[leftyted]

Yes, the parent comment was about "lack of administrative rigor". The cheerful acceptance of that situation was the topic of my post.

There is no reason why someone can't support the welfare state and also demand efficiency. That demand represents an ideal; there will always be errors, but the insistence that all errors are unavoidable and that (as the parent suggested) we shouldn't even talk about them is extremely irritating. It provides the enemies of the welfare state with the best possible arguments ("you don't even care if the money is going to people who need it").

[rcxdude]

It's more that such a focus on 'efficiency' actually in practice comes from people who either place an extremely high moral cost on cheats or mistakes (far greater than the actual monetary cost of such issues), or from (more cynically) those opposed to the goals of such institutions in the first place (i.e. they believe the welfare itself is wrong and even those allowed under the rules do not deserve it). This is born out in the reactions that such critics tend to impose on the system, i.e. imposing draconian and expensive checks on those who seek it, both rejecting or impeding legitimate claiments while also not demonstably reducing costs (any savings due to catching fraud or even just rejecting those who need it being swallowed up by the cost of the checks).

See the UK government's current (over the last 10 years) approach to welfare. Lots of money spent on checks which are run almost seemingly malicously incompetently, the vast majority of rejections not being upheld when they go to court (even more expensive), assuming the claiment hasn't died by then (as many have due to extreme poverty).

It's the kind of argument which carries a lot of emotional weight (everyone hates a cheater) but it's really hard to believe is being taken in good faith from a rational, cost-reduction perspective.