When Even a Liberal Can See It Isn't Working...

...then maybe we can all agree that welfare still needs reforming.

What am I thinking?  The progressives will never see reality...

Welfare Cliffs...

Here's a beautifully simple illustration (click to enlarge) of the problems caused by the “welfare cliffs” (reductions in welfare benefits triggered by earned wages).  This is worth studying, as an example of public policy with unintended consequences (at least, I sure hope they were unintended!).

The example on the chart below starts with a single mom earning (through a job) $29,000 a year.  She also qualifies for several kinds of welfare payments, which (added to her wages) brings her net income and benefits to over $57,000 a year.   Now consider what happens if she gets a raise to $32,000 a year in wages: the welfare payments she qualifies for drop steeply (the “welfare cliff”), and her total income and benefits drop to about $50,000 a year.  So...she gets a raise of $3,000 a year, but gets a total income cut of over $7,000 a year.  If you were in that single mom's place, would you ask for a raise?

The example in the chart below illustrates a slightly different point.  That same single mom would have to get a raise from $29,000 to over $69,000 before she saw higher net income and benefits. This happens from a combination of two factors: the previously described “welfare cliffs” and our progressive income tax system that confiscates larger percentages of your income as you make more.

Only the stupid welfare recipients are going to try to earn more, to make a successful career.  All the smart ones have the game figured out: you win by making between about $20,000 and $29,000 in wages.  Anything more than $29,000, you lose.  The winners coast along, taking in those nice, free welfare dollars...

What's the solution?  It isn't hard.  Design our tax code and welfare system such that no matter what situation someone is in, if they earn a dollar more in wages, an interesting percentage of that goes into their pocket.  Better yet: do away with the welfare entitlements altogether, and turn it back into what it was originally intended to be: a safety net.  There are many ways to accomplish this, but perhaps the easiest one is what some other countries already do: gradually reduce the amount of welfare over time...

Who's on Government Assistance?

The New York Times has a fascinating map of the U.S. (view of a small section at right), showing county-by-county the percentage of people taking government assistance (of any kind).  There were lots of surprises on here for me...

Look What We're Creating...

 My mom sent me this clip from “Judge Judy” (apparently some kind of TV show).  I don't know anything about this show, but it certainly doesn't look like any courtroom I've ever seen.  The clip shows her interviewing a defendant who provides us with a beautiful, crystalized view of what our welfare state creates: people with a clear belief in their entitlement to our money.  It's infuriating.



The backstory to this is the assertion (in the email my mom forwarded to me and on numerous web sites) that CBS removed this video from the web when requested by (variously attributed) politicians.  I've been unable to verify that.  Also my mom wondered whether Judge Judy actually sent the tape to Congress, as she promised on the video.  Whether she did, I believe, is irrelevant – something as prosaic as an observable fact is not going to change the attitude of any Congresscritters...

Welfare Dogs...

Via reader Dave H.:

This morning I went to sign my dogs up for welfare. At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare." So I explained to her that my dogs are mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddys are. They expect me to feed them, provide them with housing and medical care. So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify. My dogs get their first checks Friday.

Damn, this is a great country.