$60K a year per welfare household. Do they see any of it?
Posted: Sun Oct 28, 2012 4:20 pm
Yes. But only about a third of it on average:
Among many other problems, even if the USDA is correct (and it surely is not because it's missing the benefits of the free market), intentionally expanding the Food Stamp program exacerbates the problem by creating more dependency and a single buyer (the US government).
And of course this goes a long way towards proving that the budget can be balanced without raising taxes. For example, you can cut almost 2/3 of welfare and get the same effect.
New data compiled by the Republican side of the Senate Budget Committee shows that, last year, the United States spent over $60,000 to support welfare programs per each household that is in poverty. The calculations are based on data from the Census, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.
"According to the Census’s American Community Survey, the number of households with incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16,807,795," the Senate Budget Committee notes. "If you divide total federal and state spending by the number of households with incomes below the poverty line, the average spending per household in poverty was $61,194 in 2011."
This dollar figure is almost three times the amount the average household on poverty lives on per year. "If the spending on these programs were converted into cash, and distributed exclusively to the nation’s households below the poverty line, this cash amount would be over 2.5 times the federal poverty threshold for a family of four, which in 2011 was $22,350 (see table in this link)," the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee note.
...................
The U.S. Census Bureau estimated that almost 110 million Americans received some form of means-tested welfare in 2011. These figures exclude entitlements like Medicare and Social Security to which people contribute, and they refer exclusively to low-income direct and indirect financial support—such as food stamps, public housing, child care, energy assistance, direct cash aid, etc. For instance, 47 million Americans currently receive food stamps, and USDA has engaged in an aggressive outreach campaign to boost enrollment even further, arguing that “every dollar of SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in the economy… It’s the most direct stimulus you can get.” (Economic growth, however, is weaker this year than the two years prior, even as food stamp “stimulus” has reached an all-time high.)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-household-poverty_657889.html
Among many other problems, even if the USDA is correct (and it surely is not because it's missing the benefits of the free market), intentionally expanding the Food Stamp program exacerbates the problem by creating more dependency and a single buyer (the US government).
And of course this goes a long way towards proving that the budget can be balanced without raising taxes. For example, you can cut almost 2/3 of welfare and get the same effect.