In what is yet another clear indication of just how far out of control things have been allowed to get, it was recently pointed out that the amount of money spent on welfare programs equals, when converted to cash payments, about "$168 per day for every household in poverty." And that's according to the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. According to the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee, welfare spending per day per household in poverty is $168, which is higher than the $137 median income per day. When broken down per hour, welfare spending per hour per household in poverty is $30.60, which is higher than the $25.03 median income per hour. Is that not NUTS! And ya know how Barry just loves to talk about the need for things to be fair and shit, well just how fair is this cockeyed little arrangement? It's not! But hey, as long as those who vote for Democrats are making out, it's no problamo!
"Based on data from the Congressional Research Service (CRS), cumulative spending on means-tested federal welfare programs, if converted into cash, would equal $167.65 per day per household living below the poverty level," writes the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee. It goes on to point out, "By comparison, the median household income in 2011 of $50,054 equals $137.13 per day. Additionally, spending on federal welfare benefits, if converted into cash payments, equals enough to provide $30.60 per hour, 40 hours per week, to each household living below poverty." Furthermore, "The median household hourly wage is $25.03. After accounting for federal taxes, the median hourly wage drops to between $21.50 and $23.45, depending on a household’s deductions and filing status. State and local taxes further reduce the median household’s hourly earnings. By contrast, welfare benefits are not taxed." Again, how fair is that?
And so if I understand things correctly, the universe of means-tested welfare spending refers to programs that provide low-income assistance in the form of direct or indirect financial support, such as food stamps, free housing, child care, etc, and which the recipient does not pay into (in contrast to Medicare or Social Security). For fiscal year 2011, CRS identified roughly 80, that's EIGHT-ZERO, overlapping federal means-tested welfare programs that together represented the single largest budget item in 2011, totally more than the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense. The total amount spent on these federal programs, when taken together with approximately $280 Billion in state contributions, amounted to roughly $1 Trillion. Nearly 95 percent of these costs come from four categories of spending: medical assistance, cash assistance, food assistance, and social / housing assistance.
Under what's being referred as being Barry’s FY13 budget proposal, means-tested spending would actually increase an additional 30 percent over the next four years. The diffuse and overlapping nature of federal welfare spending has led to more than a little confusion regarding the scope and nature of 'benefits.' For instance, Newark Mayor, and New Jersey Governor hopeful, Cory Booker has recently received a great deal of attention for adopting the "food stamp diet" in which he spends only $4 a day on food (the median individual benefit) to apparently illustrate the insufficiency of food stamp spending, at $80 Billion a year, or the impossibility of reductions. The situation Booker presents, however, is not quite accurate: a low-income individual on food stamps may qualify for $25,000 in various forms of welfare support from the federal government on top of his or her existing income and resources, including access to '15' different food assistance programs.
Further, even if one unrealistically assumes that no other welfare benefits are available, the size of the food stamp benefit increases as one’s income decreases, as the benefit is designed as a supplement to existing resources; it is explicitly not intended to be the sole source of funds for purchasing food. Booker is just another pathetic Democrat who apparently thinks he can score some cheap political points as he readies himself to run against Christie next year. Of all the important things that are now so urgently in need of being addressed, we have this dope out there trying to make the point that the government isn't spending enough money on a program which it’s currently spending too much. But like with all Democrats, you can never spend too much money, even if you’re duplicating effort, because spending money, especially other people's money, shows how much you really care about folks. To not do so only means you're greedy, selfish and uncaring.
No comments:
Post a Comment