The Unsustainable Welfare State

Ronald Reagan once said, “The best social program is a job.” Given the fact that the poverty level in this country has remained virtually UNCHANGED since President Lyndon Johnson declared his “war on poverty” tends to confirm that statement. If you take the motivation away from someone to get a job by giving him enough to live on, where's the incentive to get a job? Ponder these numbers:

In 2011, the official poverty rate was 15.0 percent. There were 46.2 million people in poverty.

After 3 consecutive years of increases, neither the official poverty rate nor the number of people in poverty were statistically different from the 2010 estimates.

The 2011 poverty rates for most demographic groups examined were not statistically different from their 2010 rates. Poverty rates were lower in 2011 than in 2010 for six groups: Hispanics, males, the foreign-born, non-citizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities. Poverty rates went up between 2010 and 2011 for naturalized citizens.

For most groups, the number of people in poverty either decreased or did not show a statistically significant change. The number of people in poverty decreased for non-citizens, people living in the South, and people living inside metropolitan statistical areas but outside principal cities between 2010 and 2011. The number of naturalized citizens in poverty increased. (Still think an amnesty bill is going to HELP the U.S.?)

The poverty rate in 2011 for children under age 18 was 21.9 per-cent. The poverty rate for people aged 18 to 64 was 13.7 percent, while the rate for people aged 65 and older was 8.7 percent. None of the rates for these age groups were statistically different from their 2010 estimates.

The number of people in poverty rose for 4 consecutive years.

Think about it – between federal and state welfare programs, which totaled more than $1 TRILLION in 2011, enough to mail every poverty-stricken household a check for $44,000 each year, why would a person receiving that much “assistance” WANT to find a job?

Just to add a little context to the $44,000 – I work 40 hours a week at $13.42/hr. My yearly gross pay comes to a grand total of: $27,913.60. From that, I have to pay my taxes, utility bills, rent, cell phone bills, car insurance, etc., etc., etc. I don't ask for, nor receive, any assistance from anyone. Guess who's just barely above the poverty level.

Now, let's look at what King DingleBarry has proposed to do with welfare spending in this country over the next ten years.

The Senate Budget Committee says welfare spending will nearly double in 10 years.

Using data from the Congressional Research Service and Congressional Budget Office, the Budget Committee's Republican staff has added up what's spent on cash aid, health assistance, housing assistance, and social and family services.

All told, welfare spending will rocket from roughly $800 billion in the current fiscal year to about $1.4 trillion in fiscal 2022 — a nearly 80% jump. Overall welfare spending for the decade will be $11 trillion — "roughly one-quarter of cumulative federal spending," the Budget Committee reports.

Think about that last statement for a minute. Let it really sink in. One quarter of ALL federal spending will be on WELFARE. Who's going to pay for it? We're already approaching the financial tipping point. All too soon, there's going to be more people sucking off the government than people paying for this largesse. Add in the rest of federal spending, and you can plainly see this nation will collapse under its own weight long before another decade passes.

How did we get here? In true King DingleBarry fashion, of course. The committee says the unimaginable spending is in part "driven by a series of controversial recruitment methods that include aggressive outreach to those who say they do not need financial assistance."

"Recruitment workers are even instructed on how to 'overcome the word "no"' when individuals resist enrollment," says committee research. "The USDA and Department of Homeland Security also have promotions to increase the number of immigrants on welfare despite legal prohibitions on welfare use among those seeking admittance into the United States."

I'd very much like someone to explain exactly why we're advertising our welfare system in other countries, especially when so many of our own are in such dire need of help.

To paraphrase the great Milton Friedman, man's great achievements have not been the product of a government program, a redistributionary scheme or bustling bureaucracy. They are due to the simple profit motive at work in political systems that let people be fittingly compensated for their innovations and efforts.

No system has lifted man's standard of living as free enterprise has. As Friedman also once said, the masses that suffer the most from grinding poverty are those trapped in societies that depart from free enterprise. "The record of history is absolutely crystal clear," he said. "There is no alternative way so far discovered of improving the lot of ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by a free enterprise system."

Watch the positively brilliant Mr. Friedman's remarks here.

Washington's focus should be on removing the restraints it has placed on free enterprise rather than busying itself with building a nation of dependents, as it has for the last eight decades.

A growing welfare state helps no one — aside from politicians who traffic in addiction to government — but a burgeoning economy improves everyone's well being. ~ Hunter

Be sure to “Like” the For Love of Country Facebook page.