Work Requirements Decrease Food Stamp Recipient Numbers

Add work eligibility requirements, to the welfare system.

FBI: US Homicide Rate At 51-Year Low

To finally reduce homicide rates we need only legalize recreational drugs, and just as the sale of liquor went from deadly during prohibition, so will the sale, and distribution of recreational drugs. Then we can deal with the consequences of drug use as a medical/social issue and not as a shockingly expensive criminal issue. The expenditures will be far lower and we will finally be able to help those who actually want help. 

​More below.

Illegal immigrants who overstay visas almost never caught, feds admit

They can't seem to leave. Must be a terrible place!

More immigrant and tax goodness below the fold.

Doug Ross @ Journal: OUR FEDERAL HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM: The Poverty Creator

. . . last time we found that government antipoverty programs create poverty. This time we will find out that government housing assistance programs create poverty. I'm detecting a pattern.

What's The Best Way To Reduce Poverty?

. . . and counterintuitively, reducing antipoverty programs reduces poverty as well.

"What is the best way to reduce poverty in America?  Anyone who follows the subject at all will immediately know the answer: the best way to reduce poverty in America is to reduce government "anti-poverty" programs.  If that seems counter-intuitive to you, it can only be because you do not follow the subject at all.  Those who follow the subject know that government "anti-poverty" programs are universally designed and structured to keep the beneficiaries in poverty, because the benefits encourage dependency and discourage work, and also do not count as "income."  Keeping the poverty rate high is the first priority of the "anti-poverty" bureaucracies, who need large numbers of poor people to justify their staffs and their budgets.  Call them the "Welfare Blob."

The public got introduced to this subject by the mid-90s welfare reform enacted by the then-new Republican Congress and President Clinton.  When Congress in 1996 instituted work requirements and time limits for basic welfare, many on the left predicted soaring poverty and disaster for the poor; but instead measured poverty (particularly among the key population of black children) immediately and rapidly declined."

Read the whole thing!

Kansas Reduced Poverty by Requiring Work for Food Stamps

. . . all that stands in the way are the progressives who wish to keep the poor on the plantation.

"Over the past several years, the number of Americans on food stamps has soared. In particular, since 2009, the number of “able-bodied-adults” without dependents receiving food stamps more than doubled nationally. Part of this increase is due to a federal rule that allowed states to waive food stamps’ modest work requirement. However, states such as Kansas and Maine chose to reinstate work requirements. Comparing and contrasting the two approaches provides powerful new evidence about the effectiveness of work.

According to a report from the Foundation for Government Accountability, before Kansas instituted a work requirement, 93 percent of food stamp recipients were in poverty, with 84 percent in severe poverty. Few of the food stamp recipients claimed any income. Only 21 percent were working at all, and two-fifths of those working were working fewer than 20 hours per week.

Once work requirements were established, thousands of food stamp recipients moved into the workforce, promoting income gains and a decrease in poverty. Forty percent of the individuals who left the food stamp ranks found employment within three months, and about 60 percent found employment within a year. They saw an average income increase of 127 percent. Half of those who left the rolls and are working have earnings above the poverty level. Even many of those who stayed on food stamps saw their income increase significantly."

Shocking! To hear the progressives, any amount of work would be horrible for the poor. It would sap their self image, destroy their ability to work and force them permanently onto welfare. 

Except that is not what happens. Instead, the poor become more prosperous, and wealthier, and ultimately have the ability to leave the ranks of the impoverished.

Don't expect the progressives to agree with this or pursue these policies, they like the poor being kept on the plantation. Votes don'tchaknow.

. . . it might be the place where 20 somethings go to retire, but increasingly they must do that living in the parents basement!

I spoke briefly with Abigail, a young woman who works at the local Starbucks as an assistant manager. She is a smart cookie, doing all the right things, but trapped in the hell that is the blue model. Wages in Portlandia are low, rents high, and the cost of living is fairly high when compared to the wage. 

You may remember a few days ago when I discussed the fact that Portlandia is the worst city in the country for Millennial housing affordability.

Boomer versus Millennial Wrestling World Smackdown, Portland is out ahead, but Seattle is running a close second!

Abigail is the poster child for this problem. She is educated, employed, and still not able to find work at a wage which allows her to live on her own. This even though she is an assistant manager. This is not a slight on the employer, but an indictment of the current blue model, and our unwillingness to make necessary change.

Our conversation started with a comment on the high cost of rents in Portlandia. It roved from rent to wages, to college, and on to how difficult it is to make it on ones own today, especially for the young. We hit other areas like equal pay, saving, and opportunity.

Walter Russell Mead has an article addressing this problem.

Small Business Should Be Priority Number One

I agree with the thrust of this post. The blue model was in part the attempt to counter balance big business with big government, big labor, big banking, big law, etc. The idea was to create huge institutions to help create space for the little guy to keep from being crushed by the bigs. 

The Internet, and the tech revolution has essentially altered the landscape, allowing the individual access to information which used to be the sole providence of the bigs. This was because information prior to the Internet was expensive to obtain, and expensive to store, collate, analyze, and make usable. This is no longer true. In the Internet age information wants to be free, and it is very difficult, probably impossible to keep information sequestered. The result is that in many situations the individual has the same access to information as the big, but is without the internal bureaucracy the big is saddled with. And so the individual is able to act on information more quickly, and frequently more profitably. 

Where it used to be difficult for a small business to compete directly against a huge corporation, today it is not. The small can fine tune and focus on the specific needs of a client or a small group of clients. These often forgotten clients are much happier with the individualized attention, and the extensive knowledge the small business usually has. This is one of the reasons for the massive, and ongoing crack up of the large mega law firms. 

The Boomers are doing a great disservice to our young people by continuing to focus them on attempting to find a niche in the old blue model world. Big business as mega employer is likely a thing of the past. The Mead idea here for a transition to the new socio-economic model is a very good start. The sooner the young people begin to think independently of the antiquated blue model, the sooner they will be able to find a niche and begin prospering from the collapse of the blue model.

Perhaps we will need to reform welfare to create a better  more usable safety net to allow these young people to take more risks in the entrepreneurial world?

Please reread one of my earlier blog posts linked below. It offers a much more comprehensive analysis of some of these issues, and opportunities.

The Stockman, The Donald, The Noonan all in one place!

The guaranteed income could be an option which allows these young people to take necessary risks. 

Best of luck to Abigail. I have been toying with meeting with she and her boyfriend for a an hour or so sit-down session where I pick their brains to help me understand the Millennial better. I would be willing to part with $50 apiece. I will ask her next time I see her. 

Millennials Like Socialism — Until They Get Jobs

. . . and find in the robbing Peter to pay Paul game, they are Peter. They will like it even less once they have to start paying for all those wealthy Boomers retirements, medical costs, etc.

"Millennials are the only age group in America in which a majority views socialism favorably."

Of course they do. Families are socialist in nature, and the children are takers, not earners. But once they learn what it is like to work for pay, they begin to change their minds. 

"So what does socialism actually mean to millennials? Scandinavia. Even though countries such as Denmark aren’t socialist states (as the Danish prime minster has taken great pains to emphasize) and Denmark itself outranks the United States on a number of economic freedom measures such as less business regulation and lower corporate tax rates, young people like that country’s expanded social welfare programs."

Also unsurprising, since these people have little savings, they feel insecure. The American system is based on the atomized nuclear family, where each individual or couple is economically separate, and independent from others including their family. This creates a dynamic economy since each nuclear family must achieve to support itself, but it also creates a high level of insecurity. Traditionally this was solved by lots of hard work. Since the welfare revolution back in the 1930s, we have seen ever more welfare, or security spread across the land. The Millennials believe it is appropriate for them to access some of this security to assuage their feelings of insecurity.

This is likely the least efficient way to solve this problem. A better way would be to create, and fund personal tax favored (and bankruptcy protected) accounts which will allow the individual to create a personal welfare buffer. While the government will need to backstop such a program, it would go far to reform the welfare system in a positive manner.

Another mechanism to address this would be a minimum income formulation (this can be used in conjunction with the tax favored account model). This should be accompanied by the elimination of the income tax, the corporate tax, the payroll tax, and the estate and gift tax. Then a minimum income could be instituted where individuals so needing would have to access the funds by agreeing to pay income tax. Of course, this "tax" would be negative while the individual's earning were below the minimum income level, and once near or above the individual would simply stop participating in the voluntary income tax and no longer receive minimum income funds. Payments would be direct deposited into one of the above tax favored accounts. 

This would eliminate the income tax for those who make a living wage, and only require it for those who do not, and who wish welfare income supplementation. The unpleasant nature of the income tax, the penalties, and other issues would likely limit who would be willing to seek this assistance to those who need the assistance.  

The real benefits would be the total elimination of the federal welfare state, and the elimination of the income tax, corporate tax, etc.

The benefits of this would be huge. Just the billions of dollars saved in tax preparation costs would be huge. Plus, without these taxes, there would be no need for offshore tax avoidance schemes, or the myriad corporate tax dodging schemes. The tax would become a consumption tax, and everyone from businesses, to illegal immigrants would pay their fair share. The minimum income would eliminate the need for a minimum wage, and most of the other inane employment regulations. 

These changes would make businesses more competitive, and bring businesses to America. We would have an onshoring "problem" with businesses, not an offshoring problem, since there would be no corporate income tax to push business to incorporate in foreign nations with lower tax rates. Nor would Apple have an incentive to anchor income offshore. 

The problem? Not enough graft, and corruption for the politicians. This is nearly always the reason simple, effective, and efficient political changes never happen. Add to that we have the worst political class in history, and one might despair. However, the current government pension and inefficiency/funding crisis is likely to result in wholesale change to our body politic, and our underlying political, and governmental institutions. I suspect this will offer us the ability to move from the now decaying progressive system to a more vibrant economic, social, technological model. 

Here's hoping!

Hat tip: Instapundit IT’S USUALLY LIKE THAT: Millennials Like Socialism — Until They Get Jobs.

Sanders fans are blind to reality of socialism

. . . which shows that inexperience allows all manner of irrational behavior.

"It is especially interesting that the primary drivers of this shift are college-age voters and their mentors on the left who teach them."

Not really, neither has any real life experiences. The only difference between the two is that those in the Academe have more time in the saddle as student and have attained more degree status. Otherwise, they have few life experiences related to the real world, business, etc. 

"In college town after college town, Sanders turns out huge crowds, chanting his name and exalting his causes: the redistribution of wealth and the destruction of those deemed to be undeserving of their economic success."

To children who know nothing of hard work, making a payroll, or year after year of long arduous work hours, it is easy to believe that the economically successful had it as easy as the student in obtaining a grade. But working for money is not like working for a grade. The grade inflation has made grades nearly valueless. While people outside of government still value a buck, and tend to hold it tightly. 

"It is an interesting choice. Socialism is one of those ideas that has great theoretical attractiveness but a record of massive practical failure. The devastation — not just economic but also in terms of human suffering — that has been wrought in the name of the greater good of a socialist system is staggering."

Agreed, on paper socialism is the best system ever. In reality, it is nothing but tyranny freed from restraint, which always results in millions murdered. Only the young and/or inexperienced could follow a system so bloody, and immoral. 

Socialism is simply greed, and authoritarian violence allowed off leash. 

"Maybe what needs to be fixed is not our market economy but our educational system. It skips over teaching the historical and undeniable failures of socialism and thus leaves our students totally unprepared to evaluate whose ideas will work best in leading our nation and improving our quality of life."

True, and it really is much worse than Mr. Gregg is allowing. We should end state funding now! 

Parents and Universities are failing our children . . . 

Teachers, and professors are increasingly indoctrinating our children with irreducible nonsense, and even damaging beliefs like the one where socialism is great and will improve the lives of all American. 

We could use a revolution about now.