This is an interesting article. More interesting are the comments. Roughly 25% seem to have anger at the idea of giving any handout, and seem to think all recipients are cheats. Another 25% or so don't like to equate TANF with Social Security, one is a hand out the other is a bona fide insurance program. 40% seem to argue that safety nets are necessary and helpful. an 20% or so complain about corporate welfare.
I wonder if everyone would agree to help seriously helpless people who have children and have been out of work, being laid off. Or lost everything in a Hurricane. I wonder if Food Stamps/SNAP which provides food, not cash to families at a level of income that makes nutrition vulnerable, is OK.
I wonder if the numbers are helpful. TANF costs $17 Billion or $5/person/year in taxes. Food Stamps cost $70 Billion or $20/person/year in taxes. I can't get excited about the cost. I don't know whether there is rampant cheating, so cost/benefit is vague. I do know that I would be happy that my $25 helped only half of the recipients.
Our total budget is $4 Trillion or $11,000/person/year. Now figure out what your family should pay: 2=$22K 3=$33K etc. If you are paying less, you are a, wait for it, a "Moocher". Our progressive tax system makes wealthier pay much more. I do, and I don't complain. I like my country and my government. I want all Americans to do well. $25 is not too much!
40
"Americans have increasingly come to dislike government, even as they have relied more on various forms of government assistance."
Nothing in this study measures "reliance"--receipt of a benefit does not indicate that a person needs or could not survive without that benefit. Two separate issues should not be conflated.
More importantly, perhaps, even if 100% of "reliants" dislike government, no paradox or perplexity should arise.
Assume that I work for a company that pays me $250,000 a year plus generous benefits. I rely on that compensation to support my family.
However, this company cheats its customers, files false reports to regulators, awards its CEO with under priced, predated stock options, uses transfer pricing gimmicks to divert income to low tax jurisdictions, and set price fixing agreements with other firms in the industry.
I rely on this company, but should I respect, admire, and otherwise endorse this company? I think not.
Same principle for government. I may accept all the benefits to which I am entitled (legally), but I need not respect and appreciate the way that government operates.
More importantly
4
The ironic thing is that direct cash assistance is far better for both the recipient and the tax payer than the hodgepodge of non-cash assistance programs.
One unified cash assistance program would be far cheaper to administer than a mix of food, housing, health, and other programs. It would also allow for the recipient to decide on their priorities - maybe one month they have an unexpected expense like a car repair and are willing to cut elsewhere to cover it - cash provides the flexibility. You can also save cash - thus allowing for someone to try to build their way out of poverty.
But of course there is always the prejudice that the poor can't be trusted to know their needs and we must give them goods instead of cash. Yes, some will indeed squander any assistance quickly, but most would be helped with a simple, clear, cash program, instead of having to navigate countless forms and conflicting incentives.
10
Coming from a Marxist critique of this phenomenon, there's a huge gap in American's understanding of class and socioeconomic status. We call people who are doing "ok" middle class, while basically everyone else is broke or skating on thin ice. Republicans play on racial and ethnic prejudice and fear to stop folks from asking class based political questions, while democrats up to this point have been content to play identity politics to the scorn of much of the republican base, while offering no real structural help to those that vote for them.
I hope that progressives win the day soon, but am concerned that without understanding basic class dynamics Americans, my friends, family and neighbors, will continue to make the same mistakes over and over again.
9
‘This is basically what government is. Government does favors for undeserving people, and it doesn’t help people like me who are working hard and playing by the rules.’ ”
This is where Democrats need to start. They need to help this demographic (working blue collar, working lower middle class) understand that government works for them, too. And social democracies are the best for ALL. If incumbent Democrats and DNC leadership aren't smart enough to figure out how to do this, then they need new leadership. Republicans have been doing educating people to their particular brand of capitalist dictatorship for over 40 years quite effectively, so clearly it's not rocket science.
12
I'm from Canada but have dual citizenship. I have never understood some Americans' hatred of low-income people and how corrupt politicians are able to use that hatred in order to get elected and work to destroy the social safety net in this country. The cruelty is completely alien to me. The joy they receive in kicking those who are down is shocking.
26
The idea that Americans' "feelings are shaped by opinions about other people’s reliance on government aid — specifically, on 'welfare'.” was expressed pithily by Ambrose Bierce in 1911 in his Devil's Dictionary. "Calamities are of two kinds: misfortune to ourselves and good fortune to others."
8
Hey look at the "Dependence on Government Programs in 2014"! The darkest red matches Trump country. Surprise!
8
This is a good digest of what looks like an excellent study.
Of course I've no idea what to do about folks who can be handed facts and figures showing that they and theirs are the ones who take up (and generally need) most of what they call, "welfare," then jump up and down and insist that They--you know, immy-grants and black welfare queens and lib'ruls--are the problem.
Honestly, what do you do with people who can't be bothered to know how auntie's nice nursing home, or their cousin Dave's drug rehab program, or their sister's nursing school, or that new leg for the kid next door who came home from Iraq dinged up, get paid for? What do you do with their insistence that THEY earned it, THEY'RE entitled, not like those crooked, drunken layabouts?
I mean, I dunno even how to explain that if you're gonna rant about black women with too many kids, might be a good idea to stop yammering about Planned Parenthood and Head Start.
Oh, well. Not really the point here. Excellent article; thanks.
11
@Robert
"I mean, I dunno even how to explain that if you're gonna rant about black women with too many kids, might be a good idea to stop yammering about Planned Parenthood and Head Start."
I have never heard anyone complain about someone
(of any race) who gives birth to children she and her husband can support. When people do complain about the parenthood of those who cannot afford children, they complain about the failure to exercise personal responsibility--without which no free and equal society can prosper.
Planned parenthood and head start represent separate issues. Reason can clearly support personal responsibility without supporting these entities.
4
Nobody wants to talk about the inherited “welfare” benefits that the children of the well off receive from birth into adulthood. What a huge advantage that is! And what is the connection between inheritance and intelligence or hard work? One doesn’t have to look beyond the daily Twitter news to find convincing evidence that there very likely is none. If supporting “welfare queens” is anathema to some, let’s at least give their children a significant measure of support to enable them to be successful and productive adults. At birth they are no less deserving than the children of the wealthy. Providing all children with the education and social support they need might actually do a lot bring the need for “welfare” to an end.
Vote.
24
Starting with Reagan, the Republicans have done an outstanding job of making their voting base believe that government is the enemy of the people. The true enemy to the people is big business industries (Banking, Medical, Corporations, Real Estate), which preys upon people both as employees and consumers.
The only "welfare" that should hold negative connotations is the welfare big business receives from our government -- which is us, our taxes and meager incomes are supporting the 1%.
Democrats don't need to play the Republican game of lies, deceit, corruption etc to win. But they do need to beat them at their own game by using the same tactics to "educate" the masses about the truth.
7
“Promote the general welfare” is a core function of our government as enshrined in the Constitution. Because of what the GOP, since Reagan, has done to that one word, they’ve also dismissed this function as a happy (for them) bit of collateral damage. The GOP, in its actions for the last 40 years, has completely rejected this aspect of our government’s sworn function. Some originalists!
8
Across the bottom 50% of the country, most people have someone in their own family who is gaming the system, and living without working. In many cases, that someone is also getting help from his family as well. In nearly all cases, that family member is the same race as the rest of his family, but he just doesn't feel like working and earning a living.
Family members will support these sorts of people, and try to help them, but it opens their eyes to what is going on. Personal experience is what drives their political views.
5
And Ronald Reagan was the one who started all this animosity against people who demonstrably don't exist. What a fraud he was.
9
This is the same as the foreign aid nonsense: "Why do we give money to other countries? We need to keep that money here!! I don't want to pay for somebody in (poor country of your choice, often inhabited by folks with dark skins) to be a lazy swine.
Well, the foreign aid does keep the money here -- something over 90% is earmarked to be spent in the US, usually on military stuff. We are giving money to our military-industrial folks, by way of other countries.
Same with "welfare". Where do folks think that money goes? Down a sewer? It goes to various businesses and providers.
4
Your article doesn't mention the increasing number if people living from sixty-five to eighty-five years old.
4
I grew up in that red line stretching along the Appalachians. Scamming welfare has been an art form since Roosevelt. That doesn't make us any less bitter about the leash around our neck. Welfare is most certainly a leash, designed to buy votes.
6
One wonders why those who dislike "the leash," so very much don't more often respond by getting up off the davenport, going to school, and getting a job.
6
People are really happy to get what they didn't earn and don't deserve. There's no shame in winning the lottery. What people hate is when the Wrong People get something. Of course, they themselves are never the wrong people.
This is where Trump is suppossed to help: he's going to pull the strings and do the dirty work to make sure only the Right People get the benefits. And lots of people think it's going to be them.
So if Trump does a few shady things, its OK, because he's working for the Right People. doing what he has to do. Since Government and Justice have failed, he'll just have to take the law into his own hands. Makes sense, doesn't it?
5
And when republican lawmakers impose work requirements on things like food stamp benefits, as they did here in Michigan, they make special exceptions for people who live in areas that aren’t densely populated. Which means rural areas. Which means poor, white and uneducated. Which tends to mean die hard republican. Which also means their base.
Because when they talk down about welfare, what they’re really talking down about is help for minorities (i.e. poor people who live in densely populated urban areas). The systemic abandon and disenfranchisement of these urban poor by the American government is too long a subject to take up at length in a comment, but it is both intentional and longstanding.
The shameless right wing hypocrisy is infuriating, yet we hear very little in the news about this boldfaced insulation of poor white voters from the hardships imposed by inhumane legislation. The rural welfare recipient will stick by a politician whose policies pose a direct threat to their well being, mainly because the politicians play on their fear of the other and to their religious beliefs. And for that loyalty, they are rewarded with duplicitous legislation like the rural exemption for the work requirement. Truly shameful.
11
Corporate welfare is the problem. A parasitic affair.
10
Words or terms combining dependence and government in a country that prides itself on independence are usually fraught with stigma. Often by design. Ditto for such classics as 'entitlement' or 'reform.' Whatever happened to the good ol' American phrase, 'Lend 'em a hand'? To some, it was abused. To others, it was refused. To all, it's become confused.
6
And what about the mortgage interest deduction? What about tax subsidies to financial instruments that help people save for college, particularly when they mostly benefit people who are already very comfortable? Benefits to the lives of wealthy people from subsidies to banks because of the 2008 financial crisis? How many people in the financial community would have done more net good to the US if they'd spent the years 1998 - 2008 playing video games and eating chips in their den, rather than selling loans again and again to people who couldn't afford them, to then package those loans into financial instruments to sell, sloughing off responsibility for the doomed loans they'd been hawking so fervently? Why give financial types with a history of involvement in criminal conspiracy (and maybe we should include their policymaker partners in this - let's face it, they all knew what they were doing and what would happen) welfare? How are any of these examples of government subsidy 'earned'?
10
@TPM - These are not subsidies, just ways of calculating how much tax is due. If there was no mortgage deduction, then tax rates would be lower. Just letting people keep some of the money they earn is very different from taking money from one person and giving it to someone else.
7
I love this: it reinforces all my favorite biases and bigoted ideas about Republicans in a nice, neat way. Plus, it enables me to dismiss all those nagging doubts about the rightness of my intellectually superior social class. All with the reassuring knowledge that it emanated from Cornell. I shall reread this tonight before I sleep, to ensure a sound repose.
I am a bit bothered by the fact that maybe the reason people hate the government is because of people like me...but that's silly. There again, perhaps the influx of cheap Chinese and Mexican goods really has destroyed working people's lives, making them depend on welfare, like the Don says? Nah....impossible. The Cornell scientists would have told us, wouldn't they? I mean, they wouldn't do these articles just to make my friends and I feel better, would they?
Why would they do that, though?
Hello, Cornell, can you write another one please, but make it absolutely clear that Donald is to blame for everything? Yeah, the weather too, that's right...good, thanks. Ah, that's better. I'll go and check my Apple shares now.
12
Of course people hate welfare because it is un-American. We have been stuck with it by politicians trying to buy votes and it does nothing but create the strange belief that somehow a person is entitled to get something, while doing nothing.
6
@Tom in Illinois The Preamble to our Constitution lays out the mission of government thus :
"Provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare [sic], and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
3
Republicans have managed to convince Americans that the word welfare is a dirty word used to describe people in need of help . Ironic that there is also corporate welfare where corporations are enabled to fleece the citizens of this country of same tax revenue so loudly bemoaned by them . Should one consider giving welfare if you feed a neighbor who has no food, such as a senior citizen , children whose parents cannot feed them properly , even a bum on the street? These are people fallen on hard times for many reasons , sometimes through their own doing but mostly thru no fault of their own . The only way to banish welfare programs is to banish poverty . A country that Republicans refer to as powerful , and wealthy , has lost not only its way but its compassion for their less fortunate citizens .
8
They don’t want welfare, they don’t want minimum wage, they don’t want labor laws, they don’t want unions, they don’t want more government jobs, they don’t want universal healthcare coverage, they don’t want food stamps and they don’t want to pay for public education. In other words, they want ten percent of the population to hoard all of the money and power, while the other ninety percent works themselves to death and dies in a ditch before they reach fifty. None of them have the remotest clue what life for the average American worker was like before all these now despised protections came along for the average employee. These same geniuses are also deluding themselves into believing they even have the most remote chance of being part of that elite ten percent. See you all in the ditch.
37
I'm kind of curious as to how 'welfare', which means something along the lines of 'good fortune, good health, & contentment', has become a dirty word to so many Americans.
4
@Mr. Adams
It's quite simple really. Our culture was founded upon the notion that a man might pull himself up by his boot straps, that self reliance was virtuous, and founded in a location where you are indeed on your own.
As a natural result the reception of charity of any kind is seen as shameful, and the receiving of charity that has been forcibly taken from your neighbors is even worse.
4
Welfare: When 12 billion dollars of taxpayer money is given to farmers, because they're "struggling economically".
Where's the public outcry from the right?
You know, "Why don't you pull yourself up by your own bootstraps? Make the effort to be independent. No excuses. Don't depend on taxpayer money... " Oh, this is different?
Seems many rural folks voted for Mr End-Free-Trade-Cause- Tariff Wars -Are-Easy-to-Win, so the consequences are theirs, too.
Farmers have been on welfare for decades. Like a lot of the working poor, their efforts are not enough and now they want a hand out. Well, what we hear them saying is they don't want a hand out, but what we don't hear them saying is "No" to it.
Until they have the smarts & courage to say "No" to Trump, they deserve their "welfare" label and every demeaning, self-righteous notion they attach to it. (And the 25 billion they want to spend for their Wall should be from their pockets. No welfare bailouts!)
Nothing like a taste of your own medicine.
15
Pro-government writers never seem to understand - or WANT to understand - how gov't actions got such a terrible reputation over the past half-century.
Everyday citizens watched as teenaged girls were told by their mothers that ir was time they started having babies so ''we can have some money in this house.'' Is there ANY faster way to tear down the family struxcctures that built our society than to remove fathers from families so that more money became available to spend?
The topper is that, of course, the citizens embittered by this cavalier treatement of the poor was done with TAX money. Was Lyndon Johnson really caring for these people, or was he simply locking away voters for his party?
Sorry, Lyndon, but black America is walking away from the Democrats in record numbers, led by its educated young adults. Trump is THAT marvelous a President.
4
I believe the Preamble to the US Constitution has the following as one of the purposes of government: “promote the general Welfare”. Article 1 also has the following phrase: “The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...”. The contemporary meaning of the term is “welfare” is certainly open to interpretation but I think the fact that it’s there twice should at least enter into any discussion of its current possible meaning.
4
@PD Frankly it's a bit contradictory of the FFs to use both promote, and provide when talking about welfare.
I also noticed that welfare was preceded by general each time. Leading this uneducated individual to conclude that welfare unlike all the other enumerated rights is not an individual right but a collective one. Hence the .gov is to be doing those things that make people's lives better in the broad sense, not person by person.
3
The author unfortunately mixes up means-tested and "earned" benefits both on the maps and in the article. Universal programs like Social Security and Medicare are supported by the huge majorities, and the main concern there is their financing coming short, not someone else not deserving the benefit.
8
It has been a long term policy of Republicans to demonize "Welfare" especially starting with Reagan to the present but corporate giveaways are embraced without comment. Republicans also, naturally, use the "dog whistles" of racism. I suspect, viewing all those MAGA Americans at Trump's rallies with their faces distorted by hatred are dependent on the government social network but cannot connect the dots of Trumpism. It is amazing that Americans do not look around the advanced world and ask why not us? The U.S. is increasingly becoming an "Outlier" compared to other advanced nations across the spectrum of social network issues from obviously healthcare to even safe drinking water.
7
@Ken McBride Hate to burst your bubble but the USA was specifically founded to be an "outlier." We are not "becoming" we always were.
3
As a social security and Medicare recipient I resent these programs being called welfare. My SS check is based upon how long I worked and how much I and my employers contributed to the program. That is bought and paid for. While Medicare part A is paid for by contributions paid for, again, by myself and my employer, I pay for part B myself. I carry Supplemental insurance and Part D for medications, paid for by myself. Not the government.
22
The most striking thing about the map in this article is that the major urban centers (NY/NJ, Chicago, San Francisco, LA) are actually the areas of the country with the lowest percentage of people on these social net programs.
Right wing voters and media love to point to these cities as full of minority "welfare queens", when the reality is once again the opposite.
Chalk it up to the continuing mis-education of America's working class voters, courtesy of a right wing media machine.
12
This is so true. I would be willing to bet the majority of Trump voters in my state depend on a patchwork of federal government programs to stay afloat economically. It appears these recipients s really believe they are “deserving” and “hard working” while viewing other recipients as “deadbeats” . There is almost never any logic or rational thought in the Trumpet state of mind.
6
I strongly disagree with the graphic "Share of Americans Using Government Programs" (Suzanne Mettler, Cornell U)
In the first place, Social Security is a contributory program, and should never be lumped with other entitlements. Secondly, "welfare" includes all of the other programs, being that the wider meaning of welfare includes all forms of grants or subsidies paid by the public to support the indigent. Thirdly, I noticed that HUD rent subsidies are missing.
This article is incomplete and misleading. What are the true costs of housing assistance, and, if by "welfare" we mean TANF, say so. We no longer have food stamps, we have SNAP which is entered onto a plastic "credit" card.
Instead of "welfare," a misnomer because it is inadequate for the well-being we think we're providing the indigent, a new name is much needed. Income "enhancements" or "income supports" are terms better suited to uphold the dignity of those who have less than you and I.
9
I think it is brilliant to label all these support programs "welfare" - see how fast the word loses its negative connotation when large groups of people realize THEY are on welfare.
2
@Lark That plan may actually backfire. The public at large are not that introspective.
3
If Walmart and other companies paid a living wage, American workers wouldn't need government programs. Walmart pays low wages and then takes taxpayer money when their employees use food stamps. Looks to me like Walmart is one of many corporate welfare queens.
15
The whole point of welfare should be to help people who have fallen on hard times through some misfortune such as illness, injury, job loss etc. Having children out of wedlock and not being able to support them is not a misfortune, it is a lifestyle choice. When women started having 3-4 children while on welfare, it made a mockery of the whole system. Everybody guesses the woman has one of more boyfriends who fathered those children and is not paying for them. Since the job market has improved lately, the disability rolls have started dropping. This gives credibility to the impression that a good percentage of those on disability are faking it. The point is that when somebody misuses these programs or is faking it, the relatives, friends and neighbors of that person know exactly what is going on though the government is clueless or does not care. That is where the bad reputation comes from. The people who use these programs are the ones who are more likely to know someone who has gamed the system because they live in a community where this is rampant.
11
Welfare has become such a dirty word, I'm surprised it's not bleeped on network news. Welfare means the state of being healthy, happy or successful. The founding fathers didn't think welfare was such a dirty word. They used it in the Preamble to the Constitution when they said a main purpose of government was to "promote the general Welfare." Not demote the general welfare. Not promote the gentrified welfare. Nor the corporate welfare. But the general Welfare for We the People and our posterity.
Welfare is NOT a dirty word. It's a beautiful word. And the promotion of peoples' welfare is a core responsibility of government.
1
No one can do anything at all without encountering the positive effects of government. From the clock that wakes you up in the morning (federal time standards) to the air you breathe (cleaner due to government regulations) to the food you eat (FDA) to the car you drive (safety standards), to the roads you drive on (regulations and standards) etc, etc, etc, etc. on to medical, retirement, job training, and so on. The ONLY people who do not recognize this are those who simply do not think at all. In other words, Trumpers.
9
We managed capitalism until 1973. Since then, it has managed us. I hope I live long enough for the middle and lower income groups to recognize that the enemy is not political liberalism, civil rights, the safety net, or even democracy; it's liberal economics, neoliberalism, or laissez faire, whatever name you want to give it. We enjoyed the Age of Compression for the 30 yrs ending in 1973 and have suffered the Age of Income Inequality ever since.
We have a choice--continue to try to reach Trump's base supporters or write them off as deplorables. If we write them off, we should not be surprised when they eventually turn on democracy itself, as a neofascist like Trump convinces them that only he, and not the rule of law, forged by the majority, can save them from the forces that are destroying their lives like welfare, immigration, the media, and so on.
3
"The negative power of the word is so strong, she suggested, that programs that garner broad approval under another name could easily be tainted by it. “Call something welfare,” she said, “and forget it.”
I think this is a great strategy. Welfare tax breaks for the wealthy are rampant and are endangering our society in many ways. Go for it, Democrats!
I remember seeing televised interviews with whites in Mississippi Arkansas, Kentucky, Alabama complaining bitterly about "welfare handouts" in one sentence and then in the next saying, "I don't want 'the government' taking away my social security and my medicare."
They seemed to not understand that social security and medicare are "welfare" and are provided by the "government" and that their states get back much more paid to their citizens in "welfare benefits" than their citizens pay in.
Something of a lack of education going on, perhaps?
9
social security has been paid for by taxpayers and employers and the amount received is based upon their earnings. Part A Medicare has been paid By payroll deductions and the retirees pay for Part B and Part D. Perhaps, you need a bit of education yourself.
4
The darkest parts of the map overlap with heavy Republican districts. The GOP is against government handouts unless it is to their voters. The strangest part is that their base votes for people who are trying to cut off their health care, food stamps, and jobs. They don't seem to notice. What did Trump call Lebron James and Don Lemon? I think that would apply to those in the darkest part of this map.
4
What about the bail-outs of financial institutions? Welfare? Defense and farm subsidies? Welfare? Tax cuts for wealthiest Americans?
7
All contemporary wealthy, developed democracies are welfare states, some more successful than others at getting right the mix of values, cultures, and aspirations involved in market based economics, provides some worthwhile levels of security against the crises that come into our lives (unemployment, illness and injury, old age, divorce and loss of a spouse/partner), while having competitive party politics and competitive interest group politics. All of us are quite dependent on all this working out, and some societies achieve better results in, say, health care provision and costs, than does America. Very few of us can say we are self-made; we are the beneficiaries of the investments/savings and good will of many others, via public policy and otherwise. Whatever quality of life the very young now will have decades later much depends on what today we invest in and save for others to use. No one should be so rich as to be able to wall off everyone else, and none should be so poor as to be unable to contribute something to "promote the general welfare" [Preamble, U.S. Constitution]. All of us are in debt to others, and those with more resources owe to those with too little and to the safety of the future.
2
Excellent point. I wish our fellow citizens that help us elect our Politicians had this mature insight. Politicians only do what their corporate masters want. That's often demanding that those Politicians shape & manipulate the issues to influence the debate. Once that's paid for, we the people vote said politician into office and keeps them there without realizing that policies & laws are being enacted that are against their interest. The sucker game is very advanced, and effective and even when you point it out to the voting citizens they ignore the reality of all evidence in their faces to justify their willful denial. @Michael Treleaven
Social Security: I paid in over $100,000 during my working years. I have done a return on investment if I live to 80, I am now 76, and find that my return is about 8%. Not bad but sure now welfare.
8
One thing I find interesting about an analysis like this is that it overlooks the largest social-welfare programs - agricultural subsidies and price supports. These programs dwarf social-welfare programs as defined in this article. I'd be very interested in seeing an analysis like this that includes agriculture and business "welfare".
10
I worked in non-profit for years, serving low income families and refugees. Most people use assistance sporadically, filling in gaps of underemployment, medical emergencies, family crisis, etc. They would use services for a months at a time, not years. Some assistance was temporary, such as child care covered while they attended to school. I remember a gal (one of many) who used a program we offered that paid all living expenses and child care for four years of school. She became a pharmacist. She bought a house and sent both her kids to college. Between the three of them, society got back a very good return on that investment.
11
@Anine I'd love to know which nonprofit this is, this is such great work. I'd love to support.
The map accompanying this article is very instructive--those areas of the country most dependent on government assistance are the same that tend to vote Republican. What explains American's failure to vote their economic interest? The Republican Party has been successful in using social issues and antagonism toward minorities to mask how it is using its base to advance an agenda and ideology at odds with the economic concerns of many Americans. Labor unions once were a strong retort to this cynical manipulation of workers, the pitting of one against the other for private gain. But, perhaps this is an opportunity for Democrats who should be putting every Congressional district and state house district in play, rebuilding a progressive base over time. After all, it took decades for the Republican Party to get to control most levers of power today.
6
The government-citizen disconnect is a real problem. I’m one of those people who does not feel that the government has my best interest at heart at all. Though I don’t hate welfare I do think it’s a flawed system. The only government program I’m aware of that I’m in, or ever have been in, is Social Security and so far it hasn’t paid me a penny but I’ve paid lots of money into it. I’m afraid it’s folks like this author who really don’t get it. The middle class has been forgotten in this country. How in the world do you think Donald Trump was elected? On a platform that the government doesn’t care about the middle class anymore and he’s right. Wages have been stagnant for 30 years and who has that been hurting? The poor have welfare and the rich have all the money. It’s the middle class that has been declining at an astonishing rate. Our government has allowed healthcare costs to skyrocket. We have an entire department of government now just for terrorism. It costs billions and billions of dollars a year. Yet so many more people have died of the opioid epidemic that the numbers aren’t even close. So why does the government not spend billions on the opioid crisis? These are just a few examples but there are many. Yes, the government-citizen disconnect is a serious problem because our government has failed its majority of citizens.
9
@Mike L "why does the government not spend billions on the opioid crisis?" probably the same reason they didn't spend millions on the heroin and crack crisis.
This is the old story of a failure of human empathy and imagination: "I am virtuous and deserve what I get from the USG, while the other person (especially if heshe is part of a racial minority and thus a presumed moocher) does not."
It is also evidence of a rising dependence on government handouts for many, many Americans because the profits of honest work are increasingly being hoarded by a privileged minority, who have been benefited again and again (corporate welfare, tax law, etc.) by government policies over the last 20-30 years. Thus the rising inequality in our society. Those policies depress the incomes of the working and middle classes...then the federal government tries (inadequately) to make up for it with "welfare" of various kinds....at the cost of a burgeoning federal deficit which will ultimately slow, if not wreck, the economy.
What the country truly needs is not so much a debate over welfare and its beneficiaries, but a debate over fundamental legal and economic reforms to allow the average person to once again make his/her own living without reliance on major government payments.
15
This article ignores the cash payments to farmers to not produce, or price supports (welfare), and the many forms corporate welfare takes. I would like my tax dollars to not be used for these purposes.
13
Dunno why it's a surprise that people come to dislike government more even as they rely on it more. It's a pretty predictable psychological reaction. Cognitive dissonance is frequently a coping mechanism, allowing people to behave one way themselves and then espouse beliefs very much at odds with what they actually do. It's very convenient to be able to have one set of rules and beliefs for yourself and another, more strict one for everyone else.
12
1979 was near the beginning of a five year period ('78-'83) in which the number of Americans in poverty WENT UP! The American Dream, the American Covenant and every other measure that showed Americans caring about more for each other before they took more for themselves was cast out. The last 40 years of economic progress has seen our Gini Coefficient moving in the wrong direction and our tax policy putting more money into the accounts of the Already Haves than spreading it broadly throughout all earning tiers. The game is rigged and is getting close to impossible to change without bloodshed.
15
People have been conditioned to believe welfare is an underserved handout to the "other", likely a black single mother with several children who lives in the inner city. There has always been a stigma but I think it goes back to the Reagan "welfare" queen. There should be simpler explanations of various forms of corporate welfare such as subsidies for mining, big agriculture, tax handouts for building plants, the military industrial complex, big pharma and much more. If, for example, polluting industry had to bear the full cost of production such as the impact on public health we would likely be much further down the road to alternative clean energy. We already pay the cost of cleaning up past pollution in system that privatizes profits and socializes many of the actual costs. Ranches lease public lands at a fraction of the going rate on private land and miners get leases at prices not changed in a 100 years or more.
23
I would like to see the numbers that compare the amount of taxpayer money that is spent on SNAP, medicaid and the true"handouts" as they are called with the amount for corporate handouts,Gov. pensions,bailouts,legal fees and political freebies.
Now take out of the equation social security, medicare and all the programs that the taxpayer contributes to gain the benefit.
The term Welfare is simply a political ploy and an excuse for the elites to use to gain even more wealth,discredit the poor and people of color and to deny the ill fated portion of our society.
29
What I would like to see placed in juxtaposition to these family government 'welfare' program's figures are the corporate government handouts which are doled out in the billions every year to thousands of what I suspect are businesses and corporations who are financially and politically undeserving of raking in these millions of taxpayer funds, which could in fact be helping solve our hugely fractured health care system and be shoring up our Medicare and Veterans health programs.
You can evoke the term 'welfare queen' all you like but the new world reality in which corporations such as Apple, with a one trillion dollar value worth, and Google, Amazon, Walmart, J.P Morgan, Citibank are all sitting on massive piles of cash, while the Walton's refuse to pay their employees living wages, forcing the bankrupt taxpayers to pony up ever more for SNAP and Medicaid expenses for their refusal to contribute their fair share, the term Corporate welfare queen is far more realistic in today's horrific pay to play political climate. Something's gotta give and soon because the current system is throwing more and more good people out to the dogs.
28
Weirdly enough, I wonder if rebranding all these social programs to "welfare" might blow up in the Trump administration's face. A lot of Trump voters who receive federal aid might change their tune once they realize all the welfare programs they claim to hate are the very ones keeping them alive
14
@Aaron
The Trump voters you refer to are so wrapped up in their hate that they would rather drown in Trump's whirlpool than grant another person the means to survive.
1
I always tell people, get every last dime that you can from Uncle Sam before it's all dried up or stolen. Who knows what will be left tomorrow? Not much or anything is a very good possibility.
3
If you ask those same Americans how they feel about Corporate Welfare (i.e. tax credits, tax write offs, etc, etc) they have no clue of the meaning. Major problem in America is that Corporate Welfare depletes the US Treasury of billions of dollars each year in tax revenue.
26
@Buzz D Corporate Welfare is not a real thing. Money that is earned by an organization does not become "welfare" when it is not taxed as much as you think it should be. A write off is an expense. A credit is the government trying to get a business to do something they otherwise would not do.
2
It occurred to me as I read the broad description of welfare in this article that the government bail outs after the most recent financial crisis could be perceived as welfare.
18
Larceny is a better fit.
17
Notwithstanding how economists view them, these are different types of programs.
6
Raise the minimum wage, a lot, to catch up to inflation. Outlaw (again) stock buybacks which waste company's money to only enrich the shareholders. Raise the tax on capital gains to above your regular income tax bracket. Break up large corporations and banks which are "too big to fail". Single-payer healthcare to eliminate much of the overhead in health spending.
We've got it all backwards. If people could earn a decent living without the government helping, they would. By hating the hand that feeds them, people give power to the .01% oligarchy, who don't care about us. One bit.
32
Oh my - look at the Kentucky/Missouri/West Virginia portion of the map. It continues to astound me that this population, with it's concentrated dependence on government assistance, also demonstrates the highest approval of Trump in the nation.
This is the clearest demonstration of both denial and racism that I have ever seen.
92
@Cousy. The dog obeys the leash, but despises it. Welfare has been a tool to command votes since Roosevelt.
2
Shocking how college professors and the NYT insist, at every opportunity, to purposefully muddy the waters.
Social security is an insurance program, paid by workers and employers - not the government.
Medicare is an insurance program, paid by workers and employers - not the government.
Unemployment is an insurance program, paid mostly by employers - not the government.
TANF, SNAP, Medicaid are welfare programs paid by taxpayers.
Mixing the two categories is simply liberal propaganda.
20
@Baron95- Not exactly, all of our tax dollars go to funding these programs. Calling Medicare an insurance program is a nice way to try to convince yourself that you're not getting any money from the government!
11
@Baron95. These data are the based on the "percentage of personal income". These are government run programs and they would not be here if not for the government. And social security is an annuity, but the pay back is not proportional to the pay in, as the lower income bracket get much more in return than the upper. The same can be said for Medicare because frequently, Medicare is not the primary insurer. Point in fact, Illinois pays more into these programs than they get in return. Guess which states get more than they pay in?
7
@Sallie
But at least they are paying in ...and a much larger % than teachers who claim to fund their own pensions ...
No one ever sees THEMSELVES as beneficiaries of government largess... what I get I've earned... It's always the other guy... and the other guy is getting something that he doesn't deserve... and much more importantly- where's mine?
18
"Welfare" is one of the terms successfully weaponized by Republicans, right up there with "liberal."
It is now shorthand for "your money being stolen from you to give to lazy (brown) others," and it is used to convince people to oppose programs and policies that would help those very people.
Meanwhile, the real welfare is given in mind-boggling amounts to corporations, wealthy individuals, and the military.
40
@Pat: as far as the military goes. The enlisted (those who’s lives are always in more danger) get paid so little their families qualify for straight welfare & things like SNAP. Since welfare is supposed to be temporary, maybe that’s why the military transfers each enlisted every 2 years unless there is a very good reason not too. Of course it means the spouse can’t get a good job & get off welfare, because these rich companies don’t want to train & have them move in 2 years. The government really doesn’t care.
I need to read her book - it echos a lot of other work that shows that more than half of us will have to depend on a means tested program at some point in our lives.
Yes race is an issue although the majority who receive TANF are not African Americans. But also I do not think you can discount gender. Welfare (even though a two parent household or a male headed household can receive it if their income is low enough) is seen as a way of enabling women to be promiscuous and let the government take care of the outcome of unprotected sex.
Hence the restrictions in many states on increasing the amount a parent receives if another child is born while she is on welfare (let's ignore the fact that all the research shows that this doesn't make a difference in the birthrate).
In the end, it is our country's way of supporting children in low income households - however meager it is. And, save letting them starve, it is the least expensive way to do so.
1
For all of those commenters who are asking in one way or another, “What about ‘corporate welfare’?” in its many guises:
Even if it were called that, the narrative masters would defend it by proclaiming that it is incentive. Giving money to a poor person, say the same masters, is disincentive, an invitation to laziness and malingering.
Yet each - the corporation and the poor person - are individuals. So says Citizens United and the Supreme Court.
Curious, isn’t it?
14
@The North
That you are saying that if I get to keep more of my income because I invested in my business ...
That equals getting money for not working at all?
yes ...curious indeed.
1
@The North: When a corporation can be drafted, it can be an individual. Until then, only those who work for that organization called a coporation or other job, can be called individual humans. Corporations are not humans. Can’t perform the functions of a human. So should not have ANY of the benefits of being human. Until then, ‘limited partnerships’ should be banned as that gives some corporations protections other ‘individual’ don’t have.
1
Interesting how the heat maps showing the greatest transfer of government funds to recipients of government programs pretty much mirrors the Trump electoral college map. The hypocrisy runs very deep in Trump country, but we've know that for quite a while now.
21
Please balance the maps of dependence with overlay maps of majority Trump voter areas. Any guesses to how they'll look?
5
@db2: How do you know that overlay isn’t there & they just forgot to tell us?
You have to pay all your working life for Social Security and Medicare. It is completely different from programs that do not require contributions. Putting Social Security and Medicare in this article simply demonstrates the prejudice of the author.
21
@William
More accurately it demonstrates the prejudice of the Trump government which cares not at all for the distinctions you make and plans to reduce both the programs you mention.
I'll grant it is, in some part, your money. So why aren't you boys out there telling Trump to back off?
1
Resentment against welfare is not limited to the US. Comments that extol the supposed utopia of Europe clearly come from people who have never lived there. In the UK, resentment against “spongers” and “cheats” is widespread. Brexit was largely powered by it. Even the Nordic countries are cutting down on benefits. But in any case, in these countries there are very clear and stringent criteria about who is entitled to what. And benefits are spread around in such a way as to satisfy our innate sense of fairness. Many countries, for example, pay child allowances to all parents, regardless of their income level. The American system is impossibly complicated and thus open to abuse. Taxpayers sense it and are rightly incensed at the way their money is spread around in this opaque and bureaucratic way. Why should welfare be distinct from SNAP? Why should SNAP even exist? Just give people money and let them spend it as they see fit. And if they are too stupid to feed themselves or their children, appoint a guardian and take their kids away.
13
We must change the narrative so that people understand that everyone benefits from welfare, even if they don't directly receive assistance themselves.
11
More evidence of the remarkable disconnect between what people want for themselves and what they want to give others, particularly if others are of a different racial group.
7
Most of the comments demonstrate, once again, that most Americans have no "social" sense. They insist on seeing themselves solely as individuals and not part of any community or wider society. The notions that we all owe each other something or that we are all responsible for each other are utterly foreign to most Americans. Of course, this flies in the face of the fact that we benefit from social enterprises -- the post office, highways, the police, public education and, yes, programs like Social Security and Medicare. It is also in conflict with many Americans' claim that they are Christians and that this is a Christian country. It is as if the tale of good Samaritan has been expunged from most Americans' copies of the Christian scripture.
14
If you are including Social security and medicare [paid by workers], you might as well include stocks, annuities and bonds.
6
somehow, the allergy to the word "welfare" doesn't extend to "corporate welfare" or "farmer welfare" or "oil industry welfare." that's worth an inquiry.
this is where i think racism is the real issue. welfare in my examples is equivalent to the word "subsidy", and the idea of a "poverty subsidy" or a "minority subsidy" implies you're endorsing or supporting a problem, not solving it.
and that's all the wiggle room a good racist needs.
3
Romney once referred to citizens receiving benefits derogatorily as the dependent 47%. Yet it is true that roughly half of all Americans are receiving some type of gov assistance. This during a supposed economic boom? As far as who receives this aid - the majority are poor whites and not people of color! What's really ironic and illogical is that many of these same poor whites are Republicans/Trump supporters who vote against their own self interests! As hi-tech artificial intelligence (AI) takes over millions of jobs in the next 10-20 years - the time has come for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) - thus eliminating some welfare programs=less bureaucracy and being universal like Social Security, it eliminates the stigma and division welfare creates. It's not a question of if as much as when. New young progressive leaders understand that capitalism in its present form is not sustainable with the oncoming steam roller that is the AI workforce, free of humans. The sooner we start to implement this UBI - the less chaos will ensue when corporations start dropping human workers by the millions in near future. God bless America! We need it!
5
@citizen314 The majority of people receiving benefits are white because the US is still a majority white country.
2
The politicians preference to decide who deserves aid and who does not based upon their own moral or ideological positions, while then enacting these views into public laws and policies is the chief problem, as it creates winners and losers, widens the income inequality gap, encourages greater cultural divides and makes government inefficient. Welfare is a collective necessity that we all pay for directly or indirectly, no matter if we are rich or poor, individual or corporation. The problem is those who have money influence the Government-(through lobbying) to target its resources in areas that benefit them financially-(through banking & tax policy, industrial, technological, community development aid). Is this all fair to the average family? Absolutely no, because a family is allowed to receive no more than a few thousand dollars when they hit hard times, but a business? they get BILLIONS from the government only to create more products and services that are structured to rob the average consumer out of the little money they do get-(Examples are Healthcare, Insurance, Housing, Law, & Banking). These 5 industries influence & dominate our bank accounts, wallets and pocket books thanks to the generous welfare policies the government has afforded each individually and collectively.
4
Being on the dole certainly has a pejorative connotation even for those who need the help. But when citizens see examples of uncaring bankers who walked away with gold parachutes from the 2008 meltdown while average citizens lost their homes and they see people getting huge tax breaks on vacation homes and resort beach restoration projects and bought off politicians, they feel they are just getting their due from a corrupt system.
5
Wow, is it ever true that a picture is worth a thousand words. Why is it that the politically reddest, Trumpiest parts of the country are also taking the most from not only the government but the bluest, most liberal regions?
Just here on my coast, far Northern California went hard for Trump and thereby Republicans. Yet 30-40% of it are "taking" while the pilloried liberal coast takes less. Same with conservative Oregon and Washington outside of Portland and Seattle which take far less while making those states blue.
And let's look at that bastion of conservative Chistrian values, the South. Oh lookie there, wide swaths are at 40% of "takers". Almost all of Mississippi, the most religious state in the nation, is at 40%. And look at Mitch McConnell's state; nearly a quarter of its population is at 50%!
Democrats need to hammer this fact in, blatantly and repeatedly in the face of bald-faced Republican lies. It's a truism that those who scream the loudest about something, whether it's the "sin" of homosexuality or "takers" on welfare, are generally the most guilty.
14
Excellent article, like anything else in life, the extremes are what you have to look out for.
In the era of the limo liberal circa 1960s-70s, countless people were put on the dole simply because they were minorities and the liberal elite wanted their votes and it almost ruined NYC and other cities.
On the other end, you have many examples of the opposite, ie corporate welfare, where the corporation or the billionaire gets almost everything and the worker almost nothing.
The general rule is to give outright welfare payments (ie subsidize a person totally with state money) only to the extreme very needy, ie mentally or physically seriously ill.
On the other hand, use things like SS, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc. as a tool to make sure the working guy at the bottom has a decent standard of living and it all doesn't go to corporate welfare to help the rich.
8
@Paul
"In the era of the limo liberal circa 1960s-70s, countless people were put on the dole simply because they were minorities and the liberal elite wanted their votes and it almost ruined NYC and other cities."
So, Paul, bold assertion. Got any evidence? Any at all?
1
Since Republicans' goals are to eliminate all "income redistribution" (except of course when it comes to redistributing wealth upwards, which they're all for) it makes perfect sense to rebrand as many programs as possible as 'welfare'. By giving it an unpopular label, they'll convince the same people who benefit from such programs to support politicians who will cut them.
This strategy exemplifies something the GOP is much better at than Democrats: manipulating language. Whether they're labeling succession duties as a 'death tax' or putting the snappy 'Americans for Prosperity' label on white papers and lobbying efforts that will in fact only help the 1%, the right has consistently won arguments before they start, by controlling the language of debate. Look at the way they managed to make 'liberal' a political insult. It's a label only a refreshing few Democrats even apply to themselves.
They say 'sticks and stones may hurt my bones, but words will never hurt me." That's definitely not true in politics, which is in fact nothing more than a battle of words.
6
@Mark Gardiner
There is no better confirmation of Orwell's thesis regarding the power of language as a means of political control than the continuous success of the Republican Party. Part of the reason that far-right-wingers consistently win elections and court battles is that they know how to manipulate people with language.
"Citizens United." The "citizens" were Charles and David Koch and Robert and Rebekah Mercer and they were "united" by their desire to enable unlimited legal political bribery and electioneering. To most Americans, it's not "a publicly funded healthcare system," it's "communist death panels."
Reactionary Republicans are experts at controlling policy by controlling the language of popular narrative. Why else would the vast majority of Americans think that a huge percentage of their tax dollars go towards (imaginary) "welfare payments to illegal immigrants" or that billionaire private equity hedge fund CEOs are "job creators?"
1
The corporate and personal tax code, military spending and the farm bill are “yuge” welfare programs for the corporatists. Socialism much?
4
It should be zero, like those "free" cell phones. The poor might need some assistance in housing and food, especially the elderly poor or real disabled individuals. Everyone else should work for cash.
3
Since 2001, I've associated the word "welfare" with massive, inexcusable government waste handed over to our military-industrial complex beneficiaries (Raytheon, Boeing, etc.) in the course of our foreign policy blunders (Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, Syria, etc.)
Every time we fire a salvo of Tomahawk missiles at someone in a display of force without a plan for accomplishing anything of substance, I wince.
Those cost 1 million dollars each and they accomplishing nothing except maybe a temporary boost in the president's approval rate because the public loves to ooh and ahh at explosions.
9
The Times has done a meticulous important job of assembling the data and describing in a graphic the changing story of federal transfer payments to individuals. For those interested in similar efforts, know that another type of important federal payment is concentrated in the West, where there is widespread federal ownership of lands. There are 10 programs providing are "in lieu of" payments to counties that are forgoing property tax revenue because of the federal land ownership. Stanford University scholars have assembled data from 10 buckets of federal payments to western counties. Check it out:
http://followthemoney.stanford.edu/index.html?county=undefined&year=...
2
@Felicity Barringer: why shouldn’t counties get a payment ‘in lies of’ taxes when this land brings in more costs than income to said counties? It’s like all churches should pay ‘in lieu’ of property taxes to the towns & cities they are in. They expect police to direct traffic & keep their fund raisers safe. They expect fire depts to come when the belfry (where there are more bats now than bells) gets hit by lightning, or kids who climb up to hide & play with matches, at risk to personnel. Either that or raise the taxes on just members of religious groups, enough to make up what they don’t get from the buildings.
I wonder how many people use "welfare" to mean any kind of government assistance.
4
Many people have mentioned tax breaks as a kind of welfare. I would bet that rich people and corporations who benefit from tax breaks don't think of them as welfare. They would consider that they are getting to keep what they have rightfully earned. Whether it was rightfully earned or not, since the rules now days seem to be gouge anyone you can.
Sadly, many who support the Republicans, and could use some help, think likewise. Thus voting against their own interests.
4
@Honeybee What I object to is the tax breaks corporations get on their income under the ruse that they create jobs and then there are no strings attached to make sure that is what they are used for.
@Honeybee
I see the difference.
But those who have this superior attitude are really hypocritical because there are so many parts of our lives we don't pay full price for due to government subsidies. Food being a big one. And there are parts of your life supported by taxes you don't even realize.
While I am not in favor of lifelong welfare, I am in favor of giving people a chance.
It is difficult to consider that a professional writer would do a piece such as this without reference to this decisive provision of the Constitution:
Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution refers to the “general welfare” of society thus: “The Congress shall have the Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. . .”
It is submitted that with such a decisive provision stating the fundamental that taxes shall be collected, inter alia, for the general welfare of the United States that it effectively constitutes a declaration that the United States is a socialist country (assuming that the true etymology of the word is used instead of the early 20th century corruption of the word by political propagandists of right wing capitalism).
6
@Linda The accepted meaning of the word socialism is the state ownership of the means of production. This has been tried in the 20th century by a number of countries and the results are well known. You don’t need ‘political propagandists” to make millions of dead and ruined economies into an undesirable outcome. The word ‘welfare’ in the Constitution is used in it old sense of prosperity, peace and flourishing and has nothing to do with the government paying money to individuals.
2
This is old stuff, going on since Reagan.
Why don't you compare to other democracies where govt support of citizens is much more widespread, benefiting the middle class also, with health care for all, child care benefits, unemployment benefits and pensions? Thus less resentment and political polarization than in the US.
Here our politicians cultivate resentment as a political tool, while wealthy mega donors finance their campaigns, and average citizens are forced to compete against each other. Govt itself is portrayed as a threat to our freedoms.
US voters are manipulated to not protest against govt welfare for big business, but only against welfare for needy individuals, who are hurt by our economic system, especially if they’re in a racial group easily identified by skin color.
Meanwhile our corporations and the rich get lowered taxes for increased profits, and protection/privileges that stem from their mega donations to our political campaigns.
The average taxpayer/citizen/voter can’t compete to influence our govt, thus has more of the tax burden transferred to them for public services and welfare---even as their wages decline, their jobs are shipped out, union apprenticeships decline, and college tuition means huge debt. While corporations grab a bigger share of US wealth.
It’s our uneven balance of political power that should be bringing Americans out to march in the streets---protesting against the real causes of their downward mobility and insecurity.
8
Social Security should not be lumped in with other government payments. People paid in and have a legal right to receive their payout. Same goes for vet benefits and workers pensions. To group them with tax payer funded programs like food stamps is to aid the political mis-direction efforts of the free market fundamentalists on both sides of the aisle. Please stop it.
Also, there is a good chance that people's experience with government programs has been very negative. They tend to be difficult to deal with and very stingy. If you ask for people's opinions it's only natural that sometimes you get a lot more than an ear-full.
11
@laure nce
Yes we pay into social security but we never pay enough to cover our return. We usually use up our payment into social security in less than 5-6 years. The present workers help support those on social security now.
7
@Vtbee
...Just as other workers who are retiring now helped support those who retired before them. Social Security is both a cooperative and a very profitable trust fund. It is NOT welfare.
I understand that present payouts are made from today's receipts (as you state) but all of the investment profits (capital gains) are added to the principal. Just like a rich person's trust fund. And, of course, no one EVER touches the principal! Which was 2.79 trillion dollars in 2014! (That year they added 25 billion dollars!)
@Vtbee Those on SS now supported previous generations. Almost every advanced country in the world has a similar program, but the US has the fourth or fifth lowest relative benefits in the world, according the Business Insider https://www.businessinsider.com/almost-every-other-advanced-country-has-...
I think this piece would be far more informative if it provided info about the "benefits" cited. What exactly is Welfare vs SNAP vs TANF? What are the criteria for becoming eligible? What are the demographics of who gets what?
This piece makes clear the sentiments but doesn't help define the realities of those programs...that lack of clarity probably contributes to the apparent contradictions between what people "get" vs their opinions of who's getting.
5
I spent more than a decade living in the USA and I see no surprises after more than fifty years of right wing propaganda as to the superiority of the private sector. Even your history has you believing things that are simply untrue. When the merchants of Boston boarded the ships flying the flag of the East India company and dumped the untaxed tea belonging to the East India Company into Boston Harbour it was an attack on corporations that were so big that they controlled government.
In 1775 the acknowledged leader of the conservative movement in the British Empire Samuel Johnson wrote a letter to the American Congress titled Taxation No Tyranny outlying the benefits of taxation in maintaining peace order and good governance. The conservative movement in the USA is a cult not a political party. Political parties have lefts centers and rights and American conservatives have a mantra. Less government and less tax and uses it even when the situation demands higher taxes and more government.
9
And yet Kentuckians are re-electing McConnell again and again. Are they aware that he wants to cut government assistance?
5
@Pauly K: Doesn’t he always say, ‘not yours’ my little voters’?
It begs the question, are Americans wary of government out of ignorance, or common sense. Unfortunately, I suspect the former.
4
Remember the guy, upset at government's spending on supposedly undeserved slackers, demanding to his representative "just don't let government mess with my Medicare?" Well, it seems as though we need to be educated, reminded, that government does help us in multiple ways to make our lives more comfortable. All of us. And that welfare ought not be a cuss word, as it applies to the poorest of the poor,and usually not of their own fault, in this deeply unequal, capitalistic, and globalized society of ours,and leaving behind too many without an adequate social safety net. If you've never fallen through the cracks, good for you; but be careful in criticizing something you are ignorant about, hence, unable to walk in the shoes (if any) of the least fortunate among us. That 'cruello' Trump, arrogant to the tilt, and his republican minions, is trying to humiliate those in need, is no news really, as his social distance from the poor is astronomical, and the term 'populist' is least applicable to this beast in the Oval Office. But I digress. Welfare ought not be an insult, just an item demanded by justice, available when there is no alternative.
8
I refuse to believe that Ms. Badger is actually this clueless. The vast majority of Americans, liberal and conservative, black and white, rich and poor, use the term "welfare" for a government program that provides a means-tested handout: TANF, food stamps, Medicaid, Section 8, etc. They do not use the word for tax deductions or retirement benefits, rightly or wrongly.
Now, I understand that Ms. Badger may not like that definition of welfare. I don't either. But it is the definition in common usage today, like or not, and a good article would understand this.
24
@Ted Morgan You missed the point: choosing to define some things as the bad "welfare" or "entitlements" while other transfers of taxpayer/government moneys are defined as benign "subsidies."
1
I'd like to see the map of how each of the forms of assistance line up with voting preferences.
3
The wealthy in America hate paying taxes. They have funded conservative "think tanks" to spread their propaganda that all government is bad and wasteful. They have used every psychological device possible to spread this propaganda including racism.
After fifty years and billions and billions of dollars of spending by these political organizations this is the result. A large part of the American people NOW hate the very thing that makes us who we are, our form of self-government.
3
It's easy to make government look bad: give it a poorly designed mission, under fund it, and appoint unqualified people to run it. Government is a failure right.
1
Funny how 3 of the states whose citizens most utilize government programs, Kentucky, W. Virginia, and Maine, are republican states led by the very republicans who want to take their benefits away.
8
@Jim Tagley The most populous and prosperous part of Maine (South East) did not go Trump; nor would we have had that pre-trumpian Trumpster LePage as governor had the vote not been split by an independent. LePage, hero to those folks in the north and central part of the state who heavily rely on every kind of subsidy, has refused Medicaid expansion and a host of other "welfare" programs these people directly rely upon. And, still they love him and voted him in twice. Wish I could say there's no accounting for it, but there is: resentment, racism, willful ignorance and Faux State News. Ashamed to say I've seen more confederate flags in the last two years than witnessed during a lifetime.
2
"It's not 'welfare' when it's *my* welfare." That's more or less how the thought process goes. Call the same exact benefit a "public service" or a "credit" and no one bats an eye. You do know the DMV is providing you a service by titling and registering vehicles, right? Try driving in a country with less stringent safety laws and see how you feel. The medical coverage usually leaves something to be desired as well. Keep that in mind.
Of course, the real problem is one political party in the United States has spent over 40 years openly stigmatizing the idea of public economics. The idea that some human activities are better provided to the individual, or at least guaranteed to the individual, by collective action on the part of the nation's citizenry rather than by the individual him or herself.
The part that confuses is me is why do people buy into it? I don't need a class in public economics to tell me why I appreciate the interstate. By Trump's definition, working roads are technically "welfare." Why do other people see fit to hate some public services but not others? Why does the strategy work? Ms. Mettler appears to explain the "what" without explaining the "why." That would be my first question to her.
5
The great irony is that no one has received more "welfare" ir. government subsidies than Trump himself, relying heavily on subsidies to build his properties in exchange for the promise of jobs, instead when his properties fail, the taxpayer is left holding the bag just like we will be at the conclusion of his presidency. Our former mayor Mike Bloomberg likes to pretend he's against trump, someone should ask him why he awarded him more than 10 billion dollars in subsides to build a golf course in the Bronx.
5
Do you usually refer to scholars as Mr. or Ms. rather than Dr. ?
3
@Susan Krafft: for me, it depends on 1. Do they use the term Dr. 2. Do they have doctorates. 3. Do they publicize it? Or in this day hide it so the unwashed uneducated won’t tear them apart?
Hate welfare but love unemployment benefits; despise Obamacare but want to keep the ACA; no food stamps but definitely love farm subsidies; suspicious of Medicaid but don't touch Medicare — and keep your hands off Social Security, all the while cutting tax revenue. It's "the people" versus "those other people" every time.
13
@MCV207 Medicare , UI, Disability, and SS are all EARNED benefits. You have to have worked a certain amount of time to qualify for these benefits. And you have to be over a certain age to qualify for SS and Medicare.
3
@me
UI is entirely paid for by the employer. A tax is levied on the employer based on the number of employees that employer has laid off in the previous year - more layoffs, the higher the UI tax rate.
Like all benefits, there are qualifying criteria that vary from state to state. And you cannot receive UI if you have been terminated for cause. UI only goes those who have been laid off because of a lack of work.
The word should never be "welfare", it should be "investment".
3
Well said. It should be called society's investment. @Samuel
2
Now, please, write a nice piece on how much of the economy consists of corporate welfare, including payments to farmers, in all its forms and manifestations and how ignorant the general population is about it.
5
The word is Outsized, not Outsize.
I just read Nancy Isenberg's, "White Trash, A 400-year history of class in America," and came away with the understanding that there is an intense and persistent disgust for those who cannot better themselves. It runs across generations and geography.
Poverty is looked as a congenital leprous disease that has no vaccination and is highly contagious, and others not so terribly afflicted not only want to stay away and wall themselves off but also do not want to waste their precious financial resources on a social ailment they do not believe has a cure.
Welfare is these people's tax money being forcibly taken to help the impoverished who cannot help themselves, and these taxpayers feel like their good hard-earned money is being wasted on what wastrels, waste-people. These are just two of many more horrible terms used to describe the poor documented in Isenberg's book.
Other forms of government financial support are not perceived as wasted on the poor because the folks receiving the money don't consider themselves worthless. It is precisely that such a small percent get welfare that they are capable of being so marginalized.
Of course, none of this is lost on the rapacious politicians who have known all this for years, but they are now trying to tar other government social programs with the term "welfare" because they have a leader who is in his own way disgusting and self-loathing enough to misdirect his own resentment outward towards many of the people who make up his base.
11
There is a big difference between programs which one pays into (either directly or by earning it) and the freebies
Clueless author tries to equate programs that hand out free stuff to people who neither earned it (job fringe benefits) nor paid into the insurance programs which require contributions
Benefits that are earned and/or paid for
Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) is ONLY paid to workers who worked enough to earn enough credits & paid into the insurance program who then became disabled
Veterans' Benefits (healthcare, home loans etc) are a long term fringe benefit of the job they did - just like the snarky author's employer paid vacation.
Social Security Retirement is solely paid to people who worked and paid in - and what they get is based upon how much they paid in
Unemployment Compensation Insurance- duh, you have to work and PAY IN to the Insurance to be able to collect when unemployed
Medicare - have to have paid into the INSURANCE to be able to enroll years later &, oh yeah, pay premiums for it every month
FREEBIES
Social Security Supplemental Income - paid to those who are disabled but who never worked or paid in enough for SSDI
Medicaid
Food Stamps
WIC
Housing subsidies (yep noncash welfare)
TANF
Earned Income Credit - never paid in but get money out
Freebies are things people get WITHOUT having earned them (job fringe benefit) or paid into the insurance program
And WELFARE is FREEBIES for those who have not contributed to the program
14
@AnnS freebies like the 10 billion dollars in subsidies trump received from New York City to build a golf course in the Bronx, yes that is an undeserved freebie.
8
@AnnS Thank you. You have more patience than I do.
2
@AnnS: Sorry, couple of errors. SSDI goes to people who never worked. A friend injured severely in a car accident as a child (body & limbs numb) at adulthood tossed out of the family because she would get the SSDI directly, not given to parents anymore. SSSI given to SOME who get SS, but do not have enough to live on. Must apply, debase one’self, & jump through hoops held by local SS committees. Same friend went for it, ended up losing her SSDI because the doctor they sent her too demanded she take opioids (for NUMBNESS?), when she wouldn’t told the committee she was non compliant. They told her to get a job. Can’t drive, can’t walk without danger (has to watch every step, can’t feel the floor, or her crutches) lives in a very small camper friends outfitted her for, where she can reach food, & crawl to the toilet. Now she’s lost that. No rent money for her space. This is America? Oh, it shouldn’t matter but she’s white. Rural area. I wonder what that quack pays the committee. There’s an opioid epidemic you know!
I'm struck by the different perceptions of various forms of government assistance. Many years ago, I had food stamps and WIC. I had small children and a husband who was out of work. I was treated like a deadbeat, even though it wasn't my fault that my household had insufficient income. I started cleaning houses for income (it was flexible so I could take care of the kids). Ten years later, my husband still wasn't much help, but I'd built up the business, had a bunch of employees and was on the board of the local Chamber of Commerce. People then couldn't imagine that I had been on "welfare" or that the welfare help made it possible for me to get started. Most people want to imagine that "welfare" creates dependency and "welfare" recipients mooch off the rest of us. They also imagine that "hard-working" people always earn enough money to do well. Neither premise is true.
To add to the irony, now I get Social Security, not based on my earnings, but on the earnings of my late second husband. This is a bigger government handout than my food stamps ever were, and it's not money I worked for. But no one thinks my Social Security is welfare. Go figure.
20
Social Security is not a "social transfer" program. It is an insurance program where people pay premiums and are therefore entitled to benefits. Treating social security recipients as beneficiaries of government, and wondering why they don't like "other" transfer programs, just leads to confusion, as shown by this article.
9
Put the nearly poor against the very poor...that always works.
6
'Ending welfare as we know it' was a campaign promise for Bill Clinton in his first presidential campaign and he believed he kept that promise when he signed legislation that had bipartisan support. Perhaps we are preparing to repeat the process and it will prove effective in winning elections again.
1
Welfare = Poor People of Color to Trump and the GOP. And they are very undeserving don't you know. Yes Reagan told us so and the GOP has used this racial profiling explicitly to divide and conquer.
Poor whites receive more government assistance (Not Welfare!!) than most and yet they do not like the same assistance for people of color. Whites are victims whereas people of color are lazy.
The GOP/Libertarian thought wonks hate all form of 'government assistance' except of course for corporations. They want all programs stopped. You win or you lose - your fault so deal with it.
4
My Sister In Law flat out said her son deserves SNAP benefits unlike “those other people.” It’s about race.
8
Welfare is what the other guy gets.
12
After cut benefits poster boy Christian Paul Ryan's father passed away, he saved Social Security survivor’s benefits to pay for attending Miami University.
A success story?
7
Ignorance is bliss! For too many folks, "welfare" is as misunderstood as "socialism" (btw there are few if any socialists left any more, in China and Russia what you see is crony capitalism). The dumbing down of America is breathtaking! Maybe the unexamined life is not only worth living, but preferable.
9
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote
the general WELFARE, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this
Constitution for the United States of America."
socialism
noun
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
Do you receive benefits payments under Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid?
Do you use public streets?
Did you attend public schools or a state university?
Do you send your kids to public school or a state university?
Do you use the interstate highway system?
Do you ever call 911 to get help from first responders (police, fire, emts)?
Do you ever use a public playground, a public park, or a national park?
Do you ever go to a public beach?
Do you ever use a public hospital?
Do you use public water or sewer systems?
Do you ever use the post office?
Do you ever use a public airport?
Do you have your garbage collected by your city or town?
Then you are a SOCIALIST, and if you think socialism is terrible you better stop using all of those things IMMEDIATELY.
17
most of those on your list i pay for with my tax dollars. i work, i pay taxes, i get to use those items on your list. others who CHOOSE not to work but prefer to take from the rest of us are not the type of people i want to hang out with. please note i wrote CHOOSE not to work.
6
@mark
How about the "coupon clippers" who live off of their inherited wealth, who choose may not do any work? They pay taxes (and often complain about that). Are they your buddies?
WE ALL PAY with our tax dollars for most of the items on my list. Those are COMMUNAL activities. None of us pays the entire cost for any of them by ourselves.
Show me what part of the public beach you paid for.
Show me what part of the public street you paid for. (Do you have your name painted on the parking spot outside your house?)
You do not pay for a specific set of classes in public school. You pay REAL ESTATE taxes (even if you rent - by way of the landlord), some part of which is used to pay for kids to attend school. You pay that whether you have school age kids or not.
Taxes are the cost of a civilized society. And they are based on SOCIALIST ideas - we all chip in, and we all benefit. Just not necessarily on a dollar received for a dollar expended basis. Some pay more and some pay less.
Get used to it.
(Statistically, I pay a lot more in income and real estate taxes than the average American. I live in a home that is worth over $1 million, which my wife and I own free and clear. I EARNED it. So don't give me attitude about that.)
"The Trump administration has begun to take this connection one step further: It has proposed reorganizing the federal government to place many of these social programs under a new agency with the word 'welfare' in its name."
You can start with the Department of Agriculture. Oh, that's right, if its farmers that are getting benefits its "necessary aid," but if its poor individuals its "undeserved." Right.
6
Typically, Americans don't consider Social Security or Medicare as "welfare" programs. When Americans say they oppose welfare, they are talking about small, means-tested programs. Such programs are not popular even in countries where they are more generous and broader than in the United States and where government is less unpopular, like the United Kingdom. What are popular everywhere are programs that benefit almost everyone and therefore are not means tested, like the National Health Service in the United Kingdom.
The United States is also exceptional in that candidates for elected office have rarely advocated "welfare" programs. Far more frequently candidates of both parties have campaigned against "welfare." Barney Frank, acclaimed as an American "liberal," called repealing Aid for Families with Dependent Children his proudest Congressional accomplishment. It is not a coincidence that the basic federal "welfare" legislation, the Social Security Act, was pushed through Congress by a Roosevelt administration that commanded immense political capital. If nearly all American elected officials oppose "welfare," it is no wonder that ordinary Americans do too.
7
@jphubba: Why did Roosevelt push the SSA & the rest of the alphabet programs through congress when he did? Remember the Great Depression? My folks lived through it as young marrieds. Scary.
But, what happened in the Dust Bowl was scarier. Farmers had no food, no water, no seeds (they had to eat them). Some went into town to the Red Cross for food. Were refused. So, went home, came back armed. Those at the Red Cross gave them whatever they wanted. FOOD. Took it all, Then divided it all around their area to all the farmers. No one there starved to death. Happened in more than one place. There were food riots in towns & cities. Food didn’t grow, so farmers could’t sell, so people couldn’t buy. It wasn’t that long after the Russian Revolution. DC was afraid of a Communist Revolution HERE. Nowing that if no one was starving, it wouldn’t happen. Most programs were work programs. Most people would rather work than get handouts. It’s still true today. Keep people from starving is #1. Make jobs for them. The CCC cut & maintained trails & built cabins in mountains. They hired photographers, song writers (Woody Guthrie) to take pictures & write songs about the Depression & Dust Bowl. They published them. We have them. It’s history. Companies stopped paying pensions. SS kept the elderly from dying. Many had lost their sons in WW1 or 2. It was a time just after we stopped caring one for another. WE failed in that. The Founding Fathers didn’t. They told us. Common Welfare.
While I appreciate the work of the researchers and writer, it’s time to revise the definition of “welfare” to include everything the nation gives to the rich. Think of Mitt Romney, with his $100 million IRA and 18% federal tax rate. Think of the recent massive tax cut for the wealthy and the proposal by the treasury secretary to grant them even more. Think of the recent story on the tech titans, who create artificial charitable foundations to get immediate tax breaks without giving anything to charities. Think of the large number of corporations supported with our consumer dollars that pay no federal taxes.
Someone has to explain to me how these are not gifts from the government when the rest of us are expected to make up the shortfall.
14
@LIChef: I think of the Gates. Who go around to place much worse than us. They stop kids from going blind. Give people mosquito nets to keep malaria at bay, & other things. Even here they have wired small poor towns, given the schools & children computers so they can compete with wealthier areas. It’s a new kind of charity. But, other rich people are giving them money to use now. Like Buffet. Charity changes over the decades as centuries. Used to be just the ‘church’. Rich people often let the people living on their land, growing their food, keeping their homes intact, acting as private armies, starve. As recently as the potato famine in Ireland. Not just in the Middle Ages. Then private charities started. Now they are failing & many of the rich are thinking like the Middle Ages again. Working hard to get Middle Class & even lower thinking that way too. Scared now that money is worth so much less than it used to. A million $ isn’t enough for a husband & wife to retire on, unless they want to live in a dump, eat day old bread & bruised fruits & veggies. Money is worth less, everything costs more, Is it Solent Green time yet?
Corporate tax cuts are welfare, as are all the freebies, such as excellent health care, given to our already well off Congress. It is the wealthy who are first in line at the trough and we need to start remembering that.
44
@KES: don’t forget the pension they get, with no contributions too, that federal employees pay for & into.It’s good. But the employees pay for it. The politicians get it free. Don’t think they have to even be in congress (or the military) for 20-30 years to collect either.
People may need assistance, accepting wellfare is never a long term susbstiute for the dignity of a job. Perhaps bureacrats are disliked because they control wellfare benefits.
4
This article would be more informative and meaningful if data were provided on the proportion of the public who dislikes government and dislikes welfare programs. What percentage dislikes a particular program?
The number of people who receive welfare (here reported at 2.5 million) is shocking. The 2017 number of Americans below the "poverty line" as the federal government defines it is 43.1 million, and 18.5 of those people have incomes that are lower than 50% below that line. For most readers, it is literally inconceivable how people (particularly on either coast) can live on minimum wages, even if they participate in the workforce as full-time employees, much less on 50% or less than that. The current administration is doing what it can to discourage or preclude eligibility for safety net benefits. For example, the administration has tried to render someone on food stamps ineligible if they reside in and released from, a treatment center for more than 30 days. What is remarkable and unacceptable is that the discouragement is effective. No wonder there is an opioid crisis as people flee to another reality, and no wonder the rate of homelessness is increasing. Mass incarceration over the last decades has precluded two-wage earner households. Discussions about job training programs or greater investment in education that might reduce have virtually ended. The federal government has abandoned the issue of reducing poverty and instead returned to the "blaming the victim" perspective that existed before the 1960s.
36
2.5 are on cash welfare. That does not include the number that are on food stamps, medicaid, section 8, WIC and everything else which is something lime 20% of the population.
3
Welfare is a label tagged to the left side of the spending distribution. Graft and Waste is the right side. People reasonably object to both, but approve many of the specifics.
2
I believe there are a couple of issues that are not being accounted for here. One is the interface between recipients and those who work for the governmental agency providing benefits. I do not mean to paint all government employees with a broad brush, but how often do any of us come away with an interaction with a government employee/agency with a positive feeling? When recipients have negative interactions with the front line employees tasked with interacting with recipients, that is likely to lead to a negative perception of what is being offered, similar to what happens if we have a negative interaction with waiter in a restaurant.
The second has to do with the self-perception of those who are recipients of these programs. Research has shown that people prefer jobs over "welfare" due to the sense of self-worth derived from having a job. Perhaps recipients are engaged in some degree of "self-loathing" that carries over to the program that is benefiting them.
3
Rather than "reply" to each of the several comments about having paid FICA, Medicare Tax, etc., so that they are getting their own money back as Social Security, Medicare, etc., I'm putting in a general statement: we all pay Income Tax! From this general pot the government dispenses oil depletion allowance for oil and timber, agricultural compensations, as well as family assistance, food stamps, disability, etc. The Gov't could simply have had one overall tax from which to pay SS and Medicare. Congress has been clever enough to us seniors to make us think that the dedicated tax is simply "our money" coming back as from a savings account.
I personally would prefer to be able to dedicate my income tax to specific government programs. I would request that my tax go to education, disability (and other "welfare"), national parks, the former(!) EPA, but not to the military, oil and timber industry and to agric. support only to compensate for drought. If we all had such opportunity, the military would then have to resort (like our schools tend to now) to bake sales and cutting back on programs.
29
@prof. pete Failing to take more in taxes is not the same as writing a check. See the difference?
The oil depletion allowance replaces the depreciation deduction. Do you actually object to businesses recovering the cost of their economic investments? Do you suppose that business getting a deduction for paying wages also is a favor we should not grant them? How is it different?
2
@prof. pete Only 48% of Americans pay income taxes, as Mitt Romney famously observed. It's a fact. Just sayin'.
3
@Edmund Dantes
Depreciation is a tax relief for businesses, still a benefit that is not necessary for the profitability of a business. I buy a lawnmower and use it to cut lawns for profit and when it dies I buy a new one. Why should I get a tax break because the lawnmower died? It is the way we account taxes but I don't get a tax break on my car to drive to work. It is a special carve out, full stop!
OK. What about corporate welfare? Things like tax cuts (another form of government spending) import tariffs and subsidies, all used as a form of welfare for companies or corporations. Farm subsidies and business loans. Carried interest for stock exchange welfare queens. Zero interest loans for banks (yeah, that’s why your bank pays you only .007 percent interest on your savings). Trust me, rich people get far more welfare from the government than the poor. Theirs accounts for billions and billions of federal dollars. We just don’t call it welfare.
79
@Joel Casto I don't trust you. There is no such thing as corporate welfare. That is a made up term by people who think all income belongs to anyone other than the people or organization that created it.
The other dirty word is "taxes" but until we realize that taxes are a means to provide all Americans with an equality of health care and opportunity through quality education we are up against another big American watchword "rugged individualism.", meaning "every person for him/herself and the devil take the hindmost."
22
The author's approach to this issue ignores or downplays a number of critical factors. First, although she briefly mentions this, there is no precise definition of "welfare" and most people don't limit welfare to just TANF as she does.
Second, the very fact that government social programs have risen from 7% of personal income in 1969 to 17% in 2014 demonstrates the failure of these programs. Instead of providing the means for individuals to become independent and self-supporting, we have increased government dependency by two and a half times. What was Einstein's definition of insanity?
And although many would say they earned their Social Security and Medicare benefits, these programs are at least partially welfare in that benefits received far outweigh what participants contributed, including interest on those contributions.
Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and "welfare" in aggregate account for 60% of federal spending and the amounts are unsustainable. There either needs to be reductions (means testing for Social Security & Medicare) or very large tax increases. Take your pick.
10
@J. Waddell We endlessly fund the military and wars yet it's almost always health and welfare that gets financial scrutiny and never defense funding.
Also, the rise in percentage that you note is more likely due to 35+ years of flat wages for Americans.
19
@J. Waddell
your assertions -
"the very fact that government social programs have risen from 7% of personal income in 1969 to 17% in 2014 demonstrates the failure of these programs"
might be better understood as the increased NEED for social programs, as wages and other measures of income/wealth continue to diverge between the 1% and the remaining 99%
"And although many would say they earned their Social Security and Medicare benefits, these programs are at least partially welfare in that benefits received far outweigh what participants contributed, including interest on those contributions."
Social security and medicare ARE earned, and every "privatize the system" economist would disagree that returns including interest outweigh what has been paid as it overlooks the fact that the "investor" has forfeited the ability to receive much higher rates of return than the "interest" on social security deductions. Certainly, SS and Medicare are not meant to be investments per se, but social safety nets than are in fact redistribution of wealth. Unfortunately this redistribution has not kept pace with the rapid imbalance of income/wealth accumulation of the 1% that have maid inroads in other forms of income (capital gains, dividends, etc) that remain beyond the scope of SS taxation, as well as a stagnant upper limit of earned income subject to the tax.
9
@J. Waddell
"Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security and "welfare" in aggregate account for 60% of federal spending and the amounts are unsustainable. There either needs to be reductions (means testing for Social Security & Medicare) or very large tax increases. Take your pick."
As long as you include any military and federal retirement and health benefits in those reductions.
3
Actually not that interesting... A government transfer is just that--a transfer of wealth from upper incomes to lower incomes, so we would expect places with low incomes to show up with a high percentage of transfer recipients. Similarly, look at the trend in inequality from 1979 to 2014. As the wealthy have become relatively more wealthy we would expect the transfers to grow.
What is interesting is the framing of this as a disconnect between government and citizens. We are not polling government workers for their thoughts. The disconnect is actually between those who seek to protect/extend their preferred status in our society, and the economically (and oftentimes politically) disenfranchised among us.
7
I don't see why Social Security and Disability are included in this presentation at all. They are social insurance paid for entirely by workers, not the government.
That's different from government assisting the needy.
Medicare occupies a middle ground: partly paid for by workers.
On the other hand, why weren't handouts to enterprises and investors included here? Tax exemptions, depletion allowances, and the like. They are government assistance.
96
@99Percent
The Boomers have paid both private premiums and medicare taxes our entire lives. I don't feel obliged to apologize to anyone for straining the system. The Boomers are temporary - we are going to pass. As far as I'm concerned, our leaders better pull the money from somewhere to get through this era. They've known about the problem for 30 years
7
@99Percent
Anything funded by taxes is ultimately paid for by the people who pay the taxes -- TANF, Social Security (including disability), EITC --- they are all paid for by taxes.
Another variation on this theme is the large number of federal highways and dams in "sagebrush rebellion" states. One might think there would be widespread appreciation for the federal contributions to these states, but that does not appear to be the case.
23
I think one of the problems with this study is lumping all government payments under a title like" federal social transfers". Those of us drawing social security think of it as the government giving us back our own money and the interest it earned while in the government's hands. Likewise I think of my Navy retirement pay as something I earned. And why should we trust the government which is always looking for ways to reduce these programs? The government wants to use a less generous COLA system to effectively reduce our payments and the cuts in the military retirement system over the years have been huge.
20
@Jim
You could trust your government if you didn't elect corrupt legislators who are nothing more than servile creatures to corporate power. There was a time when government helped its people more than today. There have been governments in latin America and who elected (democratically) leaders who genuinely wanted to improve the lot of their constituents (Before US military might ushered in coups and assassinations to squelch that)
3
Yes, this article. Thank you NYT for being informative and interesting. People need information and this is raising awareness to language and history. Yes, this.
No comment beyond that- recommend many comments already made.
9
How much welfare did the Too-Big-To-Fail Banks get? And how long is the current line for that $12 Billion Farm Welfare proposal?
Something about...........
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
35
@Vanessa Hall
the banks paid back every penny of TARP, with interest.
3
I think most people today consider any government assistance other than their own as "welfare." I see this from a lot of veterans getting VA care and from people collecting disability checks. They recieve healthcare from the government but claim to be opposed to "government healthcare." 40 plus years worth of cuts to education spending are really paying off.
172
If they create a department to administer these programs, they should add in all forms of government handouts from general revenues, i.e. all forms of welfare including that which goes to "nice" people. Leave out the retirement part of social security because it is self funded by eventual recipients -- it's not welfare. Put in the portion of Medicare that isn't covered by FICA. Then put in everything else, including tax breaks for the oil industry and others, tax breaks for homeowners, farm subsidies, and so on and on. Then these "hard working" recipients will discover that they are also on welfare. That would change the conversation, for the better.
38
Why isn't the $ 12 billion farmer subsidy to make up for lost earnings from the trade war the US started considered welfare?
How about a piece that examines the extent of Federal subsidies in US businesses, many of whom are staunch Republican strongholds. They don't want govt but they're happy to take the money it seems. Why are we supporting businesses that if left to the free market would fail without the much abhorred big daddy govt? Wouldn't we rather spend the money solving some more tangible problems such as education and healthcare.
119
It is safer for the nation to be able to have control over our access to food. They are not giving subsidies to be nice.
I saw a cartoon today that did exactly that. It pictured a farmer dressed in trump garb as a contest winner being crowned wearing a sash that said "Welfare Queen."
2
@Michael Che The Republican propaganda machine has worked wonderfully whereby, a corporations income is deemed sacrosanct from taxation compared to a working stiff's income.
3
Way, way back in the day - the mid-70s - I was a teenage welfare mom in Boston. (cue booing). I lived in a housing project with my two infant sons, received a tiny welfare check and the ability to spend most of it on food stamps, paid a very low subsidized rent, went hungry many days, to the point of not being able to keep food down when I finally had access again.
But we had free medical care and a roof over our heads, and that counted for something. I then decided to go to college (You can boo again here - most people would say I should have gone to work). I got into a state school with very low tuition at the time, and got tuition waived. Couldn't afford lunch or even coffee at school, but day care was paid for by (boo for it!) welfare. Got a job tutoring other students for a little pocket money, and things improved. After school, I worked full-time, moved out of the projects, had employer-supplied health insurance, no more food stamps, still went without much food sometimes, but eventually went to law school while working, and everything got better. Kids are now employed in highly skilled jobs and heads of well-off families themselves.
My point is that a few years of welfare turned my life and the life of my family around. I am sure that we have by now paid far more in taxes than we ever got in aid. By shutting off the dreaded welfare programs, we also shut off opportunity. That may be the point of the current administration, but that is what is un-American.
378
@dobes
Thank you for sharing your important story. You're a strong person and your story shows how that strength, combined with some targeted assistance, can make a big difference in people's lives.
11
@dobes Inspiring story. Thanks for sharing. I'm interested in whether you think, despite successes such as your own, multi-generational lifetime dependency is a problem worth fixing, or simply something we have to put up with in order to get success stories like your own?
2
@dobes Your use of welfare is exactly what welfare was intended to achieve, I think: Temporary aid to allow people to regroup and stay healthy until they are able to support themselves again. The general impression of welfare becomes distorted by political agendas, wherein welfare recipients are painted as unworthy (using all of the coded tactics that we are well aware of by now). My white brother-in-law is vehemently against welfare, citing the "welfare queen" trope and insisting that the majority of nonwhites are taking advantage of the system. I often point out that his daughter, my niece, is on welfare, which he tries to deny, although I remind him that the Medicaid her children receive, and the food stamps she takes because she's a "stay-at-home mom" (a married, able-bodied one at that) are indeed welfare. Not sure he really get it, but I do try to make the point whenever I can...
Interesting that our perception of “welfare” is so skewed that farm subsidies and corporate recipients of government welfare have not even been included in this investigation.
282
I would not include farm subsidies in “welfare” because we are not just keeping them afloat to be nice but interfering in the free market as the ability to be able to feed our population could be important in war or disaster. The government is paying for this for a reason.
8
@Allright
Obviously it's welfare. You are correct about not keeping them afloat to be "nice". The subsidy is to buy votes from agricultural states with disproportionate political influence when it comes to presidential elections or senate votes.
@Allright where do the big subsidies for corn for ethanol come into this feeding America train of thought? Or the lock step republican ideological vote even to a very flawed candidate just to keep the subsidies rolling in? Handout are handouts! Teachers are working three jobs in many cases to support their families and they can’t get a livable wage much less a subsidy. I would argue their product is every bit as important and unlike farmers their collective voice has been silenced . Business is business. Capitalism is capitalism. Handouts to support capitalistic ventures is called Communism. Handouts to feed hungry people is called Christianity.
While we're on the topic of the hold of words on the public imagination, let's consider this article's lead phrase: the "federal" program known as welfare.
The people of the U.S. tried and rejected a federation in the 1780s. Going around the state governments, popularly elected constitutional conventions ratified a proposal for a union that was "more perfect" (that is, more thorough or complete) than a federation.
The new U.S. Constitution created the first national government, which it referred to four times, each time calling it the "government of the United States."
The word "federal" does not appear in the Constitution, but many Americans don't accept that. Indeed, many voted against adopting the Constitution in the first place, preferring to keep the federal system that preceded it. The survival of the term "federal government" serves their rhetorical purpose of denying the existence of the "more perfect union."
10
Thanks for shining light on this important topic.
There's a difference between accepting money from a program and agreeing it is well run, fair or even needed. Heck, if the US government wants to subsidize my mortgage, I'm going to take it. But that doesn't mean I think it's a good program ( I don't), it's equitable (it isn't). In fact, I advocated for the mortgage deduction to be eliminated (it wasn't). But I'm still going to take advantage of it when it's offerred. This might well be the same thing happening in the government transfer category highlighted here.
A coupe of questions: Why was medicare excluded while Social Social included? I would be very curious how the US maps shown in the article would look without social security - since most of that program is age based and funded directly by the participants. I also wish I could see the maps based on absolute dollars rather than as a percentage.
51
@deedubs
Yes -- it's weird to include Medicaid but exclude Medicare, and, if you're going to include health care programs, you should include Vets health and ACA subsidies in the Exchanges, too.
The mortgage interest deduction is not a government supplement when you consider the banking industry has run rampant with profits on the backs of working people all with the full assistance of the government. Housing costs of the 70s versus today are criminal.
In addition, I may have to go on short term disability so that I don't lose my job during a medical issue. Can someone tell me what I am supposed to do with $170 a week in NYC? What a joke.
Maybe these programs should support a working lifestyle instead of a non working life?
23
Use the $170 to supplement the money you saved for a rainy day.
4
@Honeybee: Yes, you can buy groceries, but who is going to pay the rent, the electric/gas bills, etc.?
I think the reason so many people have a negative reaction to the term "welfare" is that they associate it with payments to people who are able to work but do not work in return for their benefits.
The idea that people can get "something for nothing" is galling to those who work hard, sometimes at two jobs, to support themselves and their families.
Recent experiments with "basic income" in Ontario and Denmark have failed or been ended early because of backlash by those who work against those who are being given "something for nothing;" that is, people who are able to work but do not work for their support payments. Politicians who supported basic income are running for the hills because of this backlash; not only is it unaffordable, but voters hate it.
Even though the percentage of the US population on welfare is very small, and the percentage of welfare recipients who could work is even smaller, I think it is a fact of life that anyone who works for a living resents anyone who is able to work but takes welfare.
43
@Mon Ray
The question is: what constitutes "able" to work? If someone is a single parent with two kids and cannot afford daycare while she works, is this someone able or unable to work? What about people without transportation to a job or even a criminal record? At the margin, the line between "able" and "unable" is often not a clear one.
17
I think there are people who are so prejudiced that they would rather their own family starve than have a program that provides food assistance to people of all colors.
2
@Mon Ray--We bailed out the big banks, Wall Street, and even the major car companies. It still galls me that they all got something for nothing. In return, people lost investments, savings went to zero, and we are all poorer while all those 1% fat cats are counting their money in offshore bank accounts--while the rest of us continue to struggle.
What did all those entities do to earn our support? Oh, right, if you're a big bank like Wells Fargo, for example,--you smile as you create work by faking bank accounts.
1
Ms. Badger has purposely redefined the term welfare so as to change the argument. Historically welfare included many government programs such as public schools, Social Security and Medicare which today are referred to separately. Today when people refer to Welfare, they not only mean the cash program but include food stamps, public housing, Section 8 housing, Medicaid. The hostility to Welfare comes from the fact that while it was meant to be a safety net for individuals and families, it has become a way of life and culture for many. Some people plan their lives and decisions to have children with the expectation they will have housing, food, and medical care paid for by their neighbors. This applies to people of all races and religions. Fraud is rampant. People working off the books or receiving undeclared support from relatives is almost universal. If supporters want Americans to go back to supporting Welfare, they must transform the program back to its original role as a safety net. People fall from self sufficiency, are caught, but then climb back to self sufficiency. Welfare should not be a way of life; it is un-American.
44
Re: "Some people plan their lives and decisions to have children...."
This is getting close to the root of the problem. Outside of medical care and aging, most of these programs are necessitated by children, and unfortunately, we are not doing a good job of planning for them. Waiting just a few years to allow education, relationships and employment to stabilize makes a big difference in the future prospects of the next generation.
If birth control and family planning become American values, a lot of welfare will disappear. Next, we should consider how families can re-absorb care of their elderly, because the institutional price is extremely high.
20
@S Baldwin
So, shouldn't Republicans be interested in funding programs that improve access to birth control and family planning? Wouldn't this be pragmatic and prevent further expenditures on welfare in the future? I don't see that happening.
5
Please cite your sources for the statements in your comment.
My impression is that the people who make big dollars get ego satisfaction from it, but that their children end up less happy than if their parents were "middle class." Some children of the rich seem afraid of the general population. It's one thing to have a nice house and send your kids to college; it's another to spend your life only associating with people who are rich. A million or $2 Million home is nice but a $50 Million house is a pain. That segment of richness, beyond one nice home, education for children, etc., should be redacted to the general population through inheritance taxes.
30
@Kay
Absolutely! Dynastic wealth is antithetical to participatory democracy, especially post-Citizens United. Why shouldn’t the children of the Uber wealthy have to get up off their lazy backsides like the rest of lest they feel the lash of poverty? Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander and all that.
3
@Kay You seem to be saying that what I earn and accumulate over a certain amount should be taken from me and given to others.
In other words, from each according to his ability and to each according to his need. This, of course, is classic Marxism/Communism, which will never appeal to Americans, most of whom work hard to make better lives for themselves and their children.
2
@Mon Ray
What have the children of the wealthydone to earn their wealth? Do you want to deny them the character building opportunities afforded the rest of us through ceaseless toil?
1
Very human, very emotional, and not based in fact. Yes our government gives direct cash payments to some people, but it also provides disaster relief, farm subsidies, special tax treatment for corporations and certain types of income that only effect a small percentage of the population. However, many of the these programs disproportionately enrich the wealthy while the wealthy (like the Koch brothers) see themselves as the aggrieved party.
To the extent that the wealthiest can control the message to have the remaining middle income segment blame all their problems on the lower income segment, the upper income segment gets away with the most benefits and still asks for more. Actually they demand more and get it.
The wealthy like to think of themselves as America's Royal Class and deserving of more-and-more while making sure that working people get less-and-less, even stagnating their pay to make sure that soon CEO's will get 1000 times the pay of workers not the paltry 500% .
208
good comment. if you look at the map provided it would appear that Americans vote against their own self interests.
2