The Open Question

In his article “Big Brother Is Dead Too” [NR, February 11], Kenneth Melvin betrays, by his belief in the inevitability of prevailing conditions, the same failure of imagination that is characteristic of the modern liberal. Perhaps the most startling remark in the whole piece is the claim that the welfare state has been a “signal triumph of social engineering.” While this statement has a certain charming perverseness in a time when even the architects of the welfare state are beginning to criticize it, as a substantive proposition it has very little to recommend it. Conservative critics have concentrated on two points: That the system is inefficient, and that the welfare bureaucracy has an inherent tendency to grow and become ever more powerful.

With respect to the first criticism, Milton Friedman has contended that only one dollar out of five earmarked for the use of the poor ever reaches their hands. Compared with Professor Friedman’s plan for the negative income tax, which would have the additional advantage of eliminating much of the bureaucracy that Mr. Melvin claims is necessary for the maintenance of the welfare state, the present system is appallingly inefficient.

MA

About the Author

Martin H. Andrews

In his article “Big Brother Is Dead Too” [NR, February 11], Kenneth Melvin betrays, by his belief in the inevitability of prevailing conditions, the same failure of imagination that is characteristic of the modern liberal. Perhaps the most startling remark in the whole piece is the claim that the welfare state has been a “signal triumph of social engineering.” While this statement has a certain charming perverseness in a time when even the architects of the welfare state are beginning to criticize it, as a substantive proposition it has very little to recommend it. Conservative critics have concentrated on two points: That the system is inefficient, and that the welfare bureaucracy has an inherent tendency to grow and become ever more powerful.

With respect to the first criticism, Milton Friedman has contended that only one dollar out of five earmarked for the use of the poor ever reaches their hands. Compared with Professor Friedman’s plan for the negative income tax, which would have the additional advantage of eliminating much of the bureaucracy that Mr. Melvin claims is necessary for the maintenance of the welfare state, the present system is appallingly inefficient.