from the Weekly Standard. . .
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
“According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795,” the Senate Budget Committee notes. “If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011.”
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. “If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350,” the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year. After all, many above the poverty line also receive benefits from social welfare programs (e.g. pell grants).
But if welfare is meant to help bring those below the poverty line to a better place, it helps demonstrate that numbers do not add up.
A congressional report from CRS recently revealed that the United States now spends more on means-tested welfare than any other item in the federal budget–including Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011.
These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support–such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc.For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)
This has long been a complaint of mine, and a huge example of why we need a republican congress to sort this stuff out, but I have always wanted to know: how much of our tax dollars that go into welfare actually gets to welfare recipients? Apparently there is a lot of money that doesn’t make it to the poor.
I think we all know where it actually goes. It goes to highly paid government employees and their union dues. It then gets turned around and funneled into the democratic party.
This is why they support more spending on welfare. It has nothing to do with compassion for the poor. It’s just democrat greed.
Well, that’s all very inflammatory, but I’d wager that maybe a third, and probably less, actually winds up in a recipient’s pocket.
The rest pays the people who administer the welfare office, or provide the healthcare, or man/woman the daycare center … and I don’t have a problem with that.
“Including state contributions to the roughly 80 federal poverty programs, the total amount spent in 2011 was approximately $1 trillion. Federal spending alone on these programs was up 32 percent since 2008.”
UP 32% since 2008! What an accomplishment! This Obama guy is an economic genius…just think what he could do with four more years!
I have to echo the concerns of Steve and Libby–there is no way the average welfare recipient is seeing this amount of money (if they were, they would instantly become ineligible for welfare). Where is this money going? Are they counting things like Medicaid payments to doctors, funds for shelters and other organizations that go to help the poor? Those programs cost a lot more than the assistance any one family will ever see.
Chris: “…there is no way the average welfare recipient is seeing this amount of money…”
The article says exactly that: “To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year….”
The figure was calculated, as far as I can tell, from government figures for all programs except SS and MCARE (because employees pay into those programs).
I don’t mind paying people to administer the programs. Workers deserve to be paid at the going rate. I resent having to also pay the tab for excessively generous pensions and healthcare while proponents of the system demand more money for “the poor”.
We citizens should be responsible for our own expenses. The current system invites division, resentment, unfairness, and apathy about preparing for life as an adult.
“The article says exactly that: “To be clear, not all households living below the poverty line receive $61,194 worth of assistance per year….””
This is the understatement of the year. “Not all households?” How about almost none of them? That would have been a more accurate phrasing.
Chris: “”Not all households?” How about almost none of them? That would have been a more accurate phrasing.”
Okay…do you have any information to back up your assessment?
The people that wrote the statement did so on the basis of an investigation and government numbers. I think their intent was to illustrate what we spend by putting it in terms people can relate to much like they do when they estimate what our shared obligation is in terms of the debt:
They put it in terms of the amount spent to support programs per each household in poverty. It wasn’t broken down into the number of households that receive X number of dollars but what we spend on the programs given the number in poverty.
That’s fine, Tina, although I think they could have been somewhat clearer on that. Saying “not all households” creates the impression that a lot of households actually do see that amount of money. Did they study how much of that actually goes to families, and how much goes to beuracracy? I think the language could have been clearer, because you just know this is going to be misinterpreted by people who believe the stereotype that welfare recipients are just rolling in government dough.
“Choice”
by Charles Krauthammer
Nov. 1, 2012
Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. That was Barack Obama in 2008. And he was right. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy.
It is common for one party to take control and enact its ideological agenda. Ascendancy, however, occurs only when the opposition inevitably regains power and then proceeds to accept the basic premises of the preceding revolution.
Continued:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-choice/2012/11/01/59b5bed0-2445-11e2-9313-3c7f59038d93_story.html
Chris: “Saying “not all households” creates the impression that a lot of households actually do see that amount of money.”
I didn’t take it that way, but then, I’m not feeling defensive about what people receive. As you know I don’t blame people for taking what our government offers whether its a tax break, a subsidy, or a handout. I am against them because I believe that the practice weakens our society over time more than it strengthens and so therefore we lose ground as each decade passes.
My purpose is to educate about the folly of the practice, of the explosion in dependency thinking it incites and the loss of freedom that is it’s inevitable conclusion. My purpose is to remind Americans that a nation of strong capable individuals who don’t need government is a more noble goal and one we should strive to achieve through education and creating a society of opportunity. The point is not to dismiss those situations where we choose cooperative effort but to make even cooperative efforts more likely to succeed. Strong independent people can rely on each other but they don’t have to rely on others. The ideal does not suppose that we can eliminate the poor or the needy or the responsibility to help them. It is a path that would find our society with fewer in need.
“Did they study how much of that actually goes to families, and how much goes to beuracracy?”
I don’t think so. As far as I can tell the following reveals their purpose:
I think they are suggesting that the levels of spending suggest waste, fraud and abuse. This is certainly not a problem of the poor!
“…you just know this is going to be misinterpreted by people who believe the stereotype that welfare recipients are just rolling in government dough.”
I would call those people taxpayers who have a right to know how much is spent, how much is wasted, how much it costs to administer all of the various state and federal programs, and how much is scammed by people who arrange their lives around the generosity of our welfare state.
Information of possible interest:
http://www.ehow.com/info_8590871_much-family-four-receive-welfare.html#ixzz2BCrfkSMh
http://www.ehow.com/info_10054800_much-money-welfare-caseworker-make-per-year.html