And he eats for a day. Which approach has unfortunately been all too common in our welfare programs. We distribute the means of subsistence to the poor without actually leaving them any better prepared to make their own way than they were before we "helped" them.

In some cases our welfare programs even contradict other serious goals of social and economic policy. To help the poor heat their houses, for example, we give them fuel subsidies that go directly to oil companies and, indirectly the foreign suppliers of these oil companies.

It may be slow but change happens. Some states are diverting some of their fuel subsidies to weatherizing poor people's homes so that they have to spend less on fuel. Which task involves lots of labor and offers excellent, entry level, job opportunities while it reduces the need for future energy subsidies.

And as gelboak points out in a comment to the last post, the potential energy savings from conservation are huge. The potential costs are probably below the costs of expanding our current power production facilities or going nuclear and the time that these projects will take to deliver is shorter. The comment is well worth the read and backed up with citations. Wonks Anonymous must thank gelboak for raising the quality of the blog.

Which brings us back to the issue of stimulus. If we think about it, almost every neighborhood in the country is a shovel ready, energy conservation project. The materials are cheap and the labor is ready to work and learn. Sounds like a winner.