The Cato institute is a Libertarian organization dedicated to free markets. Many of you, dear readers, are already at least somewhat familiar with this group. They have just recently published a study regarding welfare and how much these programs pay in various states and circumstances.
In fact, after looking at this study, I almost guarantee that you will be surprised. For those of you who are currently looking for work, I apologize ahead of time…but these numbers might be a bit discouraging. You see, in 35 states welfare benefits pay more than a minimum wage job. In 13 of these states, welfare benefits actually pay more than $15 per hour.
A mother of two children living in New York is able to collect $38,004 according to this report. Interestingly enough, this is more than the salary of a school teacher in New York. Just in case you are wondering, welfare pays the most in the state of Hawaii. A mother of two children living in the islands will be able to collect a whopping $60,590. Idaho was in last place at just $11,150 in benefits.
One of the senior fellows at the Cato institute had some interesting comments on this report. He was reported as saying that there really is not any evidence to support that welfare recipients are inherently lazy, at least not any more than the next person. However, they are also not stupid; if the government is willing to pay them more money for not working than they are likely to make by working, then many will obviously choose the easier road. Especially if there is more economic incentive to do so.
It is also interesting to note just how vast the welfare program has become. Since Lyndon Johnson instituted this program, over $15 trillion has been spent on welfare handouts. This amount would seriously put a dent in our national deficit if the government were to have it all back. Then again, they would probably find some other silly way of getting rid of the money that provided even less good.
This was also not the first time such a study had been done. In fact, the same fellow completed one back in 1995. The results of that study were likely just what you would imagine. It discovered that tax free welfare benefits greatly exceeded the poverty level. Also, the actual dollar value of the combined benefits was more than a worker could have received from an entry-level job.
In the time since 1995 (and since the start of welfare as well) numerous efforts to curb welfare spending have been unsuccessful. Then again, one could ask exactly how hard did we really try, especially when it was the Democrats in control. The benefits have continued to outpace the income of entry-level jobs and wages.
Basically, this is a disincentive for work. How can we expect to get many people back to work under such conditions? Were you aware of the fact that there are 126 separate programs funded by the federal government to support low-income earners? Yep, 126. And of this total, 72 programs actually provide cash or in-kind benefits to their recipients. Plus, much of this is on top of other welfare programs operated by state and local governments.
Obviously this situation is crazy. Yet, if the government really wanted to get people off the welfare rolls and back to work they would beef up the welfare work requirements. This should include removing exemptions and narrowing the definition of work.
What do you think about all of this? Should we continue paying out so much to those on welfare, especially without making much effort to insist that they actually go out and look for work? Perhaps something like a time limit for benefits should be imposed, much like unemployment benefits?
No comments:
Post a Comment