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.
No comments:
Post a Comment