The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities is a left-wing group in Washington that advocates for bigger government and higher taxes. In an effort to promote more redistribution, they recently put together a map showing how welfare benefits varied by state.
We’re supposed to look at the map and conclude that welfare benefits are too low, but I draw the opposite conclusion. I’m stunned that some states are providing welfare checks greater than 30 percent of the poverty level. And some are even sending out checks greater than 40 percent of the poverty level.
The folks at CBPP conveniently neglect to mention two critical pieces of information.
1. The poverty line is set considerably above a level that would indicate material deprivation. According to Census Bureau data, for instance, a single person with income of $11,139 is considered in poverty and a family of four with income of $22,113. That’s far above the average level of income in most nations of the world.
2. Welfare checks are just one of many forms of redistribution, and the data used to create the map do not count food stamps, Medicaid, housing subsidies and a plethora of other means-tested programs. As Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation has documented, poor people experience surprisingly high levels of consumption.
This is not to say that life is easy for people living off the government. But it also true that the left is being disingenuous when they try to convince people that more redistribution is necessary to keep people from third world-style suffering.
The real tragedy of the welfare state, however, goes well beyond the fiscal burden. The human toll is far worse, as redistribution subsidizes dysfunctional behavior and traps people in dependency.
The problem could be partially fixed by getting the federal government out of the business of income redistribution. Welfare reform in the 1990s moved the ball in the right direction, and that success could be replicated by block-granting Medicaid and adopting other policies that put state and local governments back in charge.
But federalism is only part of the answer. The best way of dealing with poverty is economic growth, which is the point I make in this online video debate for PBS.
But welfare bureaucracies don’t have much incentive to actually reduce poverty. After all, as Walter Williams has explained, the so-called War on Poverty is a great gig for the tens of thousands of bureaucrats who get to oversee the programs.
What does it matter that the U.S. poverty-line salary of $11,000 a year is “far above the average level of income in most nations of the world” when the cost of living in the United States is also far above that in most nations of the world? Talk about “neglecting to mention critical pieces of information,” as you yourself put it. It’s not like that $11,000 U.S. salary is buying goods that may cost $1.50 in Angola.
And about this states’ rights business: You advocate for Medicaid block grants that would “put state and local governments in charge,” but at the same time you assail the choices that some states have made to provide bigger welfare benefits for their own residents. Which is it, states’ rights or welfare cuts? It can’t be both, unless you mean that states should only have the right to do what you want them to do.
Another apologist for greed and stupidity peddles a shopworn line.
We could address the deficit by obliging those who engineered our financial woes to disgorge what they’ve obtained through fraud.
This procurement process might then be hastened by skewering said parties from asshole to Adam’s apple, while slowly roasting them over a crackling fire, kindled with any bundles of cash remaining to them.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1645089/
Ok. I have a problem with this line: “a single person with income of $11,139 is considered in poverty and a family of four with income of $22,113. That’s far above the average level of income in most nations of the world.”
We don’t live in other nations; we live in America. You can’t make this comparison without examining the cost of living in other nations versus our own. Do you honestly believe that a family of four making that little is not deprived considering the cost of shelter, food, utilities, clothing, etc.? Sure they could opt out of a car and take public transportation. Sure they could shop at a thrift store? Sure they could rent a smaller apartment than their needs dictate, but that sounds like material deprivation to me.
Now I disagree with the pursuit of a welfare state, but your point that the poverty line is more comfortable than it seems is ill-informed, at best, and extremely unsympathetic towards the plight of the poor.
Well, it seems that many of the people making comments to your post have missed the point. Sure the standard of living is higher in U.S.A. and that’s the trap of comparative statistics. However, their points still don’t negate the critical point that Big Government entitlements are corrosive to person responsibility and promote more poverty.
Michael,
Please read the study Dan Mitchell linked:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2011/07/What-is-Poverty
Would love to hear your opinion on how “deprived” our poor actually are. Moreover, couldn’t one expect *some* level of material deprivation while living in poverty? If there was no deprivation whatsoever, would someone in poverty have any motivation to do anything to improve their lot? Why should they if Uncle Sam (ie, other taxpayers) have most of their wants and all of their needs covered?
We haven’t missed the point. We’ve just pointed out poorly reasoned arguments in the original post.
As for the larger claim you make, I support 100 percent your right to view government welfare programs as “corrosive” to personal responsibility. That’s definitely one way of looking at it. I happen to disagree.
I think there are many thousands of people who are in poverty through no fault of their own, and it’s easy to criticize them as lazy handout-seekers when you’re not among them yourself.
Tom,
Are you really arguing that the poor in America “have most of their wants and all of their needs covered” by the government? Really? Well then surely you wouldn’t mind taking your family down to $22,000 a year and doing a little social experiment for us, would you? You’d have most of your wants and all of your needs covered. It’d be easy.
John and others:
I am from one of those that you call “Third World Countries”. And believe me: The standard of living of the American “poor” is really, really high. In EU vs USA” http://www.timbro.se/bokhandel/pdf/9175665646.pdf you can see how high is the standard of living among the USA “poor”. They are worse off than the Swedish middle class, but they are not much worse off.
John, you show little knowledge of the “Third World”. We usually have very high tax rates -take a look here http://doingbusiness.org/data/exploretopics/paying-taxes- and huge enormous informal sectors consequence of those horrifying high tax rates (hundreds million people are not productive enough to pay those tax rates without starving). Just go to any Shopping Center in Brazil, where the infamous Value Added Tax rates can add 47% in some places and you, as an American, will be frightened by the prices. Go take a meal at a shopping center in Brazil and you will pay the same or dearer than in a USA mall “Food Court”. Of course if you go to an INFORMAL eating place in a Brazilian favela then you will pay lower prices than in the USA. But not so much lower prices. Perhaps $3 – $5 for a meal at a really cheap place.
Go rent a car in Brazil, Colombia or Argentina and tell me about the prices. Go BUY a car in almost any country in Latin America and tell me about the cost: it can reach a price that is almost DOUBLE than the USA (often locally manufactured cars are cheaper). Go buy appliances
The USA does not have the ultra infamous nauseating “European” VAT and then a lot of things are cheaper in the USA than in what you call the “Third World” . Of course what involves manpower is considerably more expensive in the USA because higher USA wages are part of the cost: A house, rent, services. But in the USA you have lots of cheap stuff and the standard of living of your “poor” often is ridiculously high, I read several papers on that. Obesity is one of the main problems among “poor” kids. Go to Colombia or Brazil or Bolivia where you can actually find some malnutrition.
The political class need to make itself artificially necessary and then it will go on with stuff like “War on Poverty” in order to control and take away form people even more $trillions.
It seems that everyone defending the welfare state seems to have skipped over #2 in the above article. The $11k and $22k is the amount of the welfare check. It does not count food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid from the Feds, then if you qualify for those, you also qualify automatically for subsidized utilities (gas, electric,phone, cable) prescriptions, free meals for the children breakfast, lunch and after school snack, and who knows what else. Then there are all of the private food banks and charities that help the poor. All of the youth sports leagues that I have ever been involved with over the years, have scholarships for those who do not have the ability to pay. Get real people, if you can not admit that there are many gaming the system, you need to wake up.
Um, no, actually the $11,000 and $22,000 refers to salary threshold to qualify as poor, not the amount of the welfare check, and that’s by the author’s own admission. What are you reading?
And, yes, there probably are a lot of people who game the system. But there are probably more people who don’t. To act as if these people face no real difficulties is to be truly out of touch with reality.
John, I’m not saying that living in poverty is by any means “easy”. But looking at the Heritage data, I wouldn’t call it “difficult” either. At least, not as difficult as we’re led to believe: I always pictured roving homeless vagrants eating from trash cans. This appears to be the rare exeption, even amongst the impoverished.
Your standard for “deprived” must be a lot higher than mine; I find it hard to muster much sympathy for people that struggle to pay for A/C and premium cable. Then again, I just spent a year in Afghanistan, and have a much better appreciation for America’s living standards as a result.
BTW, I would never start a family without having much in the way of income potential, so I’m sorry I can’t comply with your request to be a guinea pig. I just don’t feel it’s right to start a family I can’t afford and expect other taxpayers to subsidize my irresponsibility.
This isn’t a scientific analysis, but as I walk through the streets of downtown Los Angeles, every homeless person I see is fat.
I’m sorry, but so long as the most destitute of our citizens eats better than the richest people of many other countries, you will get very little sympathy from me.
Ever consider that every homeless person you see is fat because they’re eating nothing but McDonald’s, because it’s the cheapest thing you can get? It’s not rocket science. And eating that poorly comes with enormous health risks anyway, so not to worry: they’re probably be dead in a few years anyway, so you won’t have to look at them anymore.
Solved!
John,
States rights: A state deciding to pay excessive welfare payments is a choice made by that state. The Federal government dictating a medicare system then telling states who and what they have to cover is not a choice.
To explain it another way, anytime the federal government demands an unfunded or only partially funded mandate it is a states rights issue.
“Ever consider that every homeless person you see is fat because they’re eating nothing but McDonald’s, because it’s the cheapest thing you can get?
Are you kidding? You can buy Ra men noodles for next to nothing, put in some chicken and vegetables for less than $3 and feed 3-4 people. But you think it’s cheaper to pay $4-6 per person at McDonald’s? You really should think before you speak. People are overweight for many different reasons but eating at McDonald’s because it is cheap is not one of them.
There seem to be 2 John’s disagreeing here. I will only say I’m on disability and below Poverty level and yet I do not qualify for public housing, medicaid, help with electric bill, nothing more than a Disability Check of $1,087 a month. I live off that even after working for the Federal Gov’t for almost 20 years. I’m dirt poor and I’m not fat by any means. I still pay my own rent (full amount) my own electric bill and my food stamps, yes I do get, $16.00 a month. That helps a whole lot. To the John that thinks this is ok. GET REAL. The other John is right! You must be LEFT! I’m not an old person either. I’m in the prime of my life who happened to get cancer and not able to work. So you think you could do what I do every single month. I pay my co-pays to the doctors and for prescriptions too. Every single month by at least the 18th I’m pretty much darn near BROKE. Somehow, someone, somewhere in the Government would not qualify me for help like Medicaid as I had worked, Medicaid appears to be mostly for those who never worked and never paid a dime into the system. I have a sister whose a drug addict and gets more than I do every month while she sits on her butt and puts drugs into her arms and collects money to do this. She gets free housing too and help with electric. I live this first hand. Where are you with it John? OUR GOVERNMENT SUCKS BIG TIME! Not just for me but for many others just like me! Since when is McDonald’s considered cheap anyway? I live off crockpots of beans and cornbread or just grow my own veggies to eat. I can’t afford McDonald’s and don’t want it anyway. NO, I don’t own a car. I walk now everywhere I go …I get no help from anyone at all. Yet you think this is ok for people like me who have worked their entire lives they were able to have to put up with this bs? You’re one big fool then! You know which JOHN you are too.
Dear Vegas Guy,
Medicare is a federal program. The states have nothing to do with it. You’re telling me that I should think before I speak? You don’t even know the basic facts about what you’re arguing. I assume you’re talking about Medicaid, but it doesn’t sound like you know much about that, either — especially not that there actually is quite a bit of flexibility in Medicaid. The feds give the states waivers from the rules all the time. It happened earlier this year in Arizona, which happens to be an all-Republican state.
And as for the homeless people cooking Ramen noodles…well, of course there are cheaper ways to eat than McDonald’s. But somehow I’m guessing that the vagrants who wander the streets of downtown Los Angeles don’t go to the grocery store and then come home and cook a cost-efficient, healthy meal because THEY’RE HOMELESS.
Keep the incoherent arguments coming.
Brian J Flanagan (@bjflanagan)
Another apologist for greed and stupidity peddles a shopworn line.
We could address the deficit by obliging those who engineered our financial woes to disgorge what they’ve obtained through fraud.
Obviously you haven’t a clue when you think left wing Hollyweird can possibly produce a film containing any closely resembling a proper perspective. I suggest you take your blinders off and watch a youtube video called “Buring Down The House” which evidence historical independently verifiable documented fact that are a matter of public record. Then you can go back to your Group Think Propaganda if prefer to peddle lies. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
[...] Check out this map to see how various U.S. states subsidize [...]
I’d bet that most of the people commenting have never lived on $12k a year. I have. It’s possible and I was comfortable sharing an apartment with 2 roommates, saving for a used car, and cooking my meals at home. I worked evenings as a waiter in the restaurants downtown and walked every single dollar I earned in tips to the ATM and deposited it after each shift. It’s a cultural thing.
[...] [...]
[...] According to this map from a left-wing group, it also seems that states with no income tax do a better job of controlling welfare [...]
Maybe some of you didn’t read the article.
The amounts listed do NOT include food stamps, medicaid, or housing allowances.
NOW what do have to say about it?
The problem is that poverty in USA is apparently defined as compared to others, not as an absolute.
Yet of those in poverty, studies show an enormous percentage have one or more color televisions, microwaves, cars etc. the Heritage foundation link says “The overwhelming majority of the [USA's] poor have air conditioning, cable TV, and a host of other modern amenities.”
Yes, the data indeed demonstrate that the poor in USA are way better off than the poor in the rest of the world, just as Dan Mitchell said.
Lastly, John #1 (September 16, 2011 at 10:49 am), have you ever lived in Africa, or even been to Angola? I suspect not, which means you are “neglecting to mention critical pieces of information,” as you accuse Dan of doing. You’re being right, you’re ignoring the abundance of evidence which disproves your opinion. Government failure is all around us, you only need to give up your opinion, and investigate for yourself with an open mind.
[...] According to this map from a left-wing group, it also seems that states with no income tax do a better job of controlling welfare [...]
[...] but not least, here’s a map showing the state-by-state generosity of welfare benefits. I don’t detect any correlation with death-spiral states – except for New York and [...]
I am a single mother of two making $30,000 a year providing in home daycare. I own a three bedroom house with a privacy fence around my large pool, drive used cars and send my children to a private college preparatory school. The thing is, I live in Iowa! People have choices! They can get out of New York, Chicago or Los Angeles and live very comfortably on $22,000 a year in Iowa, Nebraska, Missouri or Kansas. I pay $800.00 month for my mortgage, which is more than “homeless” people in Los Angeles pay for a crappy hotel that they squeeze their families into. I also would have liked to have had five children but could only afford to support two. This is truly a country of opportunity if you take advantage of the opportunities presented.
[...] but not least, here’s a map showing the state-by-state generosity of welfare benefits. I don’t detect any correlation with death-spiral states – except for New York and [...]
We now have something around 47 million people on food stamps, 1/3 of all teenagers. Talk about a death spiral. Let me give an example of how wasteful this program is. My son-in-law lost his job as a police officer and went on food stamps. While working, his family of 3 lived on $250 of food per month. Food stamps gave him $500. I lost my job and tried food stamps… I now have $4000 sitting on my card and no clue how to spend that much money but I try not to waste the taxpayer money on crap food or by selling the card for drug money (yes, that has been well documented here in Nashville as one of the primary uses of EBT cards). Talk to any grocer about the behaviors that they see at the checkout counter, about the overweight people pulling out card after card (not theirs, but there is no oversight to this program) to buy chips, pop, fast food, etc. Welfare promotes irresponsible behavior in all its forms and creates an increasingly large brake on the economy. The country, not just the states, are in a death spiral exactly because of a lot of the attitudes I see expressed in these posts. The entitlement society that we have created through ignorant and unwise attempts to remedy the cause of the “poor” and the “needy” has doomed this country. We’re done. The math simply doesn’t work any more. The debt has reached impossible levels – $0.40 out of every tax dollar goes to interest. The ONLY thing keeping us alive is the almost neglible federal interest rate – once that goes up, and it must, we’re toast. There is no way to defeat the liberal mindset of almost half of this country that won’t wake up until we’re broke and a third world nation (if even then). It’s nice to be able to “help” people, but the liberals never explain how to pay for it because they are flat out stupid when it comes to math and finances, courtesy of a broken public education system.
It seems that a number of commenters have a serious reading comprehension problem. You pick out the line about a single person making 11,139 , or a family of 4 making 22,113 being considered in poverty, and completely ignore the author where he writes that this figure does not include food stamps, medicaid, rental subsides, or other means tested programs.
So, the person who brings home a paycheck totalling 11,139 per year also gets to add to his income: the food stamps he/she gets, the medical bills that are paid for him/her, the difference between rent charged and rent paid out of pocket, etc., and add those amounts to the 11,139.
I believe it was back in 1985 when the Wall Street Journal wrote an article comparing the pay one would have to earn at a job in order to be equal to the benefits one receives on welfare. WSJ did not include all benefits available to welfare recipients, only the 5 most used benefits. In 1985 dollars, a person in Hawaii would have had to earn over $15/hour. A person in Oklahoma would have had to earn over $8.50 an hour. These amounts were well above the minimum wage of the time. So, where is the incentive to work? If one can do better on welfare than working, where is the incentive to work?
And, even assuming the author is an old meany, you of the reading comprehension problem set are ignoring the subject of the article: the states and the country cannot afford to continue this type of support for social parasites. Look what is happening to Greece, Spain, France, Italy, etc. The credit rating for the US has already been downgraded. How long do you think the US can continue to run multi-trillion dollar annual deficits? What will happen to your precious redistribution programs when every dime of revenue received by the feds is used to pay interest on the debt? What will happen when China and other countries no longer wish to buy Treasury note, bill, or bonds because the risk of default is too great? What will happen to all of these benefits programs when the US enters a period of hyper-inflation, which is what has happened to every country that turned on its printing presses and started “printing money” to deal with its economic problems. You need to understand; government does not print money, it prints currency. Currency does not become money until it is utilized to facilitate economic transactions. Too much currency floating around results in inflation. Way too much currency results in hyper-inflation, which is a metastatising cancer on an economy.
You who criticized the information about what is considered poverty level in this country need to stop and think about the entire article.
Dan Mitchel doubts “that life is easy for people living off the government.”
One former recipient told me this, to the contrary.
She said, “I had more stuff when I was on food stamps. I was on every government program. My rent was $200 each month because I was on the Section 8 program. My power was paid by the Low Income Energy Assistance Program. I had food stamps and WIC, (Women, Infants, and Children Special Supplemental Nutrition Program), and Medicaid. Everything was taken care of. I had a boyfriend and a baby. I earned $500 each month working 2-4 hours a day cleaning rooms at minimum wage. It was easy. I didn’t have to worry about anything.” She emphasized the last word.
“Now I make $13 an hour and have to pay $600 each month in rent and utilities, and $130 a month in internet so I can go to college. (Maybe that amount covers phone, internet and cable, bundled.) Why work when if you don’t everything is taken care of? Everything!”
“My sister is on all the programs. She’s taking advantage of the system. She went to a culinary arts school, a Cordon Bleu school, and ran up $90,000 in debt. She has a 60” TV and the monster sound system. She and her friends frequently go to IHOP and Denny’s. I go out to eat maybe twice a month. She works part-time for spending money, but otherwise everything is taken care of.”
[...] [...]
[...] Are you subsidizing bad behavior? Click here to see a map revealing which states offer the most extravagant welfare [...]
Poor people in other countries often starve to death, or die of easily cured illnesses. Here, being poor means having a 42 inch television.
[...] Which states give the highest welfare payments. [...]
[...] But the state that stands out is Oregon. Based on the state’s income, there’s no reason for more than 20 percent of resident’s to be on the dole. The state does get a “high” ranking on the Moocher Index, so there’s some evidence of an entitlement mentality. And welfare handouts also are above average in the Beaver State as well. [...]
[...] But the state that stands out is Oregon. Based on the state’s income, there’s no reason for more than 20 percent of resident’s to be on the dole. The state does get a “high” ranking on the Moocher Index, so there’s some evidence of an entitlement mentality. And welfare handouts also are above average in the Beaver State as well. [...]
[...] Which states give the highest welfare payments. [...]
[...] Which states give the highest welfare payments. [...]