Welfare Can Pay More Than That Entry-Level Job

A new study from a libertarian think tank calls for further restrictions on government assistance for low-income Americans.

Carolina Fuentes and her daughter Katherine, 5, wait for an appointment at the Sacramento county welfare office in Sacramento, Calif., Monday, June 1, 2009. Facing a $24.3 billion state budget deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzengger has proposed ending welfare for poor mothers and their children, wiping out health insurance for 1 million children and disbanding care for people with Alzheimer's disease or other disabilities. Fuentes, 22, a newly-single mother , doesn't qualify for benefits having crossed the U.S.-Mexico border as a teenage, applied for cash assistance, food stamps and health coverage of her daughter.
National Journal
Matt Vasilogambros
Aug. 20, 2013, 8:06 a.m.

Wel­fare pro­grams pay more than min­im­um wage in 35 states.

That’s ac­cord­ing to a new study re­leased this week by the Cato In­sti­tute, a Wash­ing­ton-based liber­tari­an think tank. It’s an up­date from its 1995 study that ex­amined the same is­sues.

Its con­clu­sion this time around, ac­count­ing for the changes in the gov­ern­ment’s 126 sep­ar­ate pro­grams for low-in­come people, is that gov­ern­ment aid can be more than the earn­ings from a reg­u­lar, entry-level job. And the pay gap has in­creased in re­cent years, the study con­cludes.

Here are some of its num­bers:

Not only do gov­ern­ment-as­sist­ance pro­grams for the un­em­ployed pay more than min­im­um wage in 35 states, but they also pay more than a $15-an-hour job, ac­cord­ing to the re­port. Hawaii has the “most gen­er­ous be­ne­fit pack­age,” fol­low­ing by the Dis­trict of Columbia and Mas­sachu­setts.

In 11 states, these pro­grams pay more an­nu­ally than the av­er­age teach­er after his or her first year on the job. In 39 states, it pays more than a start­ing salary of a sec­ret­ary. And the com­par­is­ons con­tin­ue.

In total, the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment spends $668.2 bil­lion on these pro­grams an­nu­ally, while states give out an­oth­er $284 bil­lion, the re­port finds.

Cato’s con­clu­sion? Well, the study tries to prove what the in­sti­tute and oth­er con­ser­vat­ives and liber­tari­ans have ar­gued for years:

If Con­gress and state le­gis­latures are ser­i­ous about re­du­cing wel­fare de­pend­ence and re­ward­ing work, they should con­sider strength­en­ing wel­fare work re­quire­ments, re­mov­ing ex­emp­tions, and nar­row­ing the defin­i­tion of work.

By mak­ing it harder to qual­i­fy for these pro­grams and adding more eli­gib­il­ity re­quire­ments from the up­dated 1996 Tem­por­ary As­sist­ance for Needy Fam­il­ies law, states can help bridge this gap, the study says.

And rais­ing the min­im­um wage, as Pres­id­ent Obama has sug­ges­ted, is a non­starter, ac­cord­ing to the in­sti­tute, which ar­gues it raises un­em­ploy­ment for the low­est-skilled work­ers.

In the U.S., more than 100 mil­lion people get some sort of wel­fare as­sist­ance from the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment, ac­cord­ing to a 2012 re­port from the con­ser­vat­ive magazine The Weekly Stand­ard. That num­ber does not in­clude those who only re­ceive So­cial Se­cur­ity or Medi­care.

Cut­ting off be­ne­fits could have a deep im­pact on those fam­il­ies, many of which are minor­ity or im­mig­rant house­holds. Wel­fare be­ne­fits are also capped after a cer­tain amount of time, which ob­vi­ously doesn’t go for min­im­um wage.

Food stamps, hous­ing, med­ic­al, and oth­er gov­ern­ment-as­sist­ance pro­grams are of­ten dis­cussed by these groups and have been the tar­get of budget cuts from con­gres­sion­al Re­pub­lic­ans. In the House-passed farm bill last month, food stamps were left com­pletely out in or­der to help its pas­sage. The Demo­crat­ic-con­trolled Sen­ate is not likely to pass that bill.


Shar­on Par­rott, a vice pres­id­ent for Cen­ter of Budget and Policy Pri­or­it­ies, a Wash­ing­ton-based think tank, re­spon­ded to the Cato re­port, say­ing the res­ults were mis­lead­ing. She tells Na­tion­al Journ­al:

They got the com­par­is­on between work­ing and not-work­ing really skewed. The first thing that they do is they as­sume that people who aren’t work­ing have ready ac­cess to a large set of be­ne­fits that vir­tu­ally no one re­ceives all of. So, that really ex­ag­ger­ates the be­ne­fit pack­age of most fam­il­ies with kids whose par­ents are out of work. The second thing they do is they ig­nore the kinds of help that is provided and is avail­able for work­ing fam­il­ies, in­clud­ing fam­il­ies who were not work­ing and re­ceiv­ing wel­fare and trans­ition to work. And they as­sume that as soon as they trans­ition to a low-wage job, all of those kinds of sup­ports are im­me­di­ately ter­min­ated, which is also false. So when you ex­ag­ger­ate the be­ne­fits avail­able to people who don’t work and you dra­mat­ic­ally un­der­state the be­ne­fits that are avail­able to people who work, it’s not sur­pris­ing that the com­par­is­on, or the break-even point, is dra­mat­ic­ally skewed in their re­port. 

What We're Following See More »
Trump Won’t Debate Sanders After All
3 days ago

Trump, in a statement: “Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher. ... I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.”

UAW: Time to Unite Behind Hillary
4 days ago

"It's about time for unity," said UAW President Dennis Williams. "We're endorsing Hillary Clinton. She's gotten 3 million more votes than Bernie, a million more votes than Donald Trump. She's our nominee." He called Sanders "a great friend of the UAW" while saying Trump "does not support the economic security of UAW families." Some 28 percent of UAW members indicated their support for Trump in an internal survey.

Trump Clinches Enough Delegates for the Nomination
4 days ago

"Donald Trump on Thursday reached the number of delegates needed to clinch the Republican nomination for president, completing an unlikely rise that has upended the political landscape and sets the stage for a bitter fall campaign. Trump was put over the top in the Associated Press delegate count by a small number of the party's unbound delegates who told the AP they would support him at the convention."

Trump/Sanders Debate Before California Primary?
4 days ago
California: It’s Not Over Yet
4 days ago

"Clinton and Bernie Sanders "are now devoting additional money to television advertising. A day after Sanders announced a new ad buy of less than $2 million in the state, Clinton announced her own television campaign. Ads featuring actor Morgan Freeman as well as labor leader and civil rights activist Dolores Huerta will air beginning on Fridayin Fresno, Sacramento, and Los Angeles media markets. Some ads will also target Latino voters and Asian American voters. The total value of the buy is about six figures according to the Clinton campaign." Meanwhile, a new poll shows Sanders within the margin of error, trailing Clinton 44%-46%.