I’ve written and pontificated about the problem of government-created dependency and how the welfare state traps people in poverty.
I also shared this dramatic chart showing how redistribution programs create shockingly high implicit marginal tax rates for those with modest incomes.
But when a liberal writer for the New York Times basically comes to the same conclusion, that’s a sign that there may finally be some consensus about the need for reform.
Here’s some of what Nicholas Kristof wrote, beginning with an acknowledgement of the welfare state’s perverse incentives.
This is what poverty sometimes looks like in America: parents here in Appalachian hill country pulling their children out of literacy classes. Moms and dads fear that if kids learn to read, they are less likely to qualify for a monthly check for having an intellectual disability. …This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest that America’s safety net can sometimes entangle people in a soul-crushing dependency. …Some young people here don’t join the military (a traditional escape route for poor, rural Americans) because it’s easier to rely on food stamps and disability payments. Antipoverty programs also discourage marriage: In a means-tested program like S.S.I., a woman raising a child may receive a bigger check if she refrains from marrying that hard-working guy she likes. Yet marriage is one of the best forces to blunt poverty. In married couple households only one child in 10 grows up in poverty, while almost half do in single-mother households. Most wrenching of all are the parents who think it’s best if a child stays illiterate, because then the family may be able to claim a disability check each month.
He then gives an example of the SSI program for kids and how it has ballooned over time .
About four decades ago, most of the children S.S.I. covered had severe physical handicaps or mental retardation that made it difficult for parents to hold jobs — about 1 percent of all poor children. But now 55 percent of the disabilities it covers are fuzzier intellectual disabilities short of mental retardation, where the diagnosis is less clear-cut. More than 1.2 million children across America — a full 8 percent of all low-income children — are now enrolled in S.S.I. as disabled, at an annual cost of more than $9 billion. That is a burden on taxpayers, of course, but it can be even worse for children whose families have a huge stake in their failing in school. Those kids may never recover: a 2009 study found that nearly two-thirds of these children make the transition at age 18 into S.S.I. for the adult disabled. They may never hold a job in their entire lives and are condemned to a life of poverty on the dole — and that’s the outcome of a program intended to fight poverty.
By the way, you won’t be surprised to learn that the disability program for adults also has expanded dramatically. The simple lesson (though folks in Washington seem oblivious) is that if you subsidize self-destructive behavior, you’ll get more of it.
Kristof is honest enough to recognize the problem, but that doesn’t mean he agrees with libertarians about the solution.
I don’t want to suggest that America’s antipoverty programs are a total failure. On the contrary, they are making a significant difference. Nearly all homes here in the Appalachian hill country now have electricity and running water, and people aren’t starving. …kids…have replaced the elderly as the most impoverished age group in our country. Today, 22 percent of children live below the poverty line. Of American families living in poverty today, 8 out of 10 have air-conditioning, and a majority have a washing machine and dryer. Nearly all have microwave ovens. What they don’t have is hope. …A growing body of careful research suggests that the most effective strategy is to work early on children and education, and to try to encourage and sustain marriage. …Early interventions are not a silver bullet, and even programs that succeed as experiments often fall short when scaled up. But we end up paying for poverty one way or another, and early childhood education is far cheaper than adult incarceration. …Look, there are no magic wands, and helping people is hard.
I don’t think his hopes of early childhood education are a silver bullet, particularly if it results in a program run from Washington. But I’ll also admit that libertarians don’t really have a solution.
To a large extent, this is an intergenerational problem, with kids learning bad habits from adults. And that’s true for inner-city blacks and rural whites, as well as every demographic in between. I’m happy to make the case that the welfare state helped to create the problem (or at least subsidized it and made it worse), but simply ending the welfare state probably won’t make everything better.
It’s a lot easier to squeeze the toothpaste out of the tube than to put it back in. Once social capital erodes, it very difficult to restore it. That’s why it’s a mistake to create new programs in the first place. As this famous set of cartoons illustrates, welfare state programs always start small, but that’s not where they end up.
P.S. When the welfare state destroys the lives of children, there’s no room for any humor. But at least we can laugh about the absurdity of disability programs for adults. This joke captures the perverse incentives of the programs, but these real-world horror stories about Diaper Man and Footless Hans are only funny in a twisted way. And this Greek story about rewarding pedophiles with disability payments is beyond satire.
There are a few industries that I am aware of that are built up around “the disabled”. These local agencies typically have a doctor who prescribes medications to their clients then vouches for them to social security. These antipsychotic medications in of themselves are very disabling. In essence, the agency creates disabled persons by way of antipsychotic medications and in turn profits off them by way of state monies and their clients SSI checks. They run group homes where maybe a dozen clients live which takes the bulk of their SSI checks. These clients get $5 – $10 a week to spend on themselves as an incentive for doing house chores and whatnot.
The agencies take a proprietary interest in someone who has a rough spot in their lives. Some are referred to them by other social institutions. The agency’s doctor creates a disability in someone by way of damaging drugs then signs the client up for SSI. The agency pockets the money by housing a dozen or so clients and collecting their food stamps to feed them. The client knows he can’t function anywhere so he just stays on with the profiteering agency taking drugs and being absolutely worthless to all except the agency’s coffers.
I graduated university with a degree in human services and psychology and discovered this money making scheme. I worked as a case manager for these people for a dollar above minimum wage and munched food stamps during the entire time in worked there. The director lived in a gated community and vacationed in Hawaii and Mexico.
[…] na esquerda admitem que o bem-estar social estatal dificulta a independência e a […]
[…] P.S. Some honest leftists admit that the welfare state has caused collateral damage. […]
[…] Some honest leftists admit that the welfare state cripples independence and self […]
[…] Some honest leftists admit that the welfare state cripples independence and self […]
[…] Some honest leftists admit that the welfare state cripples independence and self […]
[…] One group is comprised of people who are willing to admit that the statist policies they generally prefer have bad effects (such as gun control encouraging crime or welfare leading to more dependency). […]
[…] Kristof wrote on the problem of government-caused […]
[…] to both gentlemen for putting accuracy ahead of ideology (just like I applauded the honest liberal who wrote how government programs subsidize […]
[…] have to find honest work if we had real change) are a major part of their coalition. But there are some honest statists who admit the current system hurts poor […]
[…] results. Just look at what Justin Cronin and Jeffrey Goldberg wrote about gun control and whatNicholas Kristof wrote about government-created […]
[…] results. Just look at what Justin Cronin and Jeffrey Goldberg wrote about gun control and what Nicholas Kristof wrote about government-created […]
[…] are even some honest liberals who now admit that big government promotes long-run […]
[…] are even some honest leftists who recognize this is a serious […]
[…] are even some honest leftists who recognize this is a serious […]
[…] Maybe that would be a wake-up call for our politicians on how the welfare state creates a poverty trap and erodes social capital (something that a few honest liberals have acknowledged). […]
[…] Some honest leftists now acknowledge that big government creates worrisome forms of […]
[…] Some honest leftists now acknowledge that big government creates worrisome forms of […]
[…] is bad for poor people, regardless of whether they’re native born or immigrants. Even some honest liberals have acknowledged this […]
[…] At least one liberal recognizes the dangers of government-subsidized […]
[…] At least one liberal recognizes the dangers of government-subsidized […]
[…] Some honest liberals recognize that redistribution can trap people in […]
[…] answer. We also need to change the culture. If people decide it is okay to live off the government, even leftists have begun to admit that it is very hard to re-create a system of self […]
[…] folks on the left who have confessed some very un-PC thoughts, such as the New York Times columnist who bravely wrote that, “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they suggest […]
[…] folks on the left who have confessed some very un-PC thoughts, such as the New York Times columnist who bravely wrote that, “This is painful for a liberal to admit, but conservatives have a point when they […]
[…] wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened […]
He is using Appalachian whites as his example as though this program did not start and was not actively fostered by govt. social workers coaching blacks on how to get what are commonly called crazy checks through out the south. These children once qualified keep the money rolling in for the fatherless families. Of course they retain the classification when they reach the age of majority as disabled and unable to work after years of supposedly being unable to learn. The number of blacks living off this program far exceeds their proportion of the population.
Kristof makes no sense. If early childhood education is the key, and the dependency addicts keep hiding the key to keep the checks coming in, then what good is having an early childhood program?
[…] At least one honest liberal has recognized the danger of government-created […]
[…] is bad for poor people, regardless of whether they’re native born or immigrants. Even some honest liberals have acknowledged this […]
[…] is bad for poor people, regardless of whether they’re native born or immigrants. Even some honest liberals have acknowledged this […]
[…] is bad for poor people, regardless of whether they’re native born or immigrants. Even some honest liberals have acknowledged this […]
[…] is bad for poor people, regardless of whether they’re native born or immigrants. Even some honest liberals have acknowledged this […]
[…] The good news is that at least some leftists are beginning to realize that the welfare state cripples people by creating government […]
[…] answer. We also need to change the culture. If people decide it is okay to live off the government, even leftists have begun to admit that it is very hard to re-create a system of self […]
[…] answer. We also need to change the culture. If people decide it is okay to live off the government, even leftists have begun to admit that it is very hard to re-create a system of self […]
[…] wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened […]
An honest liberal.
I didn’t know there was such a thing.
[…] wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened […]
[…] wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened […]
[…] wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened […]
[…] wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened […]
[…] wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened […]
[…] wrote earlier this month about an honest liberal who acknowledged the problems created by government dependency. Well, it happened […]
[…] An Honest Liberal Confronts the Problem of Government Dependency, Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell writes about the problem of government created dependency and […]
Reblogged this on News You May Have Missed and commented:
An Honest Liberal Confronts the Problem of Government Dependency
“Appalachian hill country ” Perhaps he should take a look around NYC.
When the government does anything, it expands government. Which then encourages even more government. Yet there are few if any incentives for doing the required job and bureaucrats are very difficult to fire, one of the many reasons why government failure is so widespread. Failure is rarely temporary.
When the non-government sector does it, they can’t afford to run at a loss. So they try harder, only accept those with a real problem, and abandon what doesn’t work. Failure is only temporary.
When the private sector does it, they want to make a profit. So they try to make their customers happy and abandon what doesn’t work. Failure is again only temporary.
It seems that government fails at most of what it tries to do. Yet in South Africa, the ruling ANC is currently considering whether they should adopt nationalization as government policy. Enjoy:
http://www.freemarketfoundation.com/issues/feature-article-its-better-to-nationalise-fashion-and-chewing-gum
It is too easy to be on assisted living programs of any kind. I had a girlfriend who received a check every month from SSI. She was bipolar. My doctor, a year or more later, sent me to a psychiatrist for treatment. I was diagnosed with quite a violent case of bipolar disorder. Okay. I took the medicine and went to work. I had episodes, but very few said anything because if I was sent home, they would have to work. I finished out 31+ years with the post office. According to the government, I was disabled and couldn’t work. Hey, government, FO. I made it through, there are others that can, also.
How about empowering people to think for themselves? Teach them critical thinking skills. Teach our children how to use their brains instead of just doing what everyone else does. Encourage problem solving skills and entrepreneurship and self sufficiency in children from a young age. Even in the disabled that still have high functioning, we are encouraging relying on SSDI way too much. I know this because I have an autistic tween with very high functioning, and people are already telling me to sign him up for SSDI. Never mind that he is outgoing, social, highly intelligent and I believe can learn to work and keep down a job, go to college and all those other things we want for our children. Temple Grandin, a well known autism advocate who is autistic herself, addressed this as well. She mentioned how in the old days, even those with disabilities were taught to be a contributing member of society. They were taught to have manners and work hard, and learn some sort of skill. I like that approach better. Let’s teach our children life and occupational skills and how to support themselves for a change.
Thank you for your subject and honesty. It’s refreshing to see a liberal understand the traps of welfare. I am charitable and believe there are those who need our help. But we continually have enlarged programs to include all sorts of needs – adding new programs – making those who would have pride in work and accomplishment dependent. A problem of the heart? or lack of intelligence? … how to fix?
Since the advantages of early childhood education seem to taper off or completely disappear before children leave primary school, I doubt such programs will be effective in lifting children out of poverty.
Reblogged this on The Grey Enigma.
Dan,
You suggest that:
“I don’t think his hopes of early childhood education are a silver bullet, particularly if it results in a program run from Washington. But I’ll also admit that libertarians don’t really have a solution.”
Yes, we do have a solution to the welfare state:
http://libertybullhorn.com/ending-the-welfare-state/