« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Hi, here’s a food stamp graph that will ruin your day.

By: Moe Lane (Diary)  |  April 3rd, 2011 at 08:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Because why have a nice, sunny morning? We probably can’t afford those anymore, anyhow.

H/T AoSHQ Headlines:

Primed by the financial meltdown; took off like a rocket in January 2009, and is now reaching for the stars. Over 44 million on the rolls (somewhere around 14.3% of the population), which is about 14 million or so more than when this administration took office. The graph is sufficiently grim and depressing on its own to make further commentary largely unnecessary, but I will add one sardonic comment. If current conditions are what the White House considers to be “our economic recovery,” then let me be clear: You’re Doing It Wrong.

Moe Lane (crosspost)

PS: Benefits are down, too. A little counter-intuitive, given that the time frame is the Democratic party’s control of the government… no, wait, in that case it’s not counter-intuitive at all.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.FranBaker.com frankieb

    Ridiculous question, I know. But if a Republican were president with these numbers …

  • smitch61

    recently that MI really and truly is a nanny state. The new governor’s budget is creating quite a ruckus among the masses here that count on the government dole. I have been disheartened lately, while I have always known this at some level, I had no idea how great a problem it is…. The government could do well in eliminating fraud in the area of food stamps alone. This would save us billions I am sure. In MI you are not required to show ‘ID’ when swiping your government assigned bridge card (food stamps). The problem is that there are many that ‘sell’ their cards, have more than one card, and can give them to others. You just have to give your pin number to the person using your card and fill your cart with the goods. The families receiving food stamps, are also receiving the free breakfast and lunch at their local public school. .. Washington is talking about ‘cuts’, when real cuts could be made in this program alone.

  • melissatx

    SChip, Lone Star, WIC, all the welfare programs need to be gutted or stopped all together and if any programs remain, requirements for receiving MY money should be citizenship, drug testing, nicotine testing, and Norplant injections. Ricipients should receive for 7 months, long enough to get a job and move off the roll.

    The government should never be in the business of doing for you what you should be able to do for yourself, but since the fed has failed us in so many ways, I am sure this will never happen.

    Everyone falls on hard times, but this has become a way of life, promoted by the fed.

  • johnt

    federal government as soup kitchen, Mama Government feeds gobbins to once free people, Reid & Obama will assail Republicans who would let babies and moms starve to death, their bodies rotting in the streets. Katie Couric weeps on TV, blubber shakes. Michelle to put down barbells & take charge, saying “only government can save us”, morons agree.

  • izoneguy

    The Irrational Downward Spiral of the Welfare State

    http://objectivistvoice.com/2011/01/02/the-irrational-downward-spiral-of-the-welfare-state/

    The solution comes from understanding that welfare programs are not simply fraught with practical difficulties; they are also self-perpetuating downward spirals, aside from being completely immoral right from the get-go. The only real solution to the problems of the welfare state: dismantle it.

    While there is nothing necessarily wrong with freely offering a helping hand to people you know (who are thus people you value in some way), to institutionalize this on a mass scale by appropriating money and resources through government force is an immoral and nonsensical evasion of reality.

    Welfare starts out with both the irrational (suspending cause-and-effect) and the immoral (redistributing wealth and violating individual rights), and sets off a chain reaction of further irrationality and abridging of rights. Like a house built on a foundation of quicksand, no amount of government force or wishful thinking can make up for the poor foundation of welfare programs. When you immediately start out with something that harms freedom and tramples rights, how can things possibly improve by adding even more restrictions, laws, and violations?

    One might as well try to cure a drug overdose by ingesting even more of the same drug ? curing poison with more poison just doesn?t work, and in the case of welfare the only real antidote is to abolish the whole thing and abandon this nonsense entirely.

  • chbroussard

    As long as a drug dealer can keep you supplied with drugs, you keep coming back to him and he controls you. He doesn’t want you off drugs. If you get off, he loses his power over you. The Federal Government is no different. As long as they keep you hooked on welfare and food stamps, you’re under their control. Their control over you is their power.

  • lineholder

    in these systems that the general public isn’t aware of. A recent audit completed in WI revealed that some prison inmates had been receiving both food stamps and unemployment benefits due to a lapse of oversight in the review process.

    We may not be able to rid ourselves of the albatross of various entitlement programs, but we the people should be able to expect that those programs are run efficiently.

    I may draw some “friendly fire” for this comment, but I think that in the long run it could be well worth the time and money to increase auditing functions regarding the disbursement of public funds. I’ve even wondered if this is a function that could be privatized on a short-term contract basis.

    Realistically, this isn’t likely to happen. The US government doesn’t want the kind of oversight that could increase efficiency and decrease costs. They’ve already proven this much in their response to recent requests made by the GAO. And the Unions would have an apoplectic fit if the private sector was offered this kind of opportunity.

  • lineholder

    of “what is best for society as a whole”.

    Given the way that programs are designed, once you get into them, it is very difficult to get out of them, even if the person wanted to do so.

  • Diogenes314

    And arguing about 30Billion vs 60 Billion vs 100 Billion in insignificant cuts someone in the GOP might want to pay attention to the job growth side of the equation?

    Okay, silly idea. I’m sure the millions of people still out of work and on public relief aren’t going to be the Dems’ biggest new constituency in 2012.

  • acat

    The AMT, the “Alternative Minimum Tax” that was originally passed to make sure that day traders and other types who make their nut by trading on Wall Street, not working a day job or owning a business, still pay taxes – is not indexed to inflation, so the pool of people it hits gets progressively larger due to inflation.

    The congresscritters – and I’m talking about both parties here – aren’t stupid – look at the COLAs (Cost Of Living Adjustment) to their salaries and to some welfare programs to counter inflation, so why not on the AMT and other taxes?

    Simple – too many statists. Too many “big government” types, who think that “if the republicans were back in charge, we could do better at running the big machine”…

    Mew

  • Diogenes314

    All COLAs should be frozen (at a minimum) and taxes indexed.

    As far as the subject here, the best way to cut the number of people on public relief is to cut the number of people who need them, by focusing on jobs and the economy.

  • acat

    is a two-pronged attack. First, lower the tax rates of the investors who are required to make any business grow. Second, lower the amount of red tape that a business has to work through in order to expand.

    Note that Reagan managed to achieve both without a GOP-run house …

    Mew

  • Diogenes314

    And of the two, it is currently the regulatory excesses that are the most counterproductive. Which is why in the 2011 budget debate the EPA and obamacare riders are more important than any dollar amount in immediate cuts or whether they are instituted now or incrementally.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
  • chbroussard
  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    If I recall correctly the food stamp program was falling in use for a short while. This alarmed the people running the program because it meant not having the same budget/cutting staff etc eventually. The government employees that run the program put out advertising to get people to apply for food stamps… then the program mushroomed…

  • Diogenes314

    Having a few million long term unemployed had something to do with the uptick.

  • dinorightmarie

    This is just the manifestation of Cloward-Piven Strategy: push the system to collapse by getting everyone who is “eligible” for entitlements like food stamps to enroll in the program. Of course putting more and more people on the unemployment roles forces them to qualify for food stamps. No brainer – they want unemployment to be high, to bring about a collapse. Leftist are devious, evil, heartless.

    Forced collapse of the US economy. That is what “fundamental transformation” is all about.

    Time for a 2012 recall.

  • clowngirl

    Posted a similar comment with regard to unemployment benefits — making people prove they’ve actually spent a significant amount of time looking for work. Do a fair amount of checking to see if they actually applied at the places they claimed to have applied at. A thorough audit. They wouldn’t need to do it with everyone in order to have an impact- just the possibility of being held accountable should be enough to alter behavior (like just seeing traffic cops is often enough to deter speeding )

    I think it’s a generally true that it always cost more to do a bad job. A few more employees would probably be necessary but they’d more than pay for themselves in preventing scams/ reducing slacking.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908
  • acat

    And you’re right – thee are far too many Republicans who want to keep the gravy train running to “their people” who would scream and shout, indistinguishable from the Dems, if this were to change.

    Mew

  • clowngirl
  • rockymtn1776

    It would appear that the Obama hoax and chains is working exactlly as planned. The entitlement addicts are thrilled, their guy won !

  • bevie1936

    Isn’t this the same thing that happened when reviewing for a president???? He and many others before him have stolen Social Security funds until now we the poorest of them all has to do without. Where did all our money go? I am fairly sure the big raises congress keeps giving themselves has come out of it. What about the last 2 years, SS paid no cost of living raises, but those in congress each got a $10,000.00 hike in pay. Every single person that has anything to do with the white house now should have work the rest of this year with no pay at all and their wages should go back into SS and all the other places they stole from. Not a one of them gives a hoot about any of the seniors in this country, even if it is their own family members. Times were bad before and we have all had rough times, but nothing compared to what Obama is doing to us. He should be given a gun, ammo and a canteen of water and dropped on the front lines of the war. If he bitches about it take the ammo back.

  • davesinsanantonio

    were also run on the employees efficiency. They should also be worried about the “traffic cop” catching them wasting time at work.

    Of course, this also will never happen while the spineless RINOs are in Congress and the various statehouses. But, one can dream.

  • jlsankot

    remains. Where are the LSM reports on this? Protecting a “little boy” from criticism yet again, just like an over-protective mother. Children never learn if they aren’t allowed to confront their own mistakes. So sad.

  • nhbuckeye

    put in a flat tax with no deductions for anyone, we would have a lot of IRS and private-sector accountants available for these audits!

  • nhbuckeye

    to our churches, family helping family, and neighbors helping neighbors? If we did more of that, there wouldn’t be as a strong of a cry for bigger government. Of course, the government has worked to undermine our natural social safety nets by allowing people to get free money while not having to be accountable to anyone but a massive and cold bureaucracy that is more than happy to dole out money in order to grow.

  • dajeeps

    I assume it starts Jan 2007, although it’s not labeled. That’s a great place for it to start considering that’s when the Pelosi/Reid congress took over.

    If there are going to be things the Federal gov’t. does that are out in the weeds from original intent, this is one that I don’t have any particular issue with. It’s not that I don’t think the States are better equipped to deal with their own realities better than the Feds, because they probably are and likely should. But I do not have an issue with paying to help buy grocies for the needy at any level. It’s all of the other things the Feds do, like cowboy poetry conventions, and the very reasons we’re in this economic mess that caused the spike in Food Stamp participation that bother me. And I question whether we’ve learned the right lesson from all of this given that we seem to be focused on the money, the bottom line instead of the realignment of government toward constitutional order.

    The probems we have are structural in nature and runaway spending is only a symptom of it just as much as the economic conditions are from the gov’t. attempting command and control of the economy by jacking the capital reserve ratios to funnel investment money into government bonds and GSE securities, non-productive ventures, for more than a decade. I don’t know about anyone else, but I have determined that the centralized administrative state has caused more economic damage than it it has ever been worth and it must go. The old paradigm of command and control must pass away or we will not survive in an economic sense.

  • kpbenware

    to ultimately make us all subservient to the government. The ywant to control every aspect of our lives. 44million people dependent on the government for their food, is a pretty good start. They are reaching their goal.

  • texan4america

    I pray for the day we WILL have a flat rate tax — there has been numerous introduced but unfortunately they never “hit the floor” for consideration. Our reps do not want anything so simple because it would take away their ability to “scam” taxpayers as easily as it is now.

  • texan4america

    I believe Pres. Johnson is the one that changed the way SS is accounted for. Used to be that SS was a “separate” fund — whereas now all goes into the “general fund” that can be used any way they see fit. All the Presidents, Congressmen & Senators should be required to personally pay back all the funds they have “stolen” from SS. IF SS still was a separate fund, it would be rolling in dough!

  • texan4america

    Any ablebodied person should not LIVE off the government, or any other program. Way I was raised — “if you don’t work, you don’t eat.!!”

  • texan4america

    the gov’t WANTS the power to control you.

  • texan4america

    to logical for our present representatives to grasp — OR they want to tear America apart so that it can be rebuilt to THEIR preferences.

  • Warrior

    I’m especially down with drug testing for a gubmint check. In some places, the 15th and the 30th of the month are unofficially known as “drug dealers’ paydays.”

    If we are really interested in stopping systematic, intergenerational poverty in this country- WE WILL HAVE TO STOP SUBSIDIZING IT!! If you pay women to have babies out of wedlock, you get – guess what? — more babies born out of wedlock.

    I hope this personal responsibility “ship” has not “already sailed” using the current argot. But, frankly, I’m discouraged. I wrote a piece here on RS about the importance of personal responsibility and actually received flack because it wasn’t “political enough.”

    Some don’t seem to understand that politics is just a means to an end. If a preponderance of Americans one day decide they are no longer going to work, or abide by the law, or respect their neighbor’s property, or pay taxes, all the politics in heaven and on earth will not save us. It all starts with individuals…

  • texan4america

    Big gov’t WANTS everybody under their control — that way they can “dole’ out what they believe those poor people need ….. According to the U.S. Constitution, the gov’t only has ONE (1) purpose: “To provide for the common defense.” Sadly, WE THE PEOPLE have allowed them to overstep their bounds — and it is WE THE PEOPLE who will have to stop them.

  • Warrior

    is the most important one. Eventually, EVERYBODY wants to “draw a check” and nobdy wants to work. Why would they?

  • Warrior

    “the welfare mentality.”

    BTW, have you ever noticed how welfare recipients almost always display an inordinate amount of avoirdupois?

    Also, having been a social worker and mental health counselor for many years, I have had occasion to visit the dwellings of many poverty neighborhoods. Big screen T.V.’s, digital cable, cell phones, stereos, expensive wheels, weed, beer and cigarettes are widely in evidence. Often, these places were furnished more elaborately than my own little apt…

    I finally quit volunteering to build houses for Habitat for Humanity (after ten years) when I began to see the residents of a just completed home moving in luxury items which I didn’t and wouldn’t have for many years to come (indeed, some I still don’t have…)

  • Warrior

    the attacks on all our cultural institutions are similarly designed and coordinated…

  • 1stclasspettyofficer

    Very true! I find myself in the undesirable position of having a disabled wife, and then becoming disabled myself. She wasn’t eligible for disability, because being a housewife isn’t work??? I guess I should have figured a way to make her my employee or something.
    My injury was work related so I get disability. A whopping $1163/mo after medicare deduction.
    As much as I oppose government handouts, I am thankful for medicaid–it takes care of most of my wife’s medical, now that all of our savings are gone and the insurance has expired.
    I’m also thankful for the food-stamp program, another program I never wanted to need.
    As one who worked all of my life from the age of 10 until a few years ago when I was injured, I don’t feel guilty about taking these “hand-outs” since I paid into them for the better part of 60 years. What does suck though is that Social Security Disability has not had a COLA for the last 2 years, and now they are cutting our food stamps from $263.00 per month to $247.00 and say it”s to reflect changes to “fuel, utility and heating prices since the last change in February 2009.”
    Now I know I’m getting old, but what my research shows me is that electricity went up $.0111/kilowatthour, heating oil went up by $1.31/gallon, a gallon of milk went up by $.30/gallon and a loaf of bread went up by $.51 during that period. So going way way back to arithmetic class I guess that means food stamps and SSID are inversely proportional to costs/needs.
    As to the Sam’s Club question, I only wish that I could use food stamps there. I could make that $247.00 go much further if I could buy bulk, but since it is a membership club they aren’t allowed to take food stamps. I still shop there though because they do have good meat and good prices on paper and household products.
    Having served in the Navy and gone overseas to truly poor countries, I do appreciate that even though I’m not living the way I once did, or want to, and even though by our countries standards I am below the poverty line–I still have it better than 90% of the people in the world, God help us survive this time of Obamanomics, which is pushing us ever closer to third world nation status.
    Now to my comment:..

  • Finrod

    Do you know how much drug screening costs? Keep in mind that with those, you’d probably have to have them fail two drug tests before you could cut off benefits– not to mention the extra paperwork and such necessary to keep track of all those test results.

    This is one of those ideas that sounds good but fails the practicality test.

  • bassethound

    how many of these food stamp participants are people who were previously employed as white collar professionals able to support themselves comfortably. How many of these people got degrees, and made every effort to be productive at their jobs, and never dreamed of finding themselves in this position.

    How’s that “Hope-n-change” working for everybody?

  • allen081644

    This is what happens when the government relaxes the rules. Backsk in the day people were required to buy staples, bags of beans, rice etc the idea was to feed as many people as possible for the fewest dollars.Now people can buy prepared meals and individual drinks. NOt cost effective
    .Allen

  • Aaron Gardner

    Please share your cost/benefit analysis with the rest of us so we can make an informed decision.

  • gwf222

    While I don’t particularly like Neal Boortz, he and John Linder have what seems to be the best answer to our tax problem. It will probably never come to pass for two reasons that I can see. It takes to much power away from the politicians and it is hard for people to wrap their brain around the idea of no IRS!! Everything I know about it is it seems to be a win win situation for almost everyone. Unless you’re an illegal who pays no tax at present, or rich enough to afford a team of lawyers to find all the loopholes in our present system.

  • powertothepeople

    anymore. Drug tests kits that are used by parents, cops, probation officers, etc run 32 cents and even less when bought in bulk. Even if they test for the major 5, you spend around a buck.

    You can even do hair follicle tests now, again by only buying one, for less than 10 bucks and it test for the 5 drugs. Buying in bulk will cut that cost even more.

    A vast majority of probation violators are violated due to drugs. The probation offices across this country use millions of these tests a year and do not spend huge amounts of money. No reason it can not be implemented here and for a reasonable cost.

    Granted, I do not agree with testing for nicotine or implanting birth control in them as that would be a violation of their rights since smoking and having children is legal. But spending our money for “food” and “living expenses” yet they have money for dope is something we need to stop. And testing for drugs is not the huge cost it was years ago when the only way to test was to take them to a doc and have labs ran. Now it can be done in any office bathroom and for pennies per test.

  • powertothepeople

    Here is just one site that I found quickly. Single tests for one drug bought in bulk cost $0.32 and would cost the state even less since they would buy in even more bulk and would have the buying power to negotiate cost. A 5 panel test kit cost as little as a $1.32 in bulk and the cost would go down for the state for the reasons I listed above.

    TESTKIT

  • Finrod

    “.. would cost the state even less since they would buy in even more bulk and would have the buying power to negotiate cost.”

    Since when do government contracts save money on anything?

  • Finrod

    First of all, your standard urine tests do not detect any drug other than marijuana more than 5-7 days out from use. Given that retests will be common to eliminate false positives to avoid lawsuits and the like, and the time it takes to get a test result back, that will make it very difficult to actually disqualify anyone for any drug other than marijuana, since all the user has to do is go without for a week or so to pass the retest. So right off the bat, the bulk of the people you’re going to catch are going to be the marijuana users, which is arguably the least dangerous drug you’re going to be testing for. Furthermore there are some drugs like LSD that you can’t test for that way at all.

    So all we’re catching are pot smokers, pretty much. How many people smoke pot? About 10 percent of the population, last I heard. Let’s guess that we can catch half of them with testing– probably optimistic, since it takes marijuana anywhere from 2 weeks to a month to pass out of the system. So we’re catching 5 percent of the people we’re testing. That means the tests for the other 95 percent catch nothing, so we have to run 20 tests on average to catch 1 user. Now we can argue how much those tests cost, and you can plug and play your own numbers, but the costs do not stop with simply buying the test. Below someone comes up with what I think are impossibly low prices for tests, because the price that’s going to be paid isn’t just for the physical item. If you give a stoner a drug test to take and bring back, he’ll pay his buddy that sticks to booze $5 to take the test for him. To defeat that, you’ll have to have everyone go to a drug testing lab, where tests are taken under controlled conditions (I’ve done this several times in order to qualify for a job). Even just twenty minutes per person will be several dollars per person just to pay someone minimum wage to be in the lab at the same time. Plus there’s going to be even more costs in keeping track of this data for the state Department of Labor. That’s going to end up being a lot more than the $1/test that powertothepeople hypothesizes below– and don’t forget that you have to multiply the per-cost test by at least a factor of 20 per user you catch. Government is wasteful, all conservatives should know that.

    Does this still sound like something that’s going to be worth the money being thrown at it?

  • Aaron Gardner

    Also, I think you don’t know as much as you think you do about what can and can’t be caught.

    I am not going to bother wasting my time arguing with you over this matter since you have distilled it down to your own pet issues and drugs. It would be pointless.

    Have fun being a libertine.

  • powertothepeople

    considering even if no negotiations occur, the cost listed is little. Even with your twisted math and claims that so called retests to save litigation will occur and miss just about everything ( not reality since many agencies already use these tests, have not been challenged successfully in court, and retests if needed would be done immediately) catching even a small amount of users would save tax payers a fortune. And weed may not be the worst drug out there but when you are sucking on the tax payer teat, you should not have the money to smoke anything, even weed.

  • powertothepeople

    First, no one would send them home with a test, it would be done in the presence of a staff member. Second, no labs are needed anymore. Jobs still use labs, although some have changed to in house tests, but most agencies that test for drugs, be it probation or something similar, use the in house test method and it can be conducted by any agent and takes very little time. They simply take the subject to a restroom, have them pee in a temp reading cup or in front of them, stick the tests in the pee, and bam them have the results. If the person cries foul, they simply give them water, and repeat.

    Now lets say the tests only catch 25% of the users which is a low number, and that only translates into 10% of the entire sponge off the tax payer group, the saving to the tax payer would be tremendous. How much does the average person on welfare/government assistance get? Between housing, food, medical, school, etc could the number reach into the tens of thousands per person? Lets assume they get 10000 dollars a years in assistance. Over 40 million are on welfare. The number of dollars saved by cutting out even as small of a percent as 10% of that group gets high.

    Now on to keeping track, yes you must be right, simply putting a note on their current computerized file that they are disqualified from benefits due to a failed drug test just skyrockets the cost to the agency.

    Hate to break it to you, already we test for drugs on people who are on probation day after day after day. These people know tests are a part of the process, yet they keep getting caught time after time. And not only for weed. A vast majority of offenders violated are violated due to failed drug tests. And it is not costing the state much more to do these tests and it is not only catching weed. But even if it was only catching weed, it is worth it.

  • Finrod

    Parole officers regularly meet with their parolees, so there’s a natural time there to add in drug testing.

    When’s the last time you went to an unemployment office? Last time I did, it took me over two hours of waiting in line to get a simple paycheck snafu taken care of. Unemployment offices simply do not have the infrastructure necessary in them to do mass drug tests, period. To add such an infrastructure would add in very significant costs that you’re simply ignoring; to add a *good* infrastructure that would keep the people being tested from borking the test would cost even more (a can of Diet Mountain Dew, kept under the armpit to keep it warm, can defeat many casually-taken tests).

    Until you take these costs into account, your argument is unworkable. Your knowledge of drug testing is far below what’s needed to make a good argument (no drug testing urination is *ever* directly observed, for starters). In short, your plan is costly and doesn’t give the returns that you think it will. Since when did true conservatives want to increase the reach and scope of government, anyways?

  • Finrod

    If you had said from the beginning that you were simply going to ignore everything I said in reply to you, I wouldn’t have wasted the time posting.

    I’ll remember that you don’t post in good faith next time.

  • Finrod

    As I wrote above, the physical costs of the tests are far from the total costs that would be needed to run a program like this. Until you take that into account, your cost estimates, like usual for new government programs, are ridiculously low.

  • Aaron Gardner

    I am sorry that I didn’t accept your very narrow framing of the argument.

  • aesthete

    to arguments made by foreign aid advocates who try to sell us on the utility of their proposals by pointing out how inexpensive the inputs are (i.e., mosquito netting and malaria medicines are cheap, so foreign aid can help Africans inexpensively). It ignores institutional waste, the various layers that money must get through, the ease that with which one can circumvent the system, and the lack of inexpensive enforcement and management incentives to make it stick.

    This easily applies to the entire apparatus that surrounds welfare, btw: that is one reason that welfare, food stamps, et al are so terrible as poverty reduction tools.

  • aesthete

    As if Finrod or anyone else on an internet comment board is going to whip out his STATA and get cracking on a sophisticated multivariate analysis that will prove you and the others wrong. Finrod presented a reasonable list that pttp responded to in kind; you responded with non-specific ridicule and an insinuation that Finrod was posting in bad faith (“you have distilled it down to your own pet issues and drugs”). You’re better than that.

  • aesthete

    Bureaucracy’s inputs are mostly pen, paper, and (with the age of technology) some computers and basic word processing/productivity software. Yet it would be folly to assume that bureaucracy is particularly cheap as a result of these inexpensive inputs.

    An iPod’s raw materials are something like $50-60. Yet there is a good reason that it has the price tag that it does (and it has nothing to do with speculative 300% ROI for every iPod made).

  • Finrod

    I gave you a good faith effort at an 8-mile-high view of the problem as a layman, since that’s all I am. You decided to ignore what I wrote because you decided you were ‘not going to bother wasting [your] time’.

    Then you ended your comment, such as it was, with a pejorative that you consider to be an insult.

    Then you had the time to see my follow-up comment and reply to that (so much for not wasting your time), and dismissed the whole idea of a government program costing more than initially planned as ‘your very narrow framing of the argument.’

    I still call that not posting in good faith. I’m done here.

  • runner12

    like is that it does not truly solve the poverty issue. On the contrary, it facilities the cycle and sustains it. There is little accountability or incentive to quit living off the government for people and thus they live and die dependent on the government.

    Welfare is not compassion nor charity, it is a heartless, souless blank check that enslaves people instead of lifting them up to reach their true potential.

  • Aaron Gardner

    He did distill is down to his pet issues and drugs.

    Limiting the possible captures to only those who smoke pot, is a premise that deserves to be cast aside as the garbage it is. Finrod makes largely unrealistic assumptions about the behaviors of drug addicts and their ability to stay clean for a test.

    Let me ask you, do you know many crackheads who are willing to forego crack for multiple days so that can pass a piss test in order to get food stamps? No you don’t. You know why? Because they are akin to Santa, the Easter Bunny, and Unicorns.

    That one difference makes Finrod’s entire analysis fall apart, but feel free to defend it.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • lunaticrex

    …compared to welfare fraud? Finrod, even if a program to test the cheats would cost $20.00 per individual, if they could catch (and cut off – but that will be the difficult part, politically speaking) only 10 percent of the total, how much would that save us? 10K per year, maybe? I’ll take that deal. I admit to not having done the research, but that doesn’t seem to be a requirement for you, so here’s a WAG: 44M people, assume 10% use drugs (a low estimate, I would guess), that’s ~4.5 million bad actors. If we could catch 10% per year, that around 450K people we could remove from the dole. The money saved would far outweigh the cost of the testing.

    I agree with you that, as a government-run program, it would be quickly corrupted by greed and incompetence. I worked for the Feds for 23 years (military), so I am familiar enough with government programs to know this. Even without personal knowledge, common sense and history prove it will be inefficient (at best). We would need to outsource the testing program to a private contractor. This adds to the expense, of course.

    Finally, referring to the military – it is possible to have direct observation…expensive and possibly unworkable in the civilian world (privacy laws, etc). But it can be done.

  • danielhill2008

    Every time I’m in a 7-11 I see someone with a brood of stairstep kids buying Slurpees and candy, and whipping out the old red white and blue card. Or buying the most expensive frozen dinners and cases of soft drinks at the grocery store, or deli-prepared sandwiches. Since these cards are electronic, how hard would it be to program out the goodies, and have the cards work only for real groceries, you know, the kind you actually have to COOK?

    By my casual observations, that would cut the cost of the program roughly in half.

  • aesthete

    in my line of work and in various min wage jobs that I held at various points as a teenager. (Ditto with some functional cocaine addicts that I know.) I don’t know how dumb the *unemployed* pot smokers relative to those groups, but they can’t be much dumber than marginally employed teenagers and teens who avoided getting caught at their “no-tolerance” schools with occasional drug testing. The only place that I’ve worked that has been entirely exempt of people gaming the system effectively has been the USAF, and it *is* expensive (though worth it, IMO), both time-wise and otherwise, to weed out Airmen who decide that they’d like to get high while working for the USAF.

    I’m sympathetic to the argument that we should throw as many wrenches in the gears of the welfare state as possible regardless of cost to get as many people as possible off of dependency. Drug testing is one of those wrenches. I highly doubt that such an approach would save us money or make welfare more efficient, though: there is a reason that institutional no-tolerance policies are expensive for the businesses and government agencies that attempt them, and it’s not because all druggies are idiots with literally no impulse control. If drug testing really is a cost-effective implement, then I would be pleasantly surprised. I’ve seen little evidence to indicate that it would be.

  • powertothepeople

    who are these people you keep talking about? Todays drug test does not take an army to conduct, it can be done by the very same people who work in the office as of today.

    By the way, the whole MT Dew can, come one. It is very simple to check a persons pee, make sure they just peed it, and one very simple way is observation. You are acting as if the whole process is not currently be done successfully in other agencies and that somehow it could not be done here. And as far as your wait, has nothing to do with this situation. My sons friend had to wait hours to meet with his probation officer for his DUI, yet when he received the call in the morning to report within a few hours for testing, he was in, tested, and out in 30 minutes.

    If you violates some code of yours or some libertine code to check these people, just say it. But the arguments you made do not hold water.

  • leefox

    was a democrat congress for the entire beginning of the graph.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Please alter your signature. It’s a bit tall and gets in the way when you post repeatedly in a thread.

    If you find a substitute for the eagle that isn’t as tall it’d be just fine.

    thanks,

  • Aaron Gardner

    My point being that, while pot stays in the system longer and is therefore theoretically easier to catch, crack has a more forceful addiction and needs to be fed more often, thus making it the more easily caught offense.

    Another point, which you hit on and I agree with, is that since we do have welfare we must address our responsibility in administering the same and mitigating the possibility of abuse and waste.

  • Finrod

    .. as I said above. But if you think that this issue would save money, then by all means go lobby your state legislature to implement it. The rest of us will watch your state to see whether it’s worth the hassle of a new government program or not. That’s how federalism is supposed to work, after all.

  • powertothepeople

    One, cost really has no bearing in the long run. What does the average lazy person suck up in benefits in a year? $10000, $15000? Lets say the whole process take $9000 or $14000 which is absurd, but it still rids the tax payer of a bum who steals our money yet has enough to buy dope. May even be using our money to buy the dope. Reality is, the cost is not that high to test not even in the same ballpark. But lets look long term, a person tests positive a couple of times, they are out for good. Now how much does that save over a lifetime?

    Second, if a user knows a test is coming, I would agree that many may refrain from using in order to pass. But that is the brilliance with surprise tests that may or may not happen, may happen a lot, and notice is only given hours before or upon walking in, not days or weeks.

    By the way, where have you possibly seen drug testing saving or costing an agency? I may be wrong, but the only mandated testing I know of is in the legal realm where cost is not the concern. It is also done in business where again cost is not a concern. So not sure where you could reason that you have seen little evidence since there is no comparable data one way or the other. The only thing a person can look at is human data and the cost we know it would take to administer the test. We know the tests can be done by the current employees so none would have to be added, documenting failures takes little effort since every person on aid already has a jacket in a computer system and it is constantly added to, the test(in house) are not that expensive, failure to success rate can not be measured at this point but we do know surprise tests work, drug users are creatures of habit, and even if the success rate is between5 and 10% of all welfare cases, yearly cost saved due to expulsion times those cost would be tremendous. But even if it is a break even situation or a losing money situation short term, common sense says that as the years go by, more and more will be permanently expelled from welfare programs, hence saving more and more money over time.

    And the best thing regardless of cost, removing dope head bums from programs that pay them to be bums which in turns allows them to use our money to get high.

  • powertothepeople
  • markinidaho

    Republican, Democrat, doesn’t matter. Our politicians have learned that they can buy elections with giveaways. It is unsustainable, but as long as the politicians think that it will last through their term, they don’t care.

    When it collapses, then websites like this one that warn us will no longer exist. Sites like this are like the man below the dam that screams that it is breaking – when it does break, he is the first to drown.

    Wise people no longer attempt to change it, you cannot make moldy fruit fresh again. Wise people simply prepare for the chaos that is coming – Quickly.

  • http://moelane.com/ Moe Lane

    Oh, I’m sorry: were you not done yet with being dramatic and brooding? – I don’t want you feeling rushed, or anything.

  • aesthete

    to test only for crack cocaine, and isn’t the number of crack addicts a diminishingly small portion of the population? From my 30-second Google search (at least I’m honest, heh), it looks like coke has been used by something like 3% of the US population, a much smaller percentage of which would be made up of coke addicts and an even smaller percentage of which would be made up of crack cocaine addicts (so somewhere around >1% of the population). Seems to me like we’re talking about between 1-5% of welfare state beneficiaries, assuming a 5x higher incidence of use among those looking for welfare. Even if we assume a 100% perfect system in testing, I can’t imagine that it would make that much of a difference in the long run. I’m not sure how crack testing works, but I do know that there have been several false positives from straight cocaine testing due to the growing popularity of completely legal products with coca leaf extract (like Red Bull Cola and coca tea) which have resulted in lawsuits. I can’t help but think that the threat of lawsuits would hinder the effectiveness of drug testing policies, and that the due process concerns would make the program structurally costly. I could be wrong, but judging from past asinine 14th Am/civil rights cases, I doubt it.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens
  • Aaron Gardner

    1. I never said to limit to just Crack, I was just pointing out that the captures wouldn’t be limited to just pot as Finrod suggested.

    2. Using numbers of users in the total population as a baseline for what exists within the population of welfare recipients probably gets you an incorrect baseline. People in poverty are more likely to be users.

  • aesthete

    First of all, drug testing would require a whole new set of government employees and contractors to administer, make sure things are going according to plan, to make up for the increased workload, etc: if anything is more difficult to wean off the teat of government than welfare recipients, it is government employees and contractors. Add their outsized benefits, and you’ve got yourself a fair cost in itself. Since we’re in the world of WAGs, let’s say that it increases the number of government employees/contractors by 1% (I’m speculating such a high number because of medical personnel and legal counsel that would have to be retained).

    Now, let’s add the cost of lawsuits: many of these tests have false positives, and the lawsuits (or threat of same) would make it so that a two- or three- strike policy of the sort that you speculate would be subject to more appeals and due process hang-ups than those allowed a murderer on death penalty. If, say, 1 out of 20 washed-up cokeheads decides to go through the appeals process or sue due to a presumed deficiency, that’s another cost that needs to be added.

    Lastly, I doubt that drug testing policies would go so far as to completely remove a person from the welfare rolls because of two drug uses while he was a young adult. That’s not the way it should be, but you know that the first reformed former druggie living in the streets who can be found will be used as a case showing that we shouldn’t bar “reformed” persons from welfare — realistically, it would probably be limited to 1-2 years of not being able to get on the welfare rolls.

    Regarding employer tests, the reason that I doubt their cost-effectiveness is the same reason that I doubt the cost-effectiveness of environmental laws: if they were cost-effective, businesses would have an incentive to move towards them and wouldn’t have to be forced to do so by government.

    Regarding your last point, I agree, but would include all welfare recipients (drug-using or not) under the categorization of people whose lifestyles I should not be forced to subsidize, whether it agrees with me or not.

  • aesthete

    I’d be surprised to see drug testing not immediately become toothless due to 14 Am based lawsuits and some of the costs due to increased bureaucracy, though. IMO, it would be much easier and more cost-effective to focus on other things, like proof of legal residence (to wean off illegals) than it would be to have an effective drug testing regimen. (For that matter, I’m doubtful about the success of welfare reform in general, given the fact that it was made toothless almost immediately after passing in ’96.)

  • Aaron Gardner

    Because if we do fight and win, then we will just have to fight to defend it.

    It’s all much easier if I just don’t fight at all.

    Come on Aesthete. Every policy we hold will always and forever be attacked regardless of it’s effectiveness. I see no sense in refusing to do what is right just because we will have to fight to defend it.

    If more people were willing to fight and defend rather than make excuses about how hard this all is, then maybe the 96 welfare reform would still have those teeth.

  • earlgrey

    but I know I won’t.

    I do think that we have to stop letting the left frame the debate. We can’t be afraid to speak about the principals behind the decisions. We can’t ignore the suffering that is created when we make it easier for those ill-prepared to take on child rearing to have children. We can’t be silenced by little anecdotes that are designed to tie our hands — there will always be a hard luck story for every side of every debate and that should not drive policy.

    We have to know and understand that it is not about paying less in taxes it is about freedom. The more power government has, the more corrupt it becomes and the greater that corruption can impact each citizen. Even the left was upset about GE’s tax break, but yet they can’t see that empowering government to take over so much of our economly opens the door for this kind of ridiculous behavior.

    We can’t apologize for Amercian values. We can’t submit to the left’s viewpoints of how women and men should behave. If you look closely, their beliefs are far more restrictive than conservatives. We can’t afraid of being called nerds, or wingnuts or have our faith used to discredit us (those of us who do have faith). We can’t let the left use the color of our skin against us.

    so much of this is ingrained in Republicans it is a wonder we ever stand up for anything.

  • aesthete

    than others. I pointed out one change above (barring illegals) that I think would be less opposed. I’d be interested in seeing a state implement drug testing and the results that follow, but tbh, there are other things in government that I think will have better results for us. Drug testing appears to me like it will be rendered worthless by the nature of our system, and if we’re going to advocate for change that is politically impractical in that arena, I would prefer a change from traditional welfare to the negative income tax proposal made by Milt Friedman.

  • Aaron Gardner

    ;)

    If we are talking about defensible positions, then I would guess that mine is less a lost cause then yours.

  • powertothepeople

    there are hidden costs that no one could plan for, that is an absolute given. I would also agree that some dope head would challenge the test based on the moocher belief they have a right to housing and food on workers bills. But I have to disagree with adding extra people, no reason to do so. While the government would, most likely, use the whole thing to add more jobs, it would not be necessary. Just as in a Probation office, current employees are more than capable of administering these tests whether it be standing outside the restroom door or watching the subject pee. They simply take the specimen and dip the test in it.

    My only point is this, cost, whether it will cost a bunch or save us money, should not matter. Jails and prisons do nothing but cost us, but we still need them and must stomach the cost. (Tweaking the system or fixing sentence guidelines is another subject all together) There is a huge problem with tax mooches using dope. When I pay for you to live, you better not be using dope, driving a BMW, taking vacations, getting drunk, etc. We can not stop all those items but we can drive out those who use dope. You are right that one or two failed tests would not permanently disqualify one from welfare, but additional failures would be grounds for permanent removal. Even a few years of no welfare would save us money and would cause others to seriously reconsider their activities.

    And I also agree, it is way past time to end the entire welfare state. Let em learn to work or starve, either way, their choice.

  • acat

    It doesn’t matter what Conservatives propose, there’s always a way to make it into punishing a traditionally liberal demographic. Period.

    So.

    Instead of whining and gnashing our teeth about it, since we know we’re going to take crap, let’s find the best bang for our buck, where we can save the most money, and take crap *for that* instead of a quarter-assed measure like drug testing.

    If we’re going to tinker with the rights of those on welfare (and having to pee in a cup while some TSA reject watches you is rather invasive) then let’s strip the right to vote and be done with it.

    You want to vote? You gotta contribute. Period. Full stop.

    Once the (rather massive) effluent-storm from that is over, and the voter rolls are cleaned up, we can start talking about other reforms.

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    I would also suggest that if we embrace the power of “and” we could get a lot more done, even with quarter measures.

  • YnotNOW

    Did not exist, cannot exist. It is only a “promise” to pay future benefits.
    There is nothing to “steal” – only current expenditures vs. current receipts.

  • YnotNOW

    This is only one of the inevitable results of a moral decline in our society. Even worse, it is a moral failing (lack of self-responsibility) that is self-perpetuating – the more you pay, the more you encourage moral failure, which requires you to pay more.

    Breaking the cycle requires attacking both sides: government encouragement as well as societal moral decay.

  • lineholder

    For example, take the suggestions that the GAO has presented lately about streamlining government operations by reducing duplicate functions. This could save us money, but it would put people out of work. Well, the Repubs won’t touch it because they’ve been clamoring about “jobs” and they know the Dems will hammer them about putting people out of work.

    Those individuals in those departments have been trained regarding departmental policies and procedures. Training costs can be expensive. These are folks who would be the most likely to recognize how the system could be exploited. So why not reduce/eliminate the duplications and then put some of these trained folks to work in auditing functions?

    There could still be some employees who lose their jobs, but not as many. We don’t totally lose the time and money that has already been invested in employee training. We get a long-term return on the investment by the deterrent it could generate to prevent people from playing the system.

  • aesthete

    but yes, I think mine is less of a lost cause. There’s overwhelming, if shallow, public support for limiting benefits for illegals, with one entrenched party and some minority grievance groups opposing efforts towards moving in that direction (the same holds true for limiting benefits for crackheads). Where they are dissimilar is in the fact that it is much easier to process whether one has documentation proving legal residence in the country (it’s a binary yes/no thing that would take 15 seconds to process), there are no significant problems with false positives, and there’s more 14th Am and due process case law on our side for that than there would be for a hardline no drugs policy of the sort envisioned by pttp. (The due process and disparate impact cases would be especially strong for the pro-druggie folks.) Moreover, in the Southwestern states illegals comprise anywhere from 40-75% of the welfare rolls — that’s a sizeable number right there that even includes some druggies, heh.

    I favor as many ways to make welfare difficult as possible, but I’d prefer to concentrate on things that would make a sizeable difference. IMO, drug testing has some serious practical problems that a residency check does not, and both seem to have about the same problems from a political standpoint.

  • runner12

    Trying to get used to my new iPad.

  • clowngirl

    It’s a good point that we already have the resource of many government employees not being used effectively, who could be moved over from other jobs– maybe retrained a bit as neccessary.

  • clowngirl

    It’s a good point that we already have the resource of many government employees not being used effectively, who could be moved over from other jobs– maybe retrained a bit as neccessary.

  • capeconservative

    was the ‘decider’ of the budget – NOT the Republican president!

    Of course we now have the failures called Democrats screaming at the top of their lungs about the current budgetary mess we find ourselves in – thanks to the DEMOCRAT-led Congress FAILING to pass a budget last year!!!!

    Every day we must be reminded of that fact – THIS BUDGETARY PROBLEM IS DUE SOLELY TO SPEAKER PELOSI FAILING TO PRESENT A 2011 BUDGET!!!!

  • capeconservative

    “…or rich enough to afford a team of lawyers to find all the loopholes in our present system.”

    If the disclosure about GE paying NO TAXES doesn’t get to every American who hurts while paying their ‘fair share’, I don’t know what will.

    If the Fair Tax doesn’t do so, I would go a step (or two) further and say that ALL Non-Profits should pay their FAIR SHARE!

    Is there a lawyer alive who would go along with such an idea?

  • Aaron Gardner

    But making sure that the recipients aren’t on heroin would.

    Don’t get me wrong I don’t want illegals getting welfare, but, the value of that reform is limited in what states it affects.

  • acat

    what “extra features” they’ll offer, and what testing (means, drug) they’ll require.

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    See here.

  • aesthete

    I was under the impression that on every issue but guns, VT was slightly to the right of a People’s Democratic Republic. For that matter, is crack cocaine really a big deal over there? I thought that was more of an urban thing.

  • acat
  • Aaron Gardner

    We have more welfare recipients than producers here in VT. We also have a problem with heroin.

    That said, it doesn’t matter which drug we test, the point is that it is a broad problem that affects almost every state.

  • Aaron Gardner

    nt

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You know, if libertarians are going to demand that everything go to states, y’all are going to have to suck it up and actually engage in DEBATE to defend your libertine positions in the states.

  • acat

    Yes, I get that libertarians are going to have to figure out how to work at the level of the Statehouse. I view this as a feature, not a bug.

    Some libertarians are organized enough to work with and within the GOP on this. Not all, but .. some.

    As noted in the title of this reply, the recent successes in the battle against abortion, which I fully support, have been at the State level.

    My point is, if this is a block transfer program, then it’s already at the level where the States should decide – and therefore, the idea that a program that works in Arizona (higher percentage of illegals) won’t be necessary in New Hampshire (higher percentage of …?) … so not clear on what Aaron’s point is.

    Mew

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You’re going to have to learn to DEBATE the issue at the state level, which means your cop-out to Aaron above doesn’t cut it.

  • acat

    then your apparent argument that a test for illegals not helping Vermont is a canard at best – it’s already possible for Vermont to mandate drug testing while Arizona requires proof of residency.

    There’s no reason why it must be one-size-fits-all, eh?

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner
  • acat

    Sure looked like you were showing a preference for a drug test based on the demographics of Vermont, while a residency test makes more sense for the southern border States, Arizona for example.

    If we’re going to discuss this at the State level, that’s fine – from your statements above, clearly Vermont would do better with mandatory drug testing, but – like Illinois – having so many voters on the dole who would likely oppose being tested – it’s going to be a hard bill to pass.

    Arizona, though, would do better with a residency verification, as the percentage of illegals voting may be low enough and the cost to producers may be high enough to get it passed and signed into state law. Besides, Arizona’s already going toe to toe with the Fed on immigration issues, what’s one more check?

    Mew

  • acat
  • Aaron Gardner

    Illegals shouldn’t be getting benefits in AZ as the law is right now.

    Here are the requirements for qualified non-citizens.

  • acat

    “Laws do not go about on wheels enforcing themselves” — Eric Flint

    Clearly, something (political) has gotten in between the law and the enforcement mechanism, else why would it be brought up as an issue?

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    Seems to me that you are just arguing out of ignorance at this point.

  • acat

    Seems to me you’re not understanding me any better than I am you.

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    Here and here.

  • acat

    and the former would, unlike peeing in a cup or proving citizenship for aid, would actually put conservatives in a better position at the ballot box.

    While I’d like to tighten up voting to include only productive citizens – as the founding fathers clearly intended – it’s quite obviously not possible short of a Cloward-Piven event.

    Regarding peeing in a cup, it’s a start. It’d be an improvement over the current situation, although – in this cat’s opinion – not enough of one to put off the inevitable.

    Mew

  • Aaron Gardner

    1. You didn’t know the latter was law when you advocated it.

    2. The former isn’t really coherent enough to even be acted upon.

    So I think I found the answer to why you were advocating for new laws rather than enforcement of existing law.

  • acat

    So far, I am not sure what it is that you’re advocating, other than you like to pick apart others’ arguments.

    Finrod asserted that drug testing can be done relatively inexpensively. As far as materials go, he’s right. As far as political costs go, he’s *also* right. Regarding the staffing of it, there I have to agree with your position – it’d be another government bureaucracy, and would be bloated, unionized, and more intrusive than the DMV inside of a year. The question that nobody’s actually answered (or asked, that I can find…) is whether the cost of the bureaucracy would exceed the money saved.

    Asthete asserted that instead of drug testing, residency testing would be a better measure. You’re right, it is the law – but it isn’t enforced, which is worse than useless. Rather than discuss what could be done to enforce it, there’s been an accusation of wanting to take food out of the mouths of poor (illegal alien) children, which is absurd on its’ face. Soup kitchens and homeless shelters exist to fill this gap, the government need not be involved…. especially to feed those who are here illegally. A private entity like a church may have the right to not check residency, I fail to see where the government can avoid it.

    I’m not a lawyer, and I wasn’t paying attention when welfare was converted to block grants … so wasn’t sure if it had been done or not. As it has been, I’m still not sure why you’re arguing that the model for Vermont shouldn’t be the model for Arizona – it seems odd to do so when obviously they’re different, and obviously the debate over what size fits each one should be happening at the local level.

    So.

    What *is* your point?

    Mew

  • acat
  • Aaron Gardner

    If you can’t follow along with the discussion, that isn’t my problem.

  • mathmatters

    Fairtax sounds great — but has some fundamental absurdities.

    It’s been 13 years, and at one point they claimed 100 sponsors in Congress, and 600,000 volunteers.

    It seems there are some really odd points about Fairtax that are not even mentioned in their books, videos and speeches.

    Just one example — a complete “second tier” of taxation.

    See for yourself — from Fairtax own spokesmen.

    http://fairtaxfineprint.blogspot.com/

  • mathmatters

    Which tax proposal do you claim is flat?

    Here is a clue — just naming it Flat is nonsense. The “Flat tax” by Newt, CATO and Steve Forbes, is actually the antithesis of flat, its not flat AT ALL. You could not get less flat, if you tried.

    That’s like calling Pike’s Peak Flat. It’s like calling the Grand Canyon flat.

    In other words,, their plan is not flat. Not even close

    In fact, if you had an actual flat tax (which I would love) these guys would scream bloody murder.

    The devil is in the details..

    It’s always a good idea to look at the BS behind the name — because with tax plans, they usually find the name the MOST OPPOSITE of what they really want. And that sure applies to “the flat tax”

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    How about a straight national sales tax, no deductions, no exemptions,(including things purchased with food stamps and vouchers) and repeal the income tax amendment.

    If you want to make it progressive in order to sale it, then you can do that, add a percentage to purchases over $100k or something like that.

    If it were broad-based enough then the percent would not have to be very high at all.

  • mathmatters

    Social security — at least since Reagan raised FICA taxes four times (two times for people, and two times for business) has been a cash cow.

    YOu are right — there is no “trustt fund” full of money, and never was.

    But you had more coming into the system, than going out, and that was going to end under Reagan. Reagan, with the Democrats, raised FICA substantially. They called it “Saving Social Security”

    They just raised taxes on workers and busines substantially.

    And it worked — Reagan’s back door taxes flooded money into Social Security. In fact, so much came in that more was coming in that going out.

    The General Fund was getting the “spill over” and still is.

    Our general revenue gets the income tax, PLUS the surplus from FICA. But that surplus is running out.

    It’s expect that in five or ten years,FICA payments in will be less that Social Security out. That’s a big problem.

    SO in a very real sense, FICA has not only been a burden on business, it’s been an income tax in disquise. And everyone who knows anything about taxes knows that.

    Notice, however, that unearned income has NEVER paid one dime into Social secuirty — it’s been immune.

    If you want a real flat tax system — tax all income alike — FICA and all.

    Watch the folks that claim they want a “flat tax” scream bloody murder.

    Taxes are so funny – nothing comes close to it for deceptions and sneaky names.

  • Doc Holliday

    Like you say, the flat tax is not flat, and I say the fair tax is not fair. Any time people have to use Big Brother terms, you know it is fishy.

    I support a sales tax only. That way we do not punish income, we only tax purchases, which promotes savings. The sales tax could be adjusted on a needs basis. We could choose to not tax medicine, bread, etc. We could have luxury taxes if needed if the government simply could not function without them. But even if the thing is not flat, it still ends tax returns and people understand they are only taxed on purchases. This also cuts out a lot of the tax cheats and illegals, or puts them in if you will.

  • Doc Holliday
  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    Once you start down that road, then before long almost everything is exempted and the rates for the other things is through the roof.

    Better just a low broad tax with like you say “luxury”premiums to make the average dummy feel better about it.

    Sure it would cause some hardship for some poor people, but it would improve the economy so much that those people would have good jobs available, and those jobs would no longer take taxes out of their salary.

    It is an axiom of economics that if you subsidize something you get more of it, and if you punish something you get less of it. Maybe it is time to start penalizing instead of subsidising poverty.

  • acat

    I don’t trust Congress to add a national sales tax *and* sunset the IRS without having the amendment that lets the IRS operate – 16th, IIRC – repealed.

    Mew

  • acat

    Most folk don’t notice them because they’re fairly small. A jump of a quarter percent on a nationwide sales tax would increase the federal income hugely, and yet, the cost of a Big Mac wouldn’t move enough to push people out of McDonalds.

    Consider Chicago’s Cook County, which is currently home to the highest sales tax in the country. There was some noise, mostly because of the stigma attached to having the highest rate. The guy who ran for county board chair who wanted to lower the rate lost…

    Mew

  • Doc Holliday

    they can add the sales tax if they don’t want to go back to selling land for money. And since Obama wants to buy more land, I doubt they will do that. Of course Obama will not be president when and if this ever happens.

  • acat

    Likely impossible in my lifetime, but … just remove the Fed ability to tax citizens, and instead have them tax the States…

    Laboratories of Democracy at work – if the citizens of Vermont want to pay via sales tax alone, great. If the citizens of Iowa would prefer to pay by a property tax, also fine. If the citizens of Illinois want to pay by a combination of income, property, and sales taxes, that’s their call. …

    Mew

  • Doc Holliday
  • YnotNOW

    With the recession, Social Security ran a deficit for half of 2009, and even though it achieved a surplus in 2010, is expected to be back in the red shortly. The deficit came early because with the recession, many workers were laid off and stopped paying in, and some of them retired early since they weren’t working anyway, so started taking out early.

    And of course, this means that the mythical trust fund must start “paying out” those IOU’s, which of course can only come from general revenues (our tax money). See my post on this at http://www.redstate.com/ynotnow/2011/04/04/the-myth-of-the-social-security-trust-fund

    Regarding un-earned income (interest, dividends, capital gains) not being FICA taxed, note also that they do not count toward SS payments, either. If the income cap is lifted, or capital gains are FICA taxed, then this is pure WELFARE to retirees. Sure, the system is already half welfare – do we want to “stick it to the rich” and make it a welfare program even further?

  • melissatx

    if they know they have to do it, that means less people on the dole.
    The tests are inexpensive and if sold to the gov the cost would be miniscule ESPECIALLY when compared to the amount hemorrhaging from the budget now.