The great unemployment/food stamp lie
There can be no doubt that we have become a nation of economics illiterates. Consider the debate over extending long-term unemployment benefits and the food stamp program.
Shibboleths loom large in the jaded legend of these government-led efforts to ease the pain of the jobless and the hungry poor. And those who disagree with the “social justice” crowd's advocacy for them are branded as everything from “uncaring” to “extremists.”
But it is “progressives,” with their great aversion to intellectual labor, who should be held up for ridicule.
One of the greatest lies about unemployment benefits and food stamps is that they are an “economic stimulus.” The claim has been repeated — and embellished — for years by everyone from politicians, to left-wing columnists, to the compassionate clergy. And in the case of food stamps, it's the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that keeps planting the seeds from which this lie repeatedly sprouts. And with our money.
Food stamps bring federal dollars into communities in the form of benefits that are redeemed by participants at local stores, says the USDA. “These benefits ripple throughout the economies of the community, state and nation.” The USDA further claims that “every $5 in new” food stamp “benefits generate a total of $9.20 in community spending; every additional dollar's worth of ... benefits generates 17 to 47 cents of new spending on food”; and that, “on average, $1 billion of retail food demand by” food stamp “recipients generates 3,300 farm jobs.”
Back in 2012, the USDA went as far as to claim that if the national participation rate rose 5 percentage points, $1.3 billion in food stamp benefits would create $2.5 billion in new economic activity nationwide.
Call it trickle-down welfare. Call it welfare-driven economics. Or just call it the lie that it is, as Mark J. Perry, a University of Michigan economics and finance professor, did at the time:
“(I)magine the economic stimulus that could be created if the food stamp participation rate increased to 100 percent!,” he wryly noted.
It's not rocket science. Heck, it's not even junior high science. But it is fundamental economics embodied by this immutable truth:
“In an economy, the economic effects from a transfer program always sum to zero,” Professor Perry reminds. “Simply put, there can be no economic stimulus from increased food stamp usage.”
And as with food stamps, as with unemployment benefits, economics scholar Art Laffer reminded in a 2010 Wall Street Journal commentary:
“(W)hen it comes to higher” — or, we would add, extended — “unemployment benefits or any other stimulus spending, the resources given to the unemployed have to be taken from someone else. There isn't a ‘tooth fairy.' ... The government doesn't create resources. It redistributes them. For everyone who is given something there is someone who has that something taken away.”
Nicholas Ling, a Shakespeare publisher, once offered that “Ignorance is a voluntary misfortune.” How tragic it is that our taxes and charitable donations too often underwrite this purposeful misrepresentation.
Colin McNickle is Trib Total Media's director of editorial pages (412-320-7836 or firstname.lastname@example.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Clues to Chief Justice John Roberts’ thinking on new ObamaCare case
- Pirates enter Plan B with Martin off market
- For Steelers, a fight to finish for playoff berth
- Starkey: No explaining Steelers, AFC North
- Islanders outwork Penguins to sweep back-to-back meetings
- For Pitt men’s basketball team, trouble in paradise
- Leak of grand jury information could cost Attorney General Kane
- Pitt beats Syracuse, snaps 3-game losing streak
- Allegheny County adoption event joins 40 children with families
- Shooting victims live with bullets to survive, thrive
- Mears savors success, credits legendary Lange for guidance, inspiration