There are more people collecting welfare than there are employed?

A conservative friend sent me an article entitled “Death Spiral States?” a little while ago.    The article claims that in 11 states there are now more people on welfare than are actually employed.  My friend than encouraged me to use this information in my blog.  So I think I will.

 

The article originated from a Forbes Magazine article by Bill Baldwin which purported to compare those who are dependent on the government for support from those who work for a private company.  Somewhere in the ocean of internet misconceptions, the idea of working for the government got interpreted as being on “welfare” (a la: Mitt Rommey probably).   

 

Never the less, my conservative friend, not realizing this misconception, apparently  believes that there are more people on welfare in the states of California, New Mexico, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, Illnois Kentucky, Ohio, New York, Maine, and Hawaii  than are actually employed in those states even though there are no references, footnotes or authority provided in the article.  On the face of it, this smells like a dead fish to me but apparently not to my friend.

 

So I did some research on-line.  Politifact.com, a research organization that tests the truthfulness of statements made by political organizations, found that the statement regarding the 11 states was based on the assumption that people working for the government were basically “welfare” recipients, as they were not working for the private sector.  On this basis, members of the US military are on welfare, all municipal workers who repair bridges and roads, all teachers, all policemen, all air traffic controllers are on welfare.  Also government pensioners, Medicaid recipients and wounded military personnel are living on “welfare”.  In fact, the friend sending me the article would be classified as on welfare for most of his working life since he worked for a contractor with the US Nuclear Navy. 

 

Not only are government employees included as “welfare” cases but children are also included as welfare recipients for the 11 states.  Of course children are not employed and should not be included when comparing welfare beneficiaries with employed workers.   Today, what most people call welfare, is administered by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) initiated during President Clinton’s era.  TANF goes to families with children and to children directly.  (TANF limits the life time benefits to 5 years. During that time the recipients must be searching for a job).  According to Health and Human Services, of the 4.6 million people accepting TANF assistance nationwide in 2011year, 3.4 million (74%) were children.  Politifact than did a state by state comparison for 2011 between adults on welfare and employed adults.  The state with the highest TANF welfare recipients was in Maine where the 13,821 welfare recipients amount to 2.1% of the 643,000 employed workers.  In most states, Politifact found that welfare recipients constituted about 1% of the employed workers, no where near exceeding the number of employed people.  (see google “Politifact.com more people on welfare than employed”)

 

However, TANF is not the only welfare program that offers assistance to individuals.  There are other forms of welfare, for example, Supplement Nutrition Assist Program, SNAP, formerly called “food stamps”, is also available. Also Supplement Security Income supporting the elderly and disabled.  There are also housing subsidies, social services, training and education aid and Medicaid.  Many people may be on more than one type of welfare, so there is a high probability of double counting.  Also many, perhaps most, welfare recipients are the “working poor”, they are working but their income level allows them to qualify for additional assistance.  These individuals should be counted as both employed and receiving welfare.  Recipients of these services on a state by state basis are difficult to determine.  However, another fact checking organization, Factcheck.org, did a comparison for the 11 “Death Spiral States” of the numbers of TANF and SNAP (food stamps) recipients compared to those employed.  In the highest state, Mississippi, about 696,000 people receive TANF and SNAP out of about 1,100,000 employed workers.  However the number of TANF and SNAP recipients includes children.  Allowing that about 75% are children and only 25% are adults, Mississippi has adult welfare recipients equaling 16% of the employed work force.  This too is no where near exceeding the number of employed. (see google, factcheck.org, people on welfare exceed number of employed workers)

 

So the statement “there are more people on welfare than there are working”, is a total misconception; it is a rotten smelly dead fish.  

 

WHAT’S THE CONCLUSION?

 

There a several things that bothers me about this issue.  First, my friend, a college educated and experienced individual whom I respect in most cases, swallowed the bait along with the hook.  He clearly accepted the statement.  It astonishes me that an intelligent person can accept such a seemly ridiculous claim without question.  It also disappoints me that I haven’t become rich by selling shares in the new Mitt Romney Bridge that is being built in New York City between Brigham Young and Joseph Smith streets.

 

Another thing that bothers me is the insinuation that all poor people are “bums” or “freeloaders”, living off the efforts of others.  It apparently hasn’t occurred to some people that in a nation of over 300 million there is going to be people that have physical or mental handicaps or through poor life choices, just cannot support themselves without assistance.  This happens in every society.  People on welfare do not choose to be poor and, the vast majority of welfare recipients are truly poor and need assistance.  After all, the government just doesn’t hand out checks without insuring help is needed.  Yet the continuous complaint of conservatives is that we are giving too much money to the “freeloading” poor.   In America we are fortunate enough to be able to provide support for those less fortunate individuals, unlike India, Somalia or Pakistan for example.  Americans pride themselves in lending a helping hand to our neighbor down the street and to those less fortunate.  So how is providing a little help to our unfortunate neighbor through our tax dollars any different?

 

Another insinuation connected with welfare “bums” is that most are people of color.  So here’s the statistics from the US Department of Health and Human Services of the total number of people accepting welfare divided by ethic group:

Percentage of recipients who are white ……….… 38.8%

Percentage of recipients who are black ……….…. 39.8%

Percentage of recipients who are Hispanic ……… 15.7%

Percentage of recipients who are Asian ………….   2.4%

Percentage of recipients who are Other …………..  3.3%

Conclusion, welfare recipients represent people of all races.

 

As I showed above, about 75% of welfare recipients are children.  Giving my friend the benefit of the doubt, he may not have known this.  (But he knows it now!)  When conservatives berate welfare recipients and demand that the cost of welfare be reduced, they are literally taking food from the mouths of children.  Reducing the benefits of welfare will not reduce the number of those needing welfare, it will increase it!  Placing children in a perpetual cycle of hunger and poverty assures that welfare will continue into the foreseeable future.  What will reduce welfare costs though is paying people a decent working wage.  Today the minimum federal wage is $7.50 per hour which equates to $14,500 per year for a 40 hour work week, 50 weeks per year job.  Such a low income is nearly impossible to live on?  Increasing the minimum pay rate, to say $15.00 per hour, $30,000 per year, and the welfare roles will drop along with the crime rate which is indelibly tied to income.  Drop the welfare roles and the money paid out of people’s pockets for welfare will also drop.  Conservatives hate welfare but they aren’t willing to do what’s necessary to reduce it.  They’re going to “pay-the-piper” one way or the other, either they pay welfare and keep people dependent on the government or they are going to permit people to make a livable wage, give incentives for learning and promote decent income jobs so they won’t need welfare.

 

The orchestrators of lower minimum wages of course is business.  Businesses love low wages.  Business pays workers the lowest wage they can to increase profit and then let America support their employees with welfare.  Take Walmart for example, one of the biggest, most profitable retailers in the world.  According to PBS.com, many Walmart employees work less than 28 hours per week so they are part time and get no benefits.  Wages are slightly above minimum wage, but with only 28 hours per week, the annual income is even less than $14,500.  The American tax payer is, in effect, supplementing Walmart wages.  While there are NOT more people on welfare than there are working, I agree that there are too many people on welfare.  We’ve got to wise-up and do what it takes to reduce welfare dependency and get people working for a decent living.  This is the path toward fewer welfare recipients.

   

Budget Debate

Budget Debate

Early on Saturday, March 23, the U S Senate approved a budget for year 2014, the first budget approved by the Senate in 4 years.  The budget calls for about $1 trillion of tax increases and about $875 billion in spending cuts over the next 10 years.  The spending cuts come from reduction in federal health care programs, domestic and military spending and reduced interest on borrowed money.  This budget presents an obvious solution to our country’s financial problems, increased taxes while cutting spending.  This is what an American family would do if they faced financial difficulty, get a part-time job and lower the heating a little bit.  Americans know this, fighting two wars and a severe financial crisis without providing proper funding has resulted in big problems.  As unappealing as it is, most American are not free loaders and are willing to pay increased taxes if it will get us out of this mess.  Most Americans are not free loaders despite what Romney believes.

Unfortunately, Republicans, especially those in the House who must also approve a budget, do not see it this way.  The Republican plan calls for reducing spending only.  This is akin to solving your financial problems by turning down the heat, selling the house, stop buying food and eliminating 6 packs (a really drastic measure).  The Republican plan calls for major cuts to almost all programs in America.  The plan calls for transforming Medicare into a voucher program for the states.  This will effectively destroy Medicare as we know it.  Why anyone would suggest eliminating Medicare that  has helped almost all retired Americans, including the mothers and fathers of those in congress, over the last 60 years, defies reason.  But Medicare does have problems, it’s going bankrupt.  But rather than killing the system, let’s fix it.  People are living longer now, so why don’t we adjust the age of eligibility for Medicare from 65 to say 68 or 70.  This only makes sense.  Congress on the Democratic side should stop fighting an increase in the eligibility age and start fighting to save Medicare.  In addition, Medicare is paid for by a 1.45% payroll tax placed on employees and their employers.  This small amount used to be enough to pay for Medicare services.  Now though, with the high cost of medical care and fewer workers, 1.45% won’t cover the costs.  The answer should be obvious, even to a Republican Congressman, increase the payroll tax on the employee and the employer to say 2% or 3%.  This will still result in the best and cheapest medical service you can buy.  Let’s tell Congress on both sides to fix the system rather then destroy it.

Terry AmRhein