Friday, February 10, 2012

Yes, But What Does It Mean?

According to a recent report issued by the Mercatus Center, a libertarian-leaning think tank out of George Mason University, one-third of all Americans received some form of means-based public assistance, like Medicaid or food stamps, in 2010. The report then goes on to say that when Social Security, Medicare and unemployment benefits are included, nearly half the country—148 million Americans—were living in a household receiving some form of government benefits.



This comes at a time when less than half of all Americans are paying income tax.

It makes your blood boil, doesn’t it? Just think about it: half the country footing the bill for the benefits of the other half; the industrious ones being crippled by onerous tax burdens to prop up those who are too lazy or stupid to take care of themselves.

The problem with this report is that Social Security, Medicare, and even unemployment benefits are not “gifts” from the federal government. People pay into these programs throughout the course of their working careers, and, therefore, they can hardly be considered government entitlements. So the 50% number is pure propaganda designed to enrage those who look for any excuse at all to bash any and all government programs—even successful ones like Social Security and Medicare .

This is not to say that we don’t have a problem in this country, however. When one-third of the country is so poor that they require public assistance and when one-half of all taxpayers make so little that the government can’t even tax them, that should concern all of us, because it means that our country is on an unsustainable economic path. The question is how do we interpret this data.

Economic conservatives like those at the Mercatus Center and the Heritage Foundation would argue that the size of the American government itself is the issue. They would probably maintain that government programs designed to assist the poor actually create a perverse incentive not to work, while at the same time penalizing those who are the most industrious in the country. The solution, then, would be to dramatically reduce the size of government, thus lowering taxes, giving wealth creators (i.e., the rich) more money to invest, and creating jobs for those Americans who actually want to work. To do this, they advocate privatizing some current government programs (Social Security, for example) and entirely eliminating other programs (Medicaid) and troublesome government agencies (The Environmental Protection Agency, among others).

Progressives, on the other hand, would interpret this data as evidence that the middle class is being squeezed economically to the point of oblivion and that our public policies, which are skewed in favor of the top 1%, are creating a nation of rich and poor. If 50% of Americans pay no taxes, they would argue, it’s because they aren’t making anywhere near enough to be taxed in the first place. Cutting government programs like unemployment benefits, Social Security or Medicare is exactly the wrong thing to do, especially at this time, they would argue, because all this will do is push more Americans into the ranks of the poor. Taking their refrain from Franklin Roosevelt, progressives would argue that, especially during difficult economic times (i.e., right now), what we need is an even stronger safety net reestablished for the most vulnerable Americans and large-scale public spending to stimulate the economy.    

So what’s the right way to interpret the data put out by the Mercatus Center? This issue, I believe, gets to the heart of politics in the United States. It pits those who believe that “government is the problem” (conservatives/libertarians) against those who believe that government has an important role to play in insuring that all citizens have a decent minimum standard of living and have access to those goods that are vital for human flourishing—employment at a living wage, adequate health care, and some degree of economic security in their old age (progressives/liberals).

So which side of this issue do you come down on and why?

21 comments:

  1. I do not think that they should cut programs like unemployment benefits, Social Security or Medicare. I agree there should be a stronger safety net reestablished for Americans. If these programs were cut I think it would really hurt those that lost their jobs and who are retired because then they would have no source of any income. I also don't think it would be fair for them to cut those programs; because then what happens to the money of those who worked for years and their money was taken out from their checks into these programs? Why shouldn't these people who worked hard benefit from these programs? However, there are some people abusing how the system is currently working and something needs to be done to fix it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the reason this is becoming such a problem is because of the 1% who are becoming so greedy and not creating new jobs or growth for the economy. But taking all the wealth for themselves. Basically they are eliminating the middle class and ultimately squeezing the poor so much that they have to be so dependent on the goverment.

    ReplyDelete
  3. When it comes to this issue, I do not belive that the poor are remaining unemployed because of government support programs. This is just the result of what has come from the upper class controlling most income and eliminating jobs from the middle and lower class. People have no choice and are being forced into this position. Some may abuse the system but most people are certainly not choosing to be on welfare and recieve government assistance instead of trying to take care of themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that the government it the problem, they are taxing the poor and middle class to much money which they can not afford to pay. The middle class are becomming the poor class and the poor class are falling even futher below the poverty line which is causing more and more people to be dependant on some type of government assisstance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I believe that these numbers are very disturbing. There are a significant amount of people that definitely do need these programs based on age, disability, or lay offs. However, there are many citizens that are becoming dependent on these programs while they are capable of working. The guidelines and procedures to be entered in these programs need to be more strict so that people who are capable of working are getting jobs and helping our economy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To be honest, I'm not sure exactly sure which side I lean more towards when it comes to the issue of government assisted programs. I believe that there needs to be a fair mix of the two (which in reality would never happen)

    I do not agree with the conservative standpoint that programs such as Medicaid should be eliminated. Millions of Americans depend on these programs. Yet at the same time, such programs need to strictly monitored so that abuses of system do not take place, as they do now.

    If I had to decide today, I would have to pick the progressive side. As mentioned, Americans who depend on these programs during these hard economic times would crumble. However, I would/will feel different if/when the economic status changes

    ReplyDelete
  8. i believe that it is the governments role to plain in insuring that all citizens have a decent minimum standard of living and have access tot he goods that promote human flourishing. by providing employment, adequate health care, and some type of social security for retirement the government is taking the needed steps to protect the people
    Joanna B

    ReplyDelete
  9. Would maybe cutting down on the people that make up the government with the inflated salaries help decrease unecesarry spending and invest it in areas like gov. programs that actually need it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is wrong of the conservatives to the government programs that assist the poor because these programs help them build a foundation again. The working class is being squeezed of more taxes while the wealthy get tax cuts! If the wealthy were taxed equally, this rich/poor gap would not be so vast. This would even help our economy by having more money circulate instead of invested in the top 1%.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My opinion is not so great. In going for my HSL degree I would have to say that I know more now than I ever have about the inequality in the US. I don't have too much input on it but seem to take bits and pieces of from both sides that I agree with. I do feel that the Government programs might promote laziness, I agree that the middle class is being strangled financially and they are being pushed more towards the poor end of the spectrum. I feel the rich might just have it too good. And that's about all I have :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe,if you are not sick or have a major problem; you should not be on the public assistance program.I do not like to judge people, but I think some of them are taking advantage of the government.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I could get that people would have to pay for Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment benefits. Also, it can be upsetting that some people can't afford to pay thier own taxes and need public asssitance.

    ReplyDelete
  14. The medicare or the unemployment benefits should not be cut down in my opinion. We are in a situation when the economy is bad the people in the country are going to need help in order to survive. Cutting any of these programs will increase the poor in the country.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I definately think it wouldn't be a good idea to cut these programs that help out many struggling families. We are in this economic recession because of the greediness of large corporations that took away many jobs away in order to make a profit for themselves. These programs are needed to help them survive, and if these programs are taken away what would be left for them?

    ReplyDelete
  16. I believe that there should be as much assistance given to the people due to the fact that since we are still struggling in the economy today, there will be much less of a chance for the majority of the population from the poorer/lower class to get where they used to be (the middle class). Those who do not agree to the fact that there should not be public assistance for the people are those from the upper/rich class not suffering from those problems because they can afford to pay for these expenses. Those who were in the middle class and now are in the poorer class were not FORCED to be there, it was because of the economy which caused a drastic change for everyone except the upper class. It is true what Russo says, the rich are getting richer and poor are getting poorer.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I feel that it is wrong to say that all those people on public assistance are abusing the system and just being lazy. Although there may be a few that are in fact just that. If the wealthy did not control everything and weren't so greedy and self centered the economy would be very different. Regardless of the fact that many jobs have been eliminated due to the increasing technology, how come these rich people aren't making more jobs? It amazes me how they can sit here and say such a thing when they are the ones in control in fact so its up to them to change things and make them better. But what do they care about the people they don't they are just worried about their wealth and who cares if so many are out there suffering. I don't believe that these people don't want to work, they do but there aren't any jobs! this is exactly why the poor get poorer and the rich get richer plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I agree that the problem is that these programs are not “gifts” from the federal government. People work their entire lives to be able to benefit from theses programs. I believe cutting these programs would push more Americans into the ranks of being poor.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I don't think that government programs should be shut down. I agree that doing so would push more people into poverty. While some Americans do take advantage of these benefits, most need them to survive and cutting the programs would just create more problems.

    ReplyDelete
  20. When you think of how these programs can help those in need it doesnt cross your mind that it could be affecting someone else badly. "No good deed goes unpunished." Although this program maybe helping others temporarily it is also hurting those who have to have pay for it to stay running. Its seems as though whether or not these programs stay up and running there will always be an issue at hand. -Megan B.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I think its absolute garbage that the government keeps giving money to the rich. The rich have not made any real impacts in recent years. Where are the jobs, where is the money? I tell you where, across the ocean in the Cayman Islands and over in Swiss bank accounts. NOT here in the United States helping the rest of us, its no real secret. I feel the reason why they bash on great programs such as medicare and unemployment is because the few people who abuse the system ruin it for the rest of us. The government should reconsider who its giving stimulus money to. If the middle class and lower class was giving that money they wouldn't hold on to it, they would spend it. An thus by spending it helping the market instead of holding on to it. By spending the money its would help spread the wealth to all the classes by creating jobs from the economic surplus. Unfortunately nothing will change until the middle and lower class are pinched to the point of revolt against the rich. If this does happen it will be a scary time that will most likely be bloodier and sadder then the last homeland war, the Civil War.

    ReplyDelete