- From the Heritage Foundation - a non-partisan, but conservative group.
I recently listened to a great radio broadcast about the farm bill and a big part of the discussion was about food stamps. One panelist made a good point which is that we ought to call food stamps what they are which is essentially income. True, they can only purchase food but for most of their recipients, the food they purchase would likely have been purchased none the less and the opportunity cost of the food stamps is whatever they purchase with the revenue they would have allocated towards food. -This isn't to say that assistance isn't needed but we ought not think of food stamps as only providing food. -It's indirect income. The recipients might allocate the money they would have used on food to purchase medical supplies or to make an auto payment and therefore have the ability to drive to work. Or, they could use the savings to purchase cigarettes and mountain dew. My guess is that both happen. Tangentially, they cited a study that showed that the diet of the poor in the US is not worse than that of the middle class. -I found this hard to believe. [edit] during the broadcast a woman from Michigan called in and said she had been on food stamps for several years. Her husband is self employed and they are trying to start their own business. They have to re-apply and show financial justification quarterly for the "stamps". She wishes more than anything that they could get off the program but his business isn't doing that well. So, for them the program hasn't discouraged work at all. They are working hard and their goal is to not need the assistance eventually. These scenarios exist and I'd be willing to bet they exist more often than not.
I don't really care for most of their solutions but a few seem worth looking at. Their proposals.
1. Cap food stamp spending. Ehhhh, seems like the goal is to make sure people in the wealthiest country in the world don't go hungry, I guess if you don't care if people go hungry because they can't afford food then this makes decent sense. 2. Transfer food stamps from the USDA to HSS. I don't see how the money that trickles down to farmers would be changed by if HSS took control. As long as you can buy food with food stamps then the program is still a food welfare and farm welfare program. Votes on the food stamp program often pulls bi-partisan support from farm and urban legislators for exactly this reason (less so now a days with the Tea Party, they actually put their money where their mouth is and vote contrary to their constituents best interest for ethical reasons). Maybe I don't understand the how this would change the program, it isn't obvious to me. Seems like changing who is control would add costs to the program during the bureaucratic shuffle so I hope there is some kind of compelling theory for what this will achieve. I found the paper this was quoted from and the authors in no way explain what the bureaucratic shuffle do to change the incentives. 3 and 4. Close loopholes in food stamp enrollment, reduce fraud. Probably the best argument for reform in the program. I have known people who have gamed the food stamp program by lying about their income or who have plenty of money socked away in the bank but are out of a job for the moment who are taking advantage of a free lunch. It would be best to do a CBA to see if the money it would cost to means test applicants would be worth the savings of weeding people out, otherwise it's just another layer of bureaucracy. 5. Not everyone on food stamps is a position to seek work. People who are caught up in a medical emergency or who have chronic heath problems or are caring for family members with the same are reliant on the program as much as you might want to make this a work incentive program I think there might be better ways to accomplish this goal. 6. Drugs, drugs drugs!!! I don't know, seems like a personal preoccupation of the foundation or authors. Maybe they didn't buy them, a friend passed the joint, whatever. Should pedophiles also be banned from the program? What about people who have cable? Cable always seems like an unreasonable luxury for someone who needs my money. Maybe we can have the food stamp gestapo go around and make sure they aren't drinking liquor, smoking cigs, going to the movies, doing drugs ect. Plenty of hardworking Americans go to their job each day so they can buy drugs. I did some searches on the topic of drug use, income and welfare, all the sites that used data showed that drug use is about the same for welfare recipients and non-welfare recipients. Let me caution, the only sites that supported this view were the ones that used data to support their assertions, so take it with a grain of salt. I'm guess that Personally I favor the idea of a means based welfare system that gives people a flat cash amount that will provide a meager substance life. It's an idea put forth my Milton Friedman that has been discussed on Hubski a few times. Make every two dollars earned on the job reduce benefits by one dollar and it's a work incentive program. It would strip all kinds of needless government spending and bureaucracy out of the system. There is probably way to much paternalism/big brotherness on both sides of the isle for this kind of proposal to ever be taken seriously.With welfare users twice as likely as the general public to use illegal drugs
is Heritage just making shit up.
To actually be calling themselves research (sans quotation) they should probably base more of their arguments on empirical facts instead of conjecture and fantasy (such as the drugs comment). One more convenient fact that they fail to address is that many economic studies have concluded that direct payments to poor people (whether food stamps or cash aid as you suggest) is the best form of economic stimulus that the government can provide. Just this week the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a report that productivity has increased beyond where it was before the recession. However, demand is still shitty, and that is why the economy is not picking up. The only way to increase demand and get people buying is to make sure we have more access to money, whether by direct payments to poor people, easing access to credit markets (which is still a giant problem 4 years on), or some sort of (effective) debt reduction program. Is it ideal that the government should have to deal with these problems? No. But we know from the Hoover administration, and the current mess in Europe, that there's no such thing as shrinking yourself out of a depression. Also, nice point #6. Money is fungible; we all know that. Everyone takes some sort of government aid, but for some reason only poor people have to deal with this bullshit. Tonight I'm going to a wedding. My cousin is marrying into a family who have made millions owning trailer parks and shitty apartment buildings, which are all supported by section 8 and welfare and food stamps. And the dad is a Tea Bagger! I find that irony so hilarious, but I'm just using that as an example. We all rely on some form of government help, from schools to roads to water distribution. Should we get out taps turned off until we can be certified marijuana free?It's a research arm of the republican party.
Should read: It's a "research" arm of the republican party.
Aside from that, Thatcher did a lot of good for Britain, and helped to usher in their subsequent "prosperity" which was languishing under government "nationalized" industrial ownership. Postal Roads were a founding "constitutional" charge for the Federal government. Sure, we use roads, but is the Federal Government (us) really responsible for perpetrating "generational dependence" on federal government? I tend to hold the quote of John David Rockefeller, "Charity is injurious unless it helps the recipient become independent of it"! (Unless you are handicapped for some physical or mental reason). We prolong government dependency with the way many federal and state programs are structured. Nobody is saying, "throw them out on their ear"; just lend support intelligently and in the name of good, responsible "stewardship" and not reckless spending intended to promote political careers (no matter what the political tag).
Well, your statement that Heritage, whether you agree with their stance or not, is a research arm of the Republican Party, shows your biase flagrantly. I supposed when they "bashed Bush" in several articles and position papers in the early 2000's that was the research arm of the Republican Party - right? Here's one example of many whether you agree or not is irrelevant the proposition at hand: http://blog.heritage.org/2008/12/30/bushs-betrayal-of-free-m... For the sake of space I won't include the whole list, but I can tell you, Heritage vehemently disagreed with Bush on the No Child Left Behind Program, on the Medicare Part D program (which Heritage CORRECTLY forecasted would cost three times what the CBO and Bush said it would), and on overall increases in government spending and government reach. What this shows is your total "lack" of objectivity in evaluating their position and it also underscores your "unfortunate ignorance" of the entity. To say they are the "research arm of the Republican Party" shows you don't read their stuff, don't consider their stuff, and only read or listen to people who don't read or study their conclusions either. If you did, you would NEVER make such a ludicrous and myopic statement. That is like me saying, The Brookings Institution (which I do read their stuff too) is the research arm of the Democratic Party! That would be a ludicrous and myopic statement as well. While I may disagree with their stuff (some of which I have posted and supported by the way!), I do think they make the honest effort to research and support their conclusions. CATO does too though a different flavor. There is a difference between an opinion piece and an honest effort to examine data.
Sound like they seek to push a certain conservative agenda found only in the republican party (I'm sure there are plenty of libertarians around heritage but the libertarian party is marginalized enough not to be of any serious consequence). Not supporting No Child Left Behind ad the Medicare Part D program doesn't mean you can't be a policy institute dedicated to pushing a more conservative agenda withing the Republican party. They gave Nixon hell as well. They did host the Republican presidential debate, they named a center after Thatcher. I know lots of Republicans who despise Bush, hate NCLB and Medicare part D, thinking that both of these policies were stabs in the back to their values. I didn't say that President Bush directed the research at heritage, I said that they are the research arm of the Republican party. They give the intellectual firepower to push the conservative agenda, an agenda that maps up with a very powerful and significant part of the Republican party. I believe they are the most influential think tank supporting the republicans. If you think they are non-partisan that's cool think what you like I have a pretty good idea of the objectivity of a guy who pushes 'The Night Watchmen'. When I think of a non-partisan think tank I think of the CFR, I've had people disagree with me on both sides of the isle about that one. Anyway a foundation that puts up videos of Rush Limbaugh with seriousness and respect pretty much wears their heart on their sleeve. I support some of Heritages issues mostly free trade and nuclear issues, supporting an issue doesn't mean I'm blind to what side they are on.mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
To say they are the "research arm of the Republican Party" shows you don't read their stuff, don't consider their stuff, and only read or listen to people who don't read or study their conclusions either.
The fuck you know what I read, bet I got more Milton Friedman in my library then you do buddy.
I don't pretend to know all that you read, but to say it is a "research arm of the Republican party" is not factual. Yes, as I stated in my opening, they are a conservative, non-partisan think tank is true; they will call anybody's baby ugly if they don't agree no matter what their political "tag". That is all I meant. Would Republicans tend to use them for research, sure, why not, it is conservative and not liberal (which today still means the opposite of what it mean in prior centuries). I have read a lot of Milton Friedman (Art Williams circulated his articles in the 1980's and 1990's very commonly); however I don't own a lot of his books. I own more of Friedrich Hayekâs books and Alexis de Tocqueville's books, but I do admire Milton Friedman's thought process and free market positions. I do like Brooking's research too, which is certainly not the "think tank of choice" for most conservatives; however, they make a good effort at research to support their positions. Aside from that, Thatcher did a lot of good for Britain, and helped to usher in their subsequent "prosperity" which was languishing under government "nationalized" industrial ownership.
Aside from that, Thatcher did a lot of good for Britain, and helped to usher in their subsequent "prosperity" which was languishing under government "nationalized" industrial ownership. I'll check out CFR. Do you look at CATO?
I mostly follow Council of Foreign Relations as far as weekly listening (great podcast) and reading. I like Pete Peterson as a pragmatic conservative who listens to all points of view I really think he put a stamp on CFR's process for non-partisan scholarship. Personally I don't think an organization can call itself non-partisan and a liberal or conservative at the same time, that kind of talk is just window dressing for the tax man. It's fine to have think tanks with an agenda but I think going at policy with an agenda will generally distort the honesty of the conclusion. I find it much more credible when the resulting issue paper from a think tank came from people from across the spectrum with a consensus section and a section of individual dissents which is what I get from CFR.
- Personally I favor the idea of a means based welfare system that gives people a flat cash amount that will provide a meager substance life. It's an idea put forth my Milton Friedman that has been discussed on Hubski a few times. Make every two dollars earned on the job reduce benefits by one dollar and it's a work incentive program.
We should do the same for Social Security and other government programs. If you don't need it, don't get it! I also think we should do away with the caps on the SS tax and let everyone pay up to what they actually make: don't cap it at a little over $100,000.00 a year.
- Cap future food stamp spending. Since taking office, President Obama has nearly doubled food stamp spending from $39 billion in 2008 to a projected $85 billion in 2012. Even after adjusting for inflation and population growth, food stamp spending is at nearly twice the level in any previous recession.
No - not so, a portion of the citizenry perhaps, especially entrenched national congressional, senatorial, and predidential personnel, have called for the increases in government dependency. Certainly economic conditions dictate a temporary increase perhaps, but the real culprit is generational dependency caused by poor government oversight policy. In the recession of 1980-1981, the number was not that high (as a per capita percentage), and it was not that high in the early 1990's recessions. And remember "thenewgreen" you and I both agreed that the origin of the current recession (mostly attributed by all parties) was the collapse of the credit markets and the "toxic assets" that accompanied that collapse! The process started in the early 1990's (an objective fact that most "Bush Bashers" convenienltly leave out), under a Democrat President and when both houses of Congress were Democratic. Several presidents have "inherited" bad economies (the 1980's was worse!), but pulled out with not as many people "dependent" on the government dole. So to say "the citizenry" includeds only about 50% of the population. We are more and more ruled by an unelected "administrative" state that seems to govern "without the consent of the people" for several years. I believe Congress should reign in the "administrative state" that has usurped the intended legislative powers of the Congress itself. Factually, the food stamp program HAS expanded more under the Obama administration - that is data, not opinion!