Based on a new report from the Congressional Budget Office, I wrote two weeks ago about America’s dismal long-run fiscal outlook. Simply stated, we face a Greek-style fiscal future because of changing demographics and poorly designed entitlement programs.
But I was just looking at big-picture fiscal aggregates.
And while that was discouraging, it gets downright depressing when you look behind the numbers and consider how a growing share of Americans are getting lured into government dependency.
Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute has a very grim analysis on the growth of entitlement dependency in the United States.
The American welfare state today transfers over 14% of the nation’s GDP to the recipients of its many programs, and over a third of the population now accepts “need-based” benefits from the government. This is not the America that Tocqueville encountered.
It wasn’t always this way.
The article looks at the history of the welfare state in America.
In 1961, at the start of the Kennedy Administration, total government entitlement transfers to individual recipients accounted for a little less than 5% of GDP, as opposed to 2.5% of GDP in 1931 just before the New Deal. In 1963 — the year of Kennedy’s assassination — these entitlement transfers accounted for about 6% of total personal income.
But things began to deteriorate under LBJ.
During the 1960s, …President Johnson’s “War on Poverty” (declared in 1964) and his “Great Society” pledge of the same year ushered in a new era for America, in which Washington finally commenced in earnest the construction of a massive welfare state. … Americans could claim, and obtain, an increasing trove of economic benefits from the government simply by dint of being a citizen; they were now incontestably entitled under law to some measure of transferred public bounty, thanks to our new “entitlement state.”
And guess what? Once we started rewarding dependency, more and more people decided they were entitled.
Over the half-century between 1963 and 2013, entitlement transfers were the fastest growing source of personal income in America — expanding at twice the rate for real per capita personal income from all other sources, in fact. Relentless, exponential growth of entitlement payments recast the American family budget over the course of just two generations. In 1963, these transfers accounted for less than one out of every 15 dollars of overall personal income; by 2013, they accounted for more than one dollar out of every six. The explosive growth of entitlement outlays, of course, was accompanied by a corresponding surge in the number of Americans who would routinely apply for, and accept, such government benefits.
And how many people have been lured into government dependency? A lot, and mostly because of welfare spending rather than age-related social insurance programs such as Social Security and Medicare.
…the government did not actually begin systematically tracking the demographics of America’s “program participation” until a generation ago. Such data as are available, however, depict a sea change over the past 30 years. …By 2012, the most recent year for such figures at this writing, Census Bureau estimates indicated that more than 150 million Americans, or a little more than 49% of the population, lived in households that received at least one entitlement benefit….Between 1983 and 2012, by Census Bureau estimates, the percentage of Americans “participating” in entitlement programs jumped by nearly 20 percentage points….Less than one-fifth of that 20-percentage-point jump can be attributed to increased reliance on these two “old age” programs. Overwhelmingly, the growth in claimants of entitlement benefits has stemmed from an extraordinary rise in “means-tested” entitlements.
Ugh. I’ve previously written that getting something from the government doesn’t automatically turn somebody into a moocher or a deadbeat.
Nonetheless, it can’t be good news that 49 percent of U.S. households are on the receiving end for goodies from Uncle Sam.
Here’s a table from his article that should frighten anyone who thinks work and self-reliance are worthwhile values.
There’s lot of information, so I recommend just focusing on the numbers in parentheses in the first two columns. Those show how dependency is increasing by significant amounts for many programs.
Eberstadt highlights some of the worst numbers, most notably the huge growth in food stamps and Medicaid dependency.
…the rolls of claimants receiving food stamps (a program that was officially rebranded the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, in 2008 because of the stigma the phrase had acquired) jumped from 19 million to 51 million. By 2012 almost one American in six lived in a home enrolled in the SNAP program. The ranks of Medicaid, the means-tested national health-care program, increased by over 65 million between 1983 and 2012, and now include over one in four Americans. …Between 1983 and 2012, the number of Americans in households receiving Federal SSI more than sextupled; by 2012, over 20 million people were counted as dependents of the program.
As bad as these numbers are, the most worrisome part of the article is when Eberstadt writes about the erosion of America’s cultural capital.
Asking for, and accepting, purportedly need-based government welfare benefits has become a fact of life for a significant and still growing minority of our population: Every decade, a higher proportion of Americans appear to be habituated to the practice. … nearly half of all children under 18 years of age received means-tested benefits (or lived in homes that did). For this rising cohort of young Americans, reliance on public, need-based entitlement programs is already the norm — here and now. It risks belaboring the obvious to observe that today’s real existing American entitlement state, and the habits — including habits of mind — that it engenders, do not coexist easily with the values and principles, or with the traditions, culture, and styles of life, subsumed under the shorthand of “American exceptionalism.”
And the erosion of cultural capital is very difficult to reverse, thanks in large part to the welfare-aided erosion of traditional families and falling levels of work among males.
The corrosive nature of mass dependence on entitlements is evident from the nature of the pathologies so closely associated with its spread. Two of the most pernicious of them are so tightly intertwined as to be inseparable: the breakdown of the pre-existing American family structure and the dramatic decrease in participation in work among working-age men. …the rise of long-term entitlement dependence — with the concomitant “mainstreaming” of inter-generational welfare dependence — self-evidently delivers a heavy blow.
Since this has been an utterly depressing analysis so far, let’s close with a vaguely optimistic look at the future.
While it may not be easy to reverse the erosion of cultural capital, it is simple (at least in theory) to reverse bad policies.
All we need to do is enact genuine entitlement reform and devolve all means-tested redistribution spending to the states.
P.S. This is some great work by AEI, which follows on the stellar analysis that organization recently produced on income inequality. Makes me almost want to forgot that AEI put together a somewhat disappointing fiscal plan.
[…] I appreciate the satire, I’m quite worried about the long-run impact of Biden’s agenda (i.e., becoming […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] I appreciate the satire, I’m quite worried about the long-run impact of Biden’s agenda (i.e., becoming […]
[…] wants to “invest” in social welfare programs, as if there’s some sort of positive return from creating more dependency. Reminds me of this Chuck Asay cartoon from the Obama […]
[…] I appreciate the satire, I’m quite worried about the long-run impact of Biden’s agenda (i.e., becoming […]
[…] I appreciate the satire, I’m quite worried about the long-run impact of Biden’s agenda (i.e., becoming […]
[…] I appreciate the satire, I’m quite worried about the long-run impact of Biden’s agenda (i.e., becoming […]
[…] I appreciate the satire, I’m quite worried about the long-run impact of Biden’s agenda (i.e., becoming […]
[…] I appreciate the satire, I’m quite worried about the long-run impact of Biden’s agenda (i.e., becoming […]
[…] I appreciate the satire, I’m quite worried about the long-run impact of Biden’s agenda (i.e., becoming […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] wants to “invest” in social welfare programs, as if there’s some sort of positive return from creating more dependency. Reminds me of this Chuck Asay cartoon from the Obama […]
[…] what’s the key feature of government? Is it waste? Dependency? […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] wants to “invest” in social welfare programs, as if there’s some sort of positive return from creating more dependency. Reminds me of this Chuck Asay cartoon from the Obama […]
[…] wants to “invest” in social welfare programs, as if there’s some sort of positive return from creating more dependency. Reminds me of this Chuck Asay cartoon from the Obama […]
[…] wants to “invest” in social welfare programs, as if there’s some sort of positive return from creating more dependency. Reminds me of this Chuck Asay cartoon from the Obama […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] wants to “invest” in social welfare programs, as if there’s some sort of positive return from creating more dependency. Reminds me of this Chuck Asay cartoon from the Obama […]
[…] wants to “invest” in social welfare programs, as if there’s some sort of positive return from creating more dependency. Reminds me of this Chuck Asay cartoon from the Obama […]
[…] wants to “invest” in social welfare programs, as if there’s some sort of positive return from creating more dependency. Reminds me of this Chuck Asay cartoon from the Obama […]
[…] in social welfare programs, as if there’s some sort of positive return from creating more dependency. Reminds me of this Chuck Asay cartoon from the Obama […]
[…] I write constantly (some would say incessantly and annoyingly) about entitlement spending. And I occasionally write about discretionary spending. […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] that’s hardly the test for good legislation. For those who prefer smaller government, less dependency, and less centralization, Romney’s plan is bad […]
[…] that’s hardly the test for good legislation. For those who prefer smaller government, less dependency, and less centralization, Romney’s plan is bad […]
[…] America will become another Greece if we don’t reform entitlements. That will be bad for the nation. It will be bad for our economy. It will be bad for our children and grandchildren. It will be bad for the fabric of our society. […]
[…] America will become another Greece if we don’t reform entitlements. That will be bad for the nation. It will be bad for our economy. It will be bad for our children and grandchildren. It will be bad for the fabric of our society. […]
[…] And that unfortunate cost-benefit analysis is being driven by ever-greater levels of dependency. […]
[…] times, I’m not overly optimistic. Given the growth of dependency, the expansion of government, and demographic decline, I fear there may be 22nd-century videos […]
[…] States has been insulated from that problem because of a belief in personal responsibility. But ever-growing levels of dependency suggest that this advantage is […]
[…] And that unfortunate cost-benefit analysis is being driven by ever-greater levels of dependency. […]
[…] has a corrosive impact on both ends. Recipients are harmed because they get trapped in dependency, and workers are harmed because taxes discourage productive […]
[…] And that unfortunate cost-benefit analysis is being driven by ever-greater levels of dependency. […]
[…] has a major dependency problem. In recent decades, there’s been a significant increase in the number of working-age adults relying on […]
[…] write constantly (some would say incessantly and annoyingly) about entitlement spending. And I occasionally write […]
[…] write constantly (some would say incessantly and annoyingly) about entitlement spending. And I occasionally write […]
[…] write constantly (some would say incessantly and annoyingly) about entitlement spending. And I occasionally write […]
[…] write constantly (some would say incessantly and annoyingly) about entitlement spending. And I occasionally write […]
[…] write constantly (some would say incessantly and annoyingly) about entitlement spending. And I occasionally write […]
[…] Needless to say, voters rarely if ever vote to raise their own taxes. Instead, they get seduced into robbing their neighbors in exchange for the promise of new goodies from politicians. […]
[…] I don’t want to be a Pollyanna. There are very worrisome trends in our economy, especially increased dependency and reduced labor force […]
While you are required to pay for Social Security and Medicare, according to the Supreme Court ruling in 1960, Fleming vs. Nestor, it was found that unlike insurance, you have no legal claim to anything for your contributions. Government can change or eliminate benefits at any time.
Based on the fact that you are not retired yet, you’ll be lucky to get back what you put in.
The FRA (Full Retirement Age) is now 66, for those born before 1954 and 67 for those born 1960 and after.
Social Security was sold as insurance, but it is a welfare/safety-net program. The “Trust Fund” is a promise from government to government to pay itself back.
I see this mistake often:
Social Security is not welfare. You pay into Social Security all your life so that you will have it when you want to retire. You (usually) cannot or do not receive it until you reach 65. I have paid tens of thousands of dollars into SS and hope to live long enough to get it back.
Other than that, Mitchell may have a few good points, though his charts are skewed by just showing numbers of people without considering population increases.
BTW, Medicare, which most retired people get, is deducted from your SS check. You pay for that too.
[…] table on the rapid rise of dependency in the United […]
[…] program also is exacerbating the redistribution culture in the United States as more and more people get trapped in the web of […]
[…] program also is exacerbating the redistribution culture in the United States as more and more people get trapped in the web of […]
[…] And it’s definitely worth noting that the federal government deserves the overwhelming share of the blame for rising levels of dependency in the United […]
[…] And it’s definitely worth noting that the federal government deserves the overwhelming share of the blame for rising levels of dependency in the United […]
[…] The real question is whether Trump ultimately decides to expend political capital on a much-needed reform. Because he would need to do some heavy lifting. If GOPers push for block grants, well-heeled medical providers such as hospitals will lobby fiercely to maintain the status quo (after all what’s is waste and fraud to us is money in the bank for them). Trump would have to be willing to push back and make a populist argument for federalism and fiscal responsibility rather than a populist argument for dependency. […]
[…] don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that expanding entitlements, changing demographics, and increasing dependency are the main long-run threats to the American […]
[…] as part of a “block grant” and let them figure out how best to help poor people without some of the negative consequences caused by the current plethora of […]
[…] don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that expanding entitlements, changing demographics, and increasing dependency are the main long-run threats to the American […]
[…] think it’s an exaggeration to say that expanding entitlements, changing demographics, and increasing dependency are the main long-run threats to the American […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] the problem is getting worse, not […]
[…] the problem is getting worse, not […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] I’ve previously shared some of Eberstadt’s work on the growing dependency crisis in […]
[…] was supposed to be satire, but after looking at some new estimates of dependency, I now wonder whether I accidentally foretold America’s […]
[…] was supposed to be satire, but after looking at some new estimates of dependency, I now wonder whether I accidentally foretold America’s […]
[…] was supposed to be satire, but after looking at some new estimates of dependency, I now wonder whether I accidentally foretold America’s […]
[…] hurt the economy. The redistributionism doesn’t lead to immediate disaster, but it inevitably lures a larger share of the population into dependency over time and the higher taxes required to finance the growing welfare burden gradually erode incentives for […]
[…] hurt the economy. The redistributionism doesn’t lead to immediate disaster, but it inevitably lures a larger share of the population into dependency over time and the higher taxes required to finance the growing welfare burden gradually erode incentives for […]
[…] hurt the economy. The redistributionism doesn’t lead to immediate disaster, but it inevitably lures a larger share of the population into dependency over time and the higher taxes required to finance the growing welfare burden gradually erode incentives for […]
[…] Some of the bad news is probably because of bad government policy (capital gains taxes, regulatory barriers, licensing mandates, etc) and some of it may reflect undesirable cultural trends (less entrepreneurship, more risk-aversion, more dependency). […]
[…] Some of the bad news is probably because of bad government policy (capital gains taxes, regulatory barriers, licensing mandates, etc) and some of it may reflect undesirable cultural trends (less entrepreneurship, more risk-aversion, more dependency). […]
[…] pessimism was an Olympic event, I used to think I might be favored to win a medal. After all, growing levels of dependency outside of Washington and rampant corruption inside of Washington sometimes lead me to conclude that America is doomed to […]
[…] pessimism was an Olympic event, I used to think I might be favored to win a medal. After all, growing levels of dependency outside of Washington and rampant corruption inside of Washington sometimes lead me to conclude that America is doomed to […]
[…] pessimism was an Olympic event, I used to think I might be favored to win a medal. After all, growing levels of dependency outside of Washington and rampant corruption inside of Washington sometimes lead me to conclude that America is doomed to […]
[…] The bottom line is that the expansion of redistribution programs has lured more and more people out of the labor force, particularly when matched by government policies that have hindered the private sector’s […]
[…] bottom line is that the expansion of redistribution programs has lured more and more people out of the labor force, particularly when matched by government policies that have hindered the private sector’s […]
[…] Okay, the title for today’s column is a bit grandiose. It implies weighty and ponderous analysis of America’s ever-growing entitlement state and potentially dour predictions about when we reach a tipping point of too much dependency. […]
[…] Okay, the title for today’s column is a bit grandiose. It implies weighty and ponderous analysis of America’s ever-growing entitlement state and potentially dour predictions about when we reach a tipping point of too much dependency. […]
[…] And if you wonder about the size of Santa Obama’s sack, just check out these very depressing numbers. […]
[…] be a net plus for Democrats, at least in the long run. Simply stated, as more and more people get ensnared in the quicksand of government dependency, that creates an ever-growing bloc of voters who may think that it is in their interest to support […]
[…] We’ve ignored the lessons of history about the dangers of government intervention, so is it any mystery that we now have millions of people mired in dependency. […]
[…] I’ve shared various estimates of America’s growing dependency problem, though I’ve also warned that these numbers don’t necessarily tell the full […]
[…] A Very Depressing Look at America’s Growing Dependency Crisis is a piece by Daniel Mitchell from the Cato Institute that I highly recommend you take a look at. The only point I will expound upon is that his data shows that America’s dependence on government handouts has literally outpaced population growth over the past forty years (see Table “Entitlement Dependence in America,” Rows 1 &2, Columns 3&4). Hard to believe! […]
If I’m looking at the “Entitlement Dependence in America” table correctly, it shows that the population percentage receiving government benefits has increased faster than the population itself (rows 1 & 2, column 4)? If that’s true, this table speaks very loudly of America’s dependence crisis…very scary!
[…] overall trend, as discussed two days ago, is ever-growing levels of […]
[…] se da SAD nikad u povijesti nisu bile bliže socijalizmu. Da stvari budu gore, na nadolazećim predsjedničkim izborima kao relevantan kandidat se ističe […]
Dependency continues to grow because of the disincentives built into our system. Those who potentially pay the highest marginal tax rates on income and benefits are the disabled and single mothers.
The only way to disassociate the tax code from loss of benefits is to build a modified “safety-net” into the tax code, using a flat tax rate on all income, regardless of income bracket, plus a “prebate”, which cannot be lost by earning additional income.
CATO did a study which showed the levels of support in different states. Hawaii was around $60,000 for a mother and two children. Most states targeted around 200% of the poverty level. Support probably breaks down 50/50 between the feds and states. With such high levels of support its no wonder that there’s no incentive to get a job.
Instead, we should provide a prebate of 100% of the poverty level to all citizens. But, how would you pay for that??? Easy, replace the $1.4 trillion in current tax deductions with the prebate, which would cover citizens who currently pay taxes. Yes, there would be a dramatic shift in tax adjustment to lower income groups, since $10,000 means a lot more to someone earning $20,000 and paying a 25% flat tax than someone earning $1,000,000.
While state welfare would continue, federal welfare would be eliminated. Unemployment benefits could be cut as would disability payments. Disincentives disappear. Financial poverty for citizens disappears, war won.
The biggest benefit would be progressivity in a flat tax system that would sell it politically. Bureaucrats would be bypassed and the economy would take off.
Dan’s idea of closing federal welfare and sending the money to state bureaucrats does nothing to get rid of the disincentives.