Welfare vs. work: Government's perversion.
There's no incentive for government's dependents to work when today's patchwork of state and federal welfare programs provides more money — sometimes, considerably more — than entry-level jobs, according to a new report by the Cato Institute.
“The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off: 2013,” which follows up on a similar Cato report from 1995, shows that despite so-called welfare “reform” in 1996, the slide toward dependency has grown worse in recent years.
To wit: Why would anyone give up a government check for a job that pays less?
For example, a mother of two in New York who receives Temporary Assistance for Needy Families along with other common government subsidies could accrue a total benefits package of $38,004 ($29,817 in Pennsylvania), according to Cato. And remember, that's tax-free.
In 11 states, welfare surpasses the average pre-tax first-year salary for teachers, Cato reports. In 39 states, it beats the starting wage for secretaries.
(And, no, this is not an argument for perverting market forces and arbitrarily raising them to above government-set welfare rates.)
“If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening work requirements in welfare programs,” writes Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at Cato.
Unfortunately, the Obama administration has reduced those requirements, subjecting recipients to lives no brighter than their next government check.
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.
- Sunday pops
- The visa flap: A prevailing stench
- The Box
- Kittanning Council conundrum: Why disband authority?
- The student-loan balloon
- Mon-Yough Laurels & Lances
- Open contract negotiations: Let the sunshine in
- The Connellsville WCVI building: Another fine mess
- Saturday essay: Anatomy of a backache
- Pittsburgh Laurels & Lances
- Alle-Kiski Laurels & Lances