The statistics you use to bolster the case for more dollars for welfare administration (BDN, Aug. 21) actually make a case for significant reductions in staffing and in spending – probably not your intention.

The editorial cites “an increasing percentage” of Maine’s TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) caseload (rising from 17 percent over the period 1994-2002) as being due to an inability to work because of illness of a family member. But simple math tells you that if you have a certain number of families who can’t work because of illness, and if that number stays fairly constant while the total number of those drawing welfare is reduced, then the percentage of those not working because of illness is bound to rise.

The data you present indicate this is exactly what is happening in Maine. Asserting that the “increased percentages” represent a crisis justifying more money for welfare administration is wrong: Using your own statistics it is apparent the absolute number not working for health reasons has stayed virtually flat since the mid-1990s, and may actually have been slightly reduced.

Your editorial should have pointed out that this seems to be an area worth investigating, at a time of serious state budget deficits, to determine whether appropriate staff reductions have taken place in view of a 43 percent reduction in workload.

John P. Edwards

Surry