Welfare Never Dies.

Welfare never dies. So it seems, anyway. Whenever cuts are made to the amount of welfare spending in America, the liberal media screams bloody murder. The floodgates burst on sob stories: single mothers raising 5 kids, cancer victims who can’t afford treatment, disabled senior citizens with no money and no caretakers, small business owners who can’t compete, farmers selling their crops for less than they cost to plant, and so on. For every welfare program, there are a zillion sob stories designed to guilt everyone else into allowing said program to continue untouched. To the modern liberal establishment, rolling back welfare spending is immoral, heartless, and greedy.

To government economists, whom are nearly all Keynesians, rolling back welfare spending has even more grave implications. These people say that government spending is what fuels the economy. To these people, welfare spending is just another “tool” the government can use to keep the economic gears turning. Therefore, to a government economist, cutting welfare spending may not only be immoral and heartless but even bad for the economy. So according to all of the aforementioned, opposing welfare spending is immoral, heartless, greedy, and unpatriotic (because it supposedly harms the national economy). That’s a real load.

Consider food stamps. The number of citizens dependent on food stamps has nearly doubled from 25 million to approximately 50 million people within the past decade. Spending on food stamp subsidies has been increasing for the past 20 years, but the most significant increase in the food stamp budget occurred in 2009. It was meant as an emergency measure to those hurt by the recession. Last year, some of the subsidies to food stamps were ended. Making even tiny cuts to the food stamp budget was decried as inhumane and bad for the economy. Clearly, we can see that this is no longer an emergency measure, but has become business as usual.

Last November, this was reported by the LA Times:

U.S. food retailers are poised to take a hit as the federal government reduces its $78 billion-a-year food stamp program.

Grocery stores and other food retailers have struggled in recent years as consumers battered by high unemployment and shrinking wages switched from upscale products to discounted bulk goods and generic brands.

“Battered by high unemployment”. That’s strange. The massive amounts of federal spending are, according to Keynesian economic theory, supposed to combat unemployment. The federal deficit has been over $1 trillion for the past 3 years. According to Keynesian economic theory, employment should be booming by this time. Maybe that means that *gasp* Keynesian theory does not work?

The direct hit to the economy is likely to be muted, equating to just 0.0003% of gross domestic product, according to Nicholas Colas, chief market strategist at New York brokerage ConvergEx Group.

But damage to consumer confidence could be significant, he said. One in five American households is on food stamps, and many people could be rattled as their benefits are chopped.

“It’s not a big number in terms of dollars, but it’s a very big number in terms of people affected,” Colas said.

How much was the food stamp budget trimmed? About $5 billion dollars; a measly 6%. This is nothing. It’s peanuts. Barely a scratch. The food stamp program has doubled over the past five years. This is an astronomical increase. A 6% cut in relation to this is absolutely nothing, and yet it was decried by Keynesians as a catalyst of economic armageddon. So doubling the amounts of welfare spending in this area is no cause for alarm, but dialing back the spending a wimpy 6% is unacceptable.

Remember those sob stories I mentioned? Here we go:

Even before her regular SNAP allotment shriveled to $189 from $200, Hawthorne resident Tonya Robinson, 42, was scrambling to supplement her grocery funds at the end of each month.

At a bustling Wal-Mart in Torrance on Friday, a week before her next SNAP delivery, she filled her shopping cart as her 3-year-old son watched. To make the purchase, unemployed Robinson had to dip into her own cash reserves because she’d already used up last month’s SNAP funds.

The scaling back of SNAP will force her to buy groceries with money she sets aside for her $1,000 monthly rent and other bills, she said.

“How am I going to support my son? How am I going to buy him food?” Robinson said. “I think that’s foul because so many people are struggling right now.”

You hear that? She relies on food stamps. It’s wrong for the government to cut back on food stamps right now. They owe her food stamps. Taxpayers owe her food stamps. YOU owe her food stamps. Got it?

One of them is Rocky Kitchen, who was laid off from a job at Long Beach City College last year.

Kitchen, 53, just ran out of unemployment insurance, and is worried about being able to buy healthful food if his $84 a month in food stamps is cut.

“Why when more people than ever in this nation are hungry, and even [First Lady Michelle Obama] is pushing people to eat healthy, they’re taking away from the people who have the least,” he said.

“People in the government are looking at those as extras, as perks, when actually they’re necessities for life,” Kitchen said. “Not a great life, but just life.”

Welfare is addictive. People become addicted to receiving welfare. They come to rely on it. They say they cannot live without it. In reality, there are always other options; but when the cost of welfare is lowered to the recipient, more will be demanded. Receiving welfare practically has no cost to the recipient, as opposed to working an extra job. Therefore, most individuals will prefer to receive welfare.

There are a number of monstrous trends at work in the United States. The ever-increasing welfare mentality is one of them, both from government figures and the recipients. Government officials insist welfare spending is necessary to keep the economy afloat, and welfare recipients insist they require the subsidies to survive. Those of us actually paying for the subsidies (aka taxpayers) are often unhappy with this arrangement, but who cares? Opposing welfare spending is immoral and economically detrimental, and therefore illegitimate…. or so they say, at least.

In Scotland, almost 90% of citizens live on some form of welfare. Niall Ferguson believes that America is headed towards becoming another Scotland. He is correct.

 

Welfare never dies… or so it seems. Welfare almost never dies by the political sword. However, when the money runs out, the good times will be over. The Welfare State will die by the economic sword.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: