I still don't know if you support or oppose California's PFL program; most of your comments seem to be vaguely positive. Neither of us are experts on the program, but if you know that it exists you have better understanding than the average Californian worker who pays for it! Suppose we did not have Section 8 housing. Suppose someone introduced legislation that included this language: Would you support it? It would appear to be consistent with this position statement: I support subsidized housing, because I think part of the social contract is that we (civilized people) ensure that decent housing is available to persons of low income. How could a program with the primary objective of improving housing for the poor do anything but that?The primary objective of this title is the development of viable urban communities, by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income.
Then you understand my position exactly as well as I do :) As far as welfare goes, I think that earmarking monies is not a very good idea. I don't need to tell you of all people that if the government says that they will pay up to $800/mo for rent for low income people, then $800 is going to be the price, no matter how squalid the conditions. Cash solves that problem. I'm more of the mind that I support human dignity, and I think part of the social contract is that we treat each other with humanity. Practically speaking, direct payments to vendors on behalf of poor people seems to cause harm in a lot of ways. As your other post points out, it's often difficult to disentangle costs and benefits.I still don't know if you support or oppose California's PFL program; most of your comments seem to be vaguely positive.