I agree that many people do use the program legitamately, that is are either incapbable of working or are using it as a temporary measure until they are back on their feet, particiularly in this rough economy and they would be hurt by this action at least in the short-term. As you also noted in abuses of the system, others use the social safety net as a hammock, choosing to live off the productive work of their neighbors, so long as the system makes this a comfortable option.

While I'm sure CA state officials salaries are substatial, at least compared to mine, given CA's population, I'd wager that even if all these officials forgo their salaries, this would constititue a symbolic feel good but ultimiately inignificant fraction compared with Calaforina's welfare spending. I understand that CA is constitutionally bound to balance their state budget, which means when tax revenues are down, some programs must be shrunk accordingly. I also understand that CA has taken to having their non-essential government employees take forced time-off without pay. While I'm certain such measures are hard on these workers and their families, I don't know the details of CA's budget situation to say which programs should be shurnk instead.

Given that these are state run programs, I'd imagine if CA did actually abolish their welfare program, the result would be a mirgation of welfare dependant and seeking people moving to states that offer more generous assitance or are on firmer financial footing than CA. As I understand it, CA is suffering in part due to massive spending in better financial years and making their business climate so unappealing that many tax payers and businesses have already opted flee CA and move to lower tax states where there productivity is less punished. Abolishing CA's wellfare program may also result in the foreign huddled masses yearning to be on government assistance seeking a destiniation other than the golden state to settle.

If possible, I'd like to see CA distinguish those in need from those abusing their system and reduce spending accordingly, in addition to seeking other areas to shrink to bring their budget into balance as it is unsustainable as it stands. On a hopeful note, I saw recently that the Governator is now considering introducing a flat tax in order to reverse the trend of business and productive citizens from abandoning CA, which if done wisely, would reverse their dimisnishing tax revenue picture and prevent draconian cuts of any kind in the future.

I'm guessing that you're referring to Liberty and Tyranny's chapter six - "On the Welfare State"? I wrote in part on the stats cited in chapter eight - "On Immigration" as I had presumed that immigrants to the US came here for work opportunities not for state assistance and was surprised to see to the degree that the data indicates otherwise.

So what did you think of the book? I'm guessing the most significant if not controversial portion was chapter seven - "On Enviro-Statism".

Regarding private v public charity and assitance, I understand that the US has spent about $6.5 trillion in poverty programs since LBJ's "Great Society" programs were instituited in 1965. As you suggest, the rate of poverty reduction was greater in the US before 1965 the since due to the factors you mention.

I'm uncertain that a lifetime limit for assistance would be ideal or if other measure to ensure that able bodied people have an incentive not to continuously use assistance? I'm thinking of younger people unemployed due to large scale economic woes who in a later down business cycle find that regaining work more challenging as they approach retirement age.

I thought the book was a great read, finished in about 2 days. The enviro-stateism chapter was one of the best, I also enjoyed the chapter on Faith and the Founding.

If you go back and look at the stated involvement in things, at least in America, you see that anything they get there hands on goes down. Take education for example, from the time test scores where began being kept, all the way to 1980, SAT/ACT and other such test scores consistently rose. since 1980 it has with a few exceptions, where they changed standards, decreased each year. What happened in 1980, that was the year the department of education, which was past in 1978, became operational. Coincidence?

Even something like No Child Left Behind which was well intended, but has been ultimately a negative. The problem being, when you set a bar, you will strive for the bar, and nothing more. So we have teachers teaching to the test, and nothing beyond.

I know I know this is a bit of a tangent. But on a final thing, I would recommend the book Liberty and Tyranny to everyone.