standardized across the country so that no one would be tempted to move for the higher benefits of another state. New York's Governor Nelson Rockefeller suggested both proposals to President-elect Nixon only last week, and Robert Finch, Nixon's Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, must consider these, as well as other welfare changes, priority items. None of the measures proposed would create a perfect system. Indeed, it is doubtful that a fully satisfactory method of helping the poor will ever be found. The U.S., however, has at least one assurance: almost any change from the present system will be an improvement.