November 21, 2024

Food Stamps For The Wealthy – Millionaires Meet Eligibility Requirements

January 19, 2012 by Leave a Comment

Newt Gingrich started a food fight at the last Republican debate by calling Barrack Obama “The Food Stamp President” and suggesting that food stamps were creating dependence on the government.  Mr. Gingrich went on to say that he wanted to “help poor people learn how to get a job” so that they could get off the food stamp dole.

Although Mr. Gingrich’s pitch for individual self reliance and hard work resulted in a standing ovation from the Republican audience, the message may not play out as well across the broad spectrum of American society.

For decades, politicians have told the American public that they are entitled to all sorts of benefits and the public has grown to love them.  Promises of benefit cuts or austerity measures do not win elections. In this regard, Mr. Gingrich may lose more votes than he gains by trying to reduce the number of food stamp recipients.  (The food stamp program is now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP).

Courtesy: inquisitr.com

All well intentioned government entitlement programs expand exponentially over time.  The number of food stamp recipients has exploded to a record 44.7 million people and this is a voting bloc to be reckoned with.  Newt’s somewhat hostile message to food stamp constituents has probably lost him a considerable number of votes.

Mr. Gingrich, who has an incredible depth of knowledge on most topics, seems to be unaware that food stamps have become an entitlement not just for the poor, but also for many who are financially independent and chose not to work or have retired early.

Here’s an example I looked at for a married couple in Connecticut who both chose to retire at the age of 50 since they are financially independent with $5 million in liquid assets.  Since they will live off their savings until they start receiving pensions at age 60, the couple has no “earned income” and can therefore qualify for a decade’s worth of food stamp benefits.

Exactly how can multimillionaires qualify for food stamps?  The reasons lies in the lack of asset testing for SNAP eligibility.  Connecticut, like 34 other states, does not limit eligibility based on assets.  Most SNAP applicants, except for limited exceptions, do not have to report money in the bank, retirement assets, stocks or other assets.

According to the handy benefit calculator from the Connecticut Department of Social Services, the multimillionaire couple cited above are eligible for food stamps to the tune of $367.00 per month.

The food stamp program has grown not only due to tough economic times but to vastly widened eligibility guidelines.  The SNAP program costs the taxpayers over $75 billion per year.  Here’s a partial listing of who can qualify for food stamps.

  • Non-citizens
  • Unemployed
  • Retired social security recipients
  • Working people with low wages
  • Homeless
  • Legal immigrants
  • College students
  • Millionaires showing little or no earned income

The graph below from The Wall Street Journal shows the explosive growth in the SNAP program since 1970.

Courtesy: The Wall Street Journal

Mr. Gingrich drew some well deserved applause for trying to reassert the basic values of American free enterprise and self reliance.  However, based on the vast voting constituency that is now on the food dole, reducing or eliminating the food stamp program is a political impossibility.

More on this topic:

The Entitlement Society – Million Dollar Lottery Winner Feels Entitled To Food Stamps – “I have bills to pay.”

Filed Under: Connecticut, Government Deficits, Government spending, Have Nots, Jobs, Layoffs, Unemployment Tagged With: , , ,

Obama Jobs Plan Bad Joke For Both Employed and Unemployed

September 9, 2011 by Leave a Comment

The long awaited and hugely hyped Obama “Jobs Solution Speech”, hastily crafted between rounds of golf on the Vineyard, is unlikely to help either the employed or  unemployed.

Obama’s calls his new proposals the “American Jobs Act” but it strongly resembles the $825 billion stimulus spending program of 2009 which was ineffective and failed to stimulate the economy or create new jobs.   Taxpayers will likely fail to see the logic of a $447 billion stimulus program working any better than a $825 billion stimulus program.

The latest proposals out of the White House appear to be another desperate Keynesian attempt to keep the economy on life support long enough to boost Obama’s chances in the presidential election race.  Expecting voters to buy into Obama’s new program pushes the bounds of credibility.  Why would a relatively small $447 billion program work any better than the $4 trillion in deficit financed spending since Obama came into office?

Telling voters that the new half trillion dollar program will be paid for from future mythical budget cuts isn’t likely to fly either after seeing the results of the latest fiasco on deficit reduction talks that lead to a downgrade of the US credit rating.

Half of $447 billion “Jobs Act” program consists of payroll tax cuts for both employers and employees.  While probably adding to aggregate spending, the tax cuts do not address the fundamental problems of unemployment and income stagnation over the past decade.

Why Payroll Tax Cuts Won’t Work

What business bases hiring decisions on a 2% drop in the social security (FICA) tax?  Any business man stupid enough to decide to hire new employees simply because his share of the FICA tax will be slightly lower is already out of business.  New employees are added by businesses when there is added demand for their products and when they are confident that a lasting economic recovery is underway.  Today, there is subdued demand and no confidence – a cut in the FICA tax does nothing to change this situation.

Regarding the payroll tax cut for employees, here’s how one Connecticut resident assessed the situation.

“I am currently making $80,600 per year.   The recent reduction of 2% in the FICA tax resulted in an increase of $31 per week to my paycheck.  Meanwhile, the State of Connecticut just passed the largest tax increase in history, retroactive to the first of the year, which results in paying $17 more per week.  My weekly deduction for medical insurance increased by $12 per week since last year and our employer has suspended pay increases.

My net benefit from the FICA tax reduction is $2 a week.  Meanwhile, the cost of gasoline, home heating, insurance and groceries has risen at least 6% over the past year.  Even if the FICA tax cut was made permanent, an extra $2 per week is certainly not going to motivate me to spend more.

My savings goals for college funding and retirement have been destroyed by a collapsing stock market and zero interest rates on savings.  I  have to cut current spending in order to meet my savings goals and any extra income would be saved, not spent.”

Did Obama talk to any “real people” outside of the group of Washington elites and millionaire celebrity pals he hangs around with?  I think not.

Did Obama talk to any “real businessmen” before coming out with his warmed over and effective stimulus plan?  I think not.

Did Obama talk to “Helicopter Bernanke” about how to spread out the $447 billion of borrowed money?  The government could simply spend the $447 billion by sending every household in America a check for $3,886 attached with a note telling the recipients to thank their grandchildren whose future has been mortgaged.

Voters are rightfully disgusted by the rapid decline in their standard of living, the debasement of the US currency and the self serving dealings of the ruling Washington elites.  To pull out an old campaign slogan, “It’s time for a change”.

There are no easy answers to pulling a debt laden economy out of depression, but increasing transfer payments, small tax cuts, massively increased regulatory burdens, trillions in stimulus spending and zero interest rates have not worked.  Maybe the Washington elites should simply step aside, stop micro managing the $14 trillion dollar US economy and allow the creative forces of capitalism to work

Filed Under: Bailout, Confidence, Connecticut, Economy, Government Deficits, Government spending, Jobs, Stimulus Plan, Unemployment Tagged With: , , , , , , , , ,

Extended Unemployment Benefits Make Little Sense

September 2, 2009 by 18 Comments

Do Extended Benefits Reduce Job Seeker’s Motivation?

Excluding the depression of the 1930’s we are fast approaching a new official high in unemployment.  During the depths of the last worst recession of 1981, unemployment exceeded 10% vs 9.4% today.  If we include marginally attached and involuntarily part time workers in the unemployment numbers, the current unemployment rate exceeds 16%.

In response to the high level of unemployment and the difficulty of obtaining employment, Congress has enacted legislation that allows the unemployed in 24 states to collect up to 79 weeks of unemployment benefits.   The other states allow unemployment benefits  from 46 to 72 weeks.  In more normal economic times, the limit on unemployment benefits was usually up to 26 weeks.

Washington legislators are now proposing another extension of benefits for up to another 13 weeks that would cost up to $70 billion.  The additional extension of benefits was prompted by the fact that up to 1.5 million unemployed Americans would soon be losing their unemployment checks as they reach the current payment limits.

In addition, the duration of unemployment has reached new highs not seen since record keeping began.

Duration of Unemployment

Given the unprecedented level of unemployment, the duration of unemployment and well reasoned arguments on why unemployment will continue to increase, the entire concept of unemployment benefits should be reconsidered.

Should Unemployment Benefits Be “Free”?  –  Some Alternatives

  • Is the constant extension of unemployment benefits reducing the motivation of the unemployed to seek new employment?   In the past year I have tried to hire unemployed people for an entry level position in which the starting pay was comparable to or slightly above the level of unemployment benefits the job seeker was currently receiving.  In almost every instance, the job seeker declined the job offer, preferring instead to postpone employment until benefits ran out.  I have also heard this same story from other people.  To maintain unemployment benefits, many states require that a benefit recipient contact a certain number of employers per week to seek work – how many of the unemployed merely go through the routine of seeking employment to maintain benefit payments?
  • Should the economy weaken further and job losses continue, does it make sense for Congress to constantly extend costly unemployment benefits with zero obligation from the recipient?  Bill Clinton reformed welfare by requiring benefit recipients to work.  Why not do the same with the unemployed who are receiving benefits?   Many charities, local governments, hospitals and companies  could employ additional manpower in a variety of productive endeavors.   The unemployment benefits would still be paid by the government, but the benefits would have to be earned.  From a self worth perspective, getting engaged back into the real world would benefit the unemployed as well – sure beats watching television all day.
  • Instead of spending hundreds of billions on unemployment benefits and getting nothing in return, the government could establish job training programs or put the unemployed to work on infrastructure projects that the country sorely needs.  This was done in the 1930’s with the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and the country still benefits to this day from the roads, bridges, dams and buildings that were constructed.   The preferred way to do this would be for government bureaucrats to get out of the way and contract projects to private industry.  Paying people to do nothing accomplishes nothing.

Ideally, the economy recovers and private industry rehires many of the unemployed.  Realistically, the country may face continued massive job losses or at best a slow recovery where the unemployment rate remains in the 10% plus range for an extended period of time.   Maintaining an army of paid and unemployed workers to sit idle makes no sense.

More on this topic

When The Laid-Off Are Better Off

Would it surprise you to learn that survivors can suffer just as much, if not more, than colleagues who get laid off?  “How much better off the laid-off were was stunning and shocking to us,” says Sarah Moore, a University of Puget Sound industrial psychology professor who is one of the book’s four authors. “So much of the literature talks about how dreadful unemployment is.”

Filed Under: Economy, Government spending, Have Nots, Jobs, Layoffs, Regulatory Reform, Unemployment Tagged With: ,