Learning from the tremendous success of welfare reform during the Clinton Administration, the entire Washington-based welfare state should be junked.
It’s a complicated and costly mess that traps poor people in dependency while ripping off taxpayers and creating very comfortable lives for “poverty pimps.”
It would be much simpler (and more effective) to simply take all the money that’s now being spent on these programs and send it to the states 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 programs.
I’ve previously written about how this would be a very desirable reform of Medicaid. Today, let’s build upon some previous analysis and explain why it would be good to get Washington out of the business of Food Stamps.
Let’s start with the fact that the program subsidizes purchases that have nothing to do with avoiding genuine hunger and deprivation. Indeed, as documented in a story in The Federalist, Food Stamps subsidize a considerable amount of unhealthy food.
New data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture reveals food stamp recipients spent more money on sweetened beverages than they did on fruits, vegetables, bread, cereal, or milk. The USDA analyzed transactional data from a leading grocery store in 2011 and found that Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) households spent a greater percentage of money on unhealthier foods than those who didn’t use taxpayer funds to pay for their groceries. …The recent USDA study only looked at data from one grocery store retailer. It did not examine how SNAP funds were spent at convenience stores, which presumably would have significantly increased the amount of unhealthy foods purchased with taxpayer dollars.
Here are some of the details.
…The second largest expenditure for SNAP households was sweetened beverages, whereas the second largest expenditure for non-SNAP households was vegetables. …SNAP households spent 7.2 percent of their money on vegetables, while non-SNAP households spent 9.1 percent of their grocery money on this category of food. When comparing fruit purchases, the gap widens slightly: SNAP households spent 4.7 percent on fruits, and non-SNAP households spent an averages of 7.2 percent in the same category.
Here’s the comparison of purchases from those with food stamps and those using their own money.
As one might suspect, the problem has gotten worse during the profligate Bush-Obama era.
During President Obama’s tenure, the numbers and percentages of Americans using taxpayer’s money to buy their groceries has drastically increased. SNAP participation has increased 78 percent in the past ten years and remains near its all-time high… Food stamp usage also dramatically increased during President George W. Bush’s tenure… That’s because Bush signed a dramatic expansion of food welfare inside a farm bill. This expansion, among other things, made it easier to sign up and made non-citizens eligible to use U.S. taxpayers’ funds to fund grocery excursions.
By the way, I think poor people (indeed, all people) should be able to eat anything they want. That being said, there’s something perverse about subsidizing and encouraging unhealthy patterns.
Particularly when obesity is one of the biggest health problems in low-income communities.
The program also has always had major problems with fraud, as illustrated by a recent scandal in Florida.
The U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida announced the largest food stamp fraud bust in U.S. history Wednesday afternoon. …500 people had their identities stolen in Palm Beach County to be used to get fake Electronic Benefit Transfer cards which were then exchanged for cash… Federal charges were filed against 22 retail store owners or operators in connection with schemes to illegally redeem food stamp benefits for cash, the Justice Department said. Indictments allege the retailers received more than $13 million in federal payments.
Even millionaires bilk the system.
A Geauga County millionaire—who comes from royalty—has been indicted on charges he illegally received food stamps and medicaid assistance. Ali Pascal Mahvi is facing four felony counts which could put him behind bars for more than four years if convicted. …Meyer informed Mahvi of the indictment at Mahvi’s 8,000 square foot home. …Prosecutors say Mahvi defrauded Medicaid out of $45,000 and about $8,400 in food stamps. Mahvi, who is the son of an Iranian prince, estimates his worth at about $120 million. His $800,000 home features five bedrooms and five bathrooms, an in-ground swimming pool, and stable with horses. Mahvi, who says he owns 70 percent of a resort in St. Lucia, says he’s played by the rules.
And some scammers become millionaires from the other end of the system.
Convenience store owner Vida Ofori Causey out of Worcester, Mass. was charged in federal court Monday after pleading guilty to $3.6 million worth of food stamp fraud. …“Causey purchased the benefits at a discounted value of approximately fifty cents for every SNAP dollar,” a press release from Department of Justice stated. “By so doing, Causey caused the USDA to electronically deposit into a bank account controlled by her the full face value of the SNAP benefits fraudulently obtained.” As a result, recipients had cash on hand to buy restricted items. The restricted items could include alcohol, cigarettes and even drugs.
Stories like this reinforce the argument that states should be in charge of the program, if for no other reason than there will be fiscal pressure not to waste so much money.
Moreover, there’s considerable evidence that states are more sensible in their approach. I’ve already written about good reforms in Maine and Wisconsin. Well, the Daily Caller has encouraging news that the good news in those states is part of a national trend.
The number of people receiving food stamps has declined sharply due in part to the reinstatement of work requirements earlier this year, according to a report Wednesday. …“Caseloads fell sharply in April, especially in states reinstating a three-month time limit for unemployed childless adults without disabilities, new Agriculture Department data show,” CBPP detailed in its report. “The data, covering the first month in which most of the roughly 20 states that imposed the time limit in January began cutting people off.” The USDA has required food stamp work requirements since an overhaul of the program in 1996. Able-bodied adults without children are required to work at least 20 hours a week or else lose their benefits after three months. …Work requirements have now been restored in a total of 40 states compared to 44 states this past June that had either a waiver or a partial waiver.
And let’s look specifically at some positive developments in Kansas.
…before Kansas instituted a work requirement, 93 percent of food stamp recipients were in poverty, with 84 percent in severe poverty. Few of the food stamp recipients claimed any income. Only 21 percent were working at all, and two-fifths of those working were working fewer than 20 hours per week. Once work requirements were established, thousands of food stamp recipients moved into the workforce, promoting income gains and a decrease in poverty. Forty percent of the individuals who left the food stamp ranks found employment within three months, and about 60 percent found employment within a year. They saw an average income increase of 127 percent. Half of those who left the rolls and are working have earnings above the poverty level. Even many of those who stayed on food stamps saw their income increase significantly. …Furthermore, with the implementation of the work requirement in Kansas, the caseload dropped by 75 percent. Previously, Kansas was spending $5.5 million per month on food stamp benefits for able-bodied adults; it now spends $1.2 million.
P.S. In the long run, the block grant should be phased out so the federal government isn’t involved at all in the business of income redistribution. If we care about the limits on federal power in Article 1, Section 8, then states should be responsible for choosing how much to raise in addition to choosing how to spend.
P.P.S. Just in case you think fraud and waste is a rare problem in the program, here are some other examples.
- Using food stamps to buy luxury coffee at Starbucks.
- Buying steaks and lobster with food stamps.
- The Obama Administration rewarding states that sign up more food stamp recipients.
- Proposals to make it easier to use food stamps at fast food restaurants.
- College kids scamming the program for handouts.
- New York City giving food stamps to newly released prisoners and running foreign-language ads encouraging more people to sign up for the program.
- The Octo-Mom mooching off the food stamp program.
- The Agriculture Department running radio ads to lure more people into food stamp dependency.
With stories like this, I’m surprised my head didn’t explode during this debate I did on Larry Kudlow’s show.
P.P.P.S. While I periodically mock California, folks in the Golden State deserve praise for being the least likely to use Food Stamps. Their neighbors in Oregon, by contrast, are very proficient at mooching.
[…] so there are lots of opportunities for progress. Medicaid is an obvious example, along with food stamps. Especially since both programs are riddled with […]
[…] so there are lots of opportunities for progress. Medicaid is an obvious example, along with food stamps. Especially since both programs are riddled with […]
[…] even the limited intervention in this sector (farm subsidies and food stamps, for instance) have nothing to do with qualms about private provision of […]
[…] budget should be wiped out and transferred back to state and local governments, including redistribution, health care, transportation, […]
[…] federal budget should be wiped out and transferred back to state and local governments, including redistribution, health care, transportation, and […]
[…] today about the fiscal impact of entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, EITC, Food Stamps, welfare, and Obamacare, etc), here’s a video of how it all […]
[…] on the success of state-level reforms in Kansas, Maine, Wisconsin, Alabama, and Georgia, the Trump Administration has proposed to tighten rules […]
[…] but that would be akin to nationalizing grocery stores to deal with the inefficiencies created by food stamps and agriculture […]
With the forthcoming of blockchain technologies, innovation seems far from over, and new and innovative functions and systems surface. We seek to orchestrate the adoption of an altogether decentralized ecosystem by making use of distributed ledger technology. It certainly is a very stimulating time to be established in the blockchain area and while more individuals adopt this disruptive technology, it is going to hopefully permit us to develop a more reliable, appropriate and open world.
[…] let’s look specifically at food stamps. I’ve already explained why federalism is the right way of fixing the […]
[…] The only good policies I could find in the United States, by contrast, were food stamp reforms in Maine, Wisconsin, and Kansas. […]
[…] would be better to create a block grant that slowly phases out over a number of years (as part of an overall plan to get the federal government out of the redistribution […]
[…] but that would be akin to nationalizing grocery stores to deal with the inefficiencies created by food stamps and agriculture […]
[…] the standard argument against conventional handouts such as welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, EITC, and housing subsidies. The plethora of such programs in Washington is bad news for […]
[…] but that would be akin to nationalizing grocery stores to deal with the inefficiencies created by food stamps and agriculture […]
[…] the standard argument against conventional handouts such as welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, EITC, and housing subsidies. The plethora of such programs in Washington is bad news for […]
[…] but that would be akin to nationalizing grocery stores to deal with the inefficiencies created by food stamps and agriculture […]
[…] programs for the ostensible purpose of alleviating poverty (e.g.., Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, […]
[…] automatically get big handouts from the federal government because of programs such as Medicaid and food stamps. So if you compared this map with a map of poverty rates, there would be a noticeable […]
[…] programs for the ostensible purpose of alleviating poverty (e.g.., Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, […]
[…] We haven’t seen any progress out of Washington (hardly a surprise since we have a “food stamp President“), but Kansas joined Maine and Wisconsin by taking steps to limit the program’s one-way […]
David:
As Yogi Berra said: “In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they’re not.”
If a you believe a FlatTax has no impact on prices or costs, where did the extra $25,000 in take-home pay for Joe come from?
In “FairTax, the Truth, by Boortz and Linder” there is a note on page 148, stating that the FairTax would cause inflation of 24.8%.
You could argue that market forces will drive gross salaries down to previous net salary levels. I agree that some movement in that direction will occur, however, the equilibria reached will be different for every different set of circumstances, so the average inflation amount is unknowable, but it will be substantially positive.
The phantom tax problem is only one of the flaws in FairTax, NST, or VAT implementation. Many of those flaws disappear, if you are only considering business taxes, as opposed to taxes on salaries. Before recommending a tax policy change it’s important to understand the implications.
While a true flat tax eliminates much what the IRS currently does, the FairTax will not eliminate the need for collection enforcement. I would contend that collection of taxes on services will be a nightmare to enforce.
Your “phantom tax” objection mystifies me. I don’t understand your point. A national retail sales tax eliminates most of the machinery of the IRS and all its perils. If the 16th amendment could be repealed, a sales tax is superior to any income tax, because there is no need to determine and measure income. In terms of economic effects, a NRST and a flat tax are equivalent.
David:
I’m afraid the FairTax is fatally flawed. The most serious problem is the “phantom tax”.
If you eliminate income taxes, the tax cost does not go away. For example, if Joe makes $100,000 and pays 25% in income taxes, when you eliminate the tax he gets his gross income of $100,000, so what was previously a tax does not disappear. The FairTax would then add 23%, or an additional $30,000 in taxes. The labor cost in the final product or service would have gone up by 30%. That sort of price inflation would be a disaster.
Those with high incomes would have the greatest benefit, those with low or fixed incomes would be totally screwed. The number of units sold would decline and exports would disappear.
Your thinking is correct on a UBI [instead of the proposed prebate], if you have a flat tax. Those currently on welfare or safety-net support obviously would pay no taxes. Those paying taxes would all be subject to the same flat rate, and their employers would accurately withhold taxes. And, if taxes collected are accurate, why not have the employer file all annual tax forms?
This has a similar effect as the FairTax’s no more tax filing, but it allows for a smooth transition.
People love the FairTax claim that incomes will go up when the income tax disappears. That is true, but cost increases will negate the benefit.
Note that Joe gets a 33% increase in take home pay. If the FairTax rate was 25%, that would result in a plus tax labor cost increase of 33%.
I think I agree with much of what you wrote. I want to think about UBI combined with the FairTax, but only after abolition of the 16th Amendment, as Dan would say.
Doktor:
A UBI would bypass Washington bureaucrats, who would no longer be needed.
I think you’re wrong about 90% stupidity, they just want to live their lives in their own way. +90% would be just fine making decisions in their own interest with their own money. If they spend it on tattoos, piercings, and drugs; either they will later correct their mistakes or suffer the consequences.
David:
Charles Murray was correct up to a point, however, his Universal Basic Income relies on means-testing, limiting the Basic Income to those making somewhere below $30,000, creating huge disincentives to make more than that.
A better approach is an Unconditional Basic Income (also a UBI, Murray should have known better when he revised his “In Our Hands” book recently) which is given to all citizens, regardless of income. Murray’s plan would only use money from current safety net programs, so he had to limit payments. An Unconditional BI is only possible if you take money from those programs PLUS current “tax expenditures”, of $1.2 trillion. This would eliminate current tax deductions, which primarily go to the wealthy, and instead flatten out those tax reductions to benefit the entire working citizenry.
Murray is correct and Dan is wrong in that the money should not be given to the states but rather given directly to individuals and let them figure out how to most effectively use it. I don’t see how taking the money from one bureaucracy and giving it in block grants to another bureaucracy improves the situation. You also would have the political football of which state gets what. Would it be by cost of living in each state, by numbers on welfare, federal tax revenues from the state, or by population?
The role of the states and charities should be to help those in need beyond minimal UBI payments, which should equal the federal poverty level (FPL). Once all citizens were relieved of financial poverty, focus would be on those who cannot function normally because of temporary or permanent physical, medical or mental issues that require additional resources.
No program of support for those in need can be viable, if the combination of taxes and lost benefits makes the effective tax rate higher than that paid by the wealthiest individuals. Means-tested benefit losses become barriers to working one’s way out of poverty.
I am sick of seeing people with foodstamps buy food I cannot afford.
Unless you are organizing to de-throne Washington D.C., your words are empty and worthless. They have no power unless there is a goal. Education is a process, not a goal.
90% of The People are too stupid to understand your point(s).
“Washington has to be closed.” That that is the real message. You can repeat it. Lightning will not strike you. ©2016
Reblogged this on Gds44's Blog.
What about UBI as proposed by Charles Murry?