Among the disconcerting changes in our national societal fabric over the recent years has been the large increase in the number of persons on food stamps; one-half of our nation no longer pays any federal income taxes, and one-half of American households receive governmental assistance. In a little reported factoid, there were 225,000 net new jobs created during the last three months, but there were 246,000 persons who became eligible for the social security disability program during the same period.
Further, since the commencement of the Obama Regime, although the nation’s workforce has lost 1.3 million net jobs, 3.6 million have been added to the number of disabled Americans receiving government benefits. (Did you realize that fewer than one percent of those granted disability status ever return to work of any kind?) Yet, our nation grows more poor each day (national debt grows by $4 billion per day) and bankrupt from paying for and subsidizing the ever-increasing number of “poor” and “disabled,” broadly defined, who feed at the public trough.
Former Speak Newt Gingrich famously noted that President Obama has become the “nation’s food stamp president,” given the large increase in recipients of food stamps under his Regime. Even though no national budgets have been passed during the Obama years, in fiscal year 2011, our nation spent more than $550 billion in over 100 anti-poverty programs, and at least $10 trillion since the President Johnson began the Great Society anti-poverty programs in the mid-1960s. And last week, President Obama unilaterally waived work requirements for the “welfare-to-work” federal program, which required those receiving welfare to be employed or prove they are even looking for work.
Of course, given the level of our national debt and high levels of continued governmental spending, these programs are unsustainable. (It is interesting to me that no presidential candidate has dared to touch on this topic in the current campaign. I think that I echo many other Americans when I say that I don’t really care when former Governor Romney left Bain Capital, but I am quite interested in hearing what all candidates running for office in 2012 explain what they intend to do about this.
As a prime example of penetrating public issue-oriented political reporting, Politico exposed earlier this week that the President’s favorite Girl Scout cookies are Thin Mints.) Of course, most of the money devoted to anti-poverty programs finds its way into government bureaucracy and personnel, and that is why the poverty levels in our nation are no different (and actually higher) today from where they were in the mid-1960s, notwithstanding the many trillions spent on “alleviating” poverty. Of course, the European social model of cradle-to-grave dependence is the aspiration and social model for President Obama and many Democrats. The European welfare states are also unsustainable as both social and financial models, and their respective situations have been extensively studied in academic and financial studies, and widely reported in both the American and European media.
Interestingly, there is a faint glimmer of hope from Great Britain. Tania and Michael Sullivan are a lovely married couple from Kent, England, with a beautiful family. Tania, 37, is expecting her twelfth child (due in December). Her children range in age from 19 to eight-month old twins. She has conceived an incredible twenty times over nineteen years, and has sadly suffered numerous miscarriages. They own a 17-seat minibus to move their family (gasoline in the UK presently costs about $8 per gallon), and the family typically purchases twenty loaves of bread and over six gallons of milk each week (just six?). The family lives on Mr. Sullivan’s salary from his own business, Sullivan Joinery and Crafts. (In a shameless plug, here is his business’s website if you need some carpentry done, or hand-crafted furniture. He does export, too.)
Now you might wonder what makes this family so unique to be the subject of this blog. Under the UK’s generous welfare system, the family is entitled to numerous subsidies and tax-payer benefits. However, the Sullivans refuse to collect any welfare, even though they are eligible. The family has never hired a babysitter and Tania home-schools her children at their five-bedroom home. After her sixth child, she did give up her job as a corporate recruiter. She does admit that she is often tired. According to a recent interview in The Daily Mail, she said, “I’m still feeling well – albeit tired – but tiredness is part and parcel of being pregnant especially when you have twins to take care of at the same time.” I would imagine so.
In addition to being a super Mum, as they say in the UK, she also has time to write books and has a website about her family. Even though I have never heard or read a sermon on this particular Scripture, but another one of those pesky teachings of St. Paul that he wrote in I Timothy 5:8, “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for his immediate family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” I am not fully convinced that a person who relies on taxpayer-provided welfare and benefits for their family qualifies as taking care of his own, but I greatly admire and deeply respect the Sullivans for taking care of their family. And they show that it can be done if one wants to do so and is willing to make the necessary lifestyle adjustments. And that is why they are a family after my own heart. God continue to bless you richly, Sullivan Family!
The Greeks, who are much further down the road of the social welfare program and thus that much closer to total bankruptcy, continue to protest against reductions in any “entitlements”. They blame the Germans for not giving them enough credit to continue their lifestyle. As a nation, we are speedily seeking to emulate Greece and all of Europe in our rush to increase benefit programs for our citizens. What is it about bankruptcy that we don’t understand?
Michael Avramovich writes, “Yet, our nation grows more poor each day (national debt grows by $4 billion per day) and bankrupt from paying for and subsidizing the ever-increasing number of “poor” and “disabled,” broadly defined, who feed at the public trough.”
Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that:
1) Income inequality is at its highest level since before the crash that precipitated the Great Depression.
2) Share of income for the bottom 90% is at its lowest since just before the Great Depression.
3) Between 2001 and 2007, the 400 richest taxpayers doubled their incomes while their effective tax rate fell from 29.35% in 1993 to 22.85% in 2001 to only 16.62% in 2007 (being able to move their money to the Caymans probably helps).
See graphs at: http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001766.htm
Further, federal tax rates are at their lowest since 1950.
(http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/federal-taxes-at-lowest-rate-since-1950/)
In response to the claim that one-half (sometimes 40% is claimed) of our nations pays no federal taxes, the reality is that 38% of “tax units” (singles, couples, or families) had zero or negative income tax liability in 2009. About 60% of this group had household incomes of $20K or less per year. However, this does not mean they pay no federal taxes. Everyone who works pays payroll taxes, Medicare and Social Security contributions, excise taxes, and sales tax. In fact, according to the CBO (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/41654), this group has a higher effective tax rate than that of the top quintile.
(http://www.factcheck.org/2008/11/americans-paying-no-taxes/)
Our country is looking a lot more like the US before October 29, 1929, than it does like Greece.
Finally, while I wish the Sullivans only the best, it has to be said that the help they get from their government includes: NHS health care, family tax benefits, and a child allowance for each child under the age of 18 — not insubstantial.
Meggie, the issue of increased income inequality under the Obama Regime reflects his ignorance (and those of his advisors). I don’t know any of his cabinet officials who has worked in the private sector. In fact, on the basis of Obama’s resume, he would be unable to even get a job as the assistant deputy regional director of Region VI of the EPA or OSHA, let alone a job as manager of any private sector business. So, we would expect that income inequality would increase under his able leadership in a second Obama term. Yes, the rich are also getting poorer (see CBO studies). I am a CPA and when I tell my clients, “I became a millionaire under Obama,” people incredulously ask me…how did I do that? My answer is that “I started with over $10 million in net assets!” This always leads business people to guffaws. So, yes, the rich have gotten poorer under this Regime, but it is far less noticeable than what has happened to the middle class and poor….but the worst is still yet to come! Or Meggie, perhaps you are blaming Bush??
Totally agree. But when we say that 50% pay no income taxes, we should, I believe, mention that wage-earners pay Social Security taxes. And, it is a tax. Further, we need to remember that regardless of income level, all pay sales taxes—sometimes over 9%.
nice says