Explicit administrative overhead is one thing; the question is where is the money going. The "other" bracket is a big mystery, but even in the best case, the a

Explicit administrative overhead is one thing; the question is where is the money going. The "other" bracket is a big mystery, but even in the best case, the actual money is being given to people (instructors, etc.) who perform some acts, possibly measurable, possibly not, and not really in a competitive marketplace. Adding more oversight here would increase administrative overhead, so there's a tradeoff. Mc­Clure and D'Amico encouraged Bobbitt to enter rehab; and thus did some "work" for which they could grant themselves "reasonable" compensation. It's obvious that they went a bit overboard with the stealing of money, but it's just a slightly more accountable version of the endless quagmire that is government bureaucracy. And by accountable, I mean that if all goes well they will suffer a punishment for what they have done. My point is not so much that state-run welfare is worse than what these criminals have done to Bobbitt, merely that it isn't an open-and-shut case. For that matter, I'm not sure how this compares to other countries with a more extensive social safety net. And really, how this compares to various well-run charities, which often have funding structures that are as arcane as any government agency.