SNAP is a strange animal. On the one hand it does help some people who are in very troubled circumstances. On another hand the program is also widely abused and everyone knows it. And on still another hand SNAP is big time crony capitalism with taxpayer money barely stopping in recipients accounts before being funneled to companies like Coca-Cola and General Mills.
Consider that one of the classic forms of “welfare” in this country is also absolutely a form of corporate welfare too – food stamps. Many big corporations owe a large part of their bottom lines to these programs. In some places one can even buy McDonalds and other fast food directly with EBT cards. Years ago we did a story on how JPMorgan has EBT servicing contracts with states worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Add in Walmart and other discount stores that see immense flows from government programs and one begins to see the picture.
The only part missing here is the fact that special interests are manipulating the cop to create barriers to entry (licensing and minimum wage laws) or to create government subsidized streams of income to bureaucracies and corporations (food stamps/welfare).
This is an interesting proposal.
This should not be in the “land of the free.” It is a sad graphic. And remember, much of your tax money is siphoned off by the cronies in industries which are connected and by those in government itself. You are basically an annuity.
This article reminded me of a parody Funny or Die did of a Dodge truck commercial a couple of years ago entitled “God made a factory farmer.”
Farming is one of the croniest areas of the American economy. The industry is rife with subsidies of all sorts, herds of lobbyists, Republican pandering (and Democrat pandering too though most of the Dems have been chased to the cities), and inside political deals of all sorts.
For decades “conservatives” have bemoaned welfare generally, but most of the attention has been on conventional welfare for the poor. And this area of public policy deserves more scrutiny and radical reform. The welfare laws in this country are seriously messed up and have done much to erode the underpinnings of American society. We have created a taxpayer subsidized underclass in this country.
But conservatives have, at least until now, largely ignored the subsidized “overclass” which has emerged in recent years.
If one is trying to get people employed incentivising unemployment isn’t wise. It is however politically great for those who are for a large government. So long as the main part of a person’s income comes from welfare one can rest reasonably assured that such a person will vote for more government.
What is the “welfare cliff?” Why is it important?
The point here is that there is some effort to make welfare recipients go through drug testing etc., and that this is humiliating. So we should focus on the welfare the rich get too.
I’m for that.
Thing is this list, almost completely, lists tax DEDUCTIONS as “handouts.”
Making sure that Ex-Im is not reauthorized later this year is important. No one who believes in free enterprise should be for a bank funded and guaranteed by taxpayers which loans loans at below market rates for the benefit of a few large corporations. (Many of the “small businesses” the bank touts as clients are actually parts of larger corporations.) The Republicans in Congress who hold sway on this issue say that they are for free enterprise.
The Clintons are plenty familiar with big business. They know how to leverage relationships in the corporate world about as well as anybody. They’ve been schmoozing for contributions for decades at this point and they won’t disappoint this go’round.
I think Daniel J. Mitchell sums things up very nicely here. I feel about the same way.
Every time we post a story on crop subsidies there are at least a few people out there who jump up and down and swear that taxpayers paying to subsidize farmers (really agribusiness) isn’t welfare.
First, what is called “Right ” and “Left” is increasingly up for grabs. The winged political paradigm makes much less sense now that a significant part of the population self identifies as “libertarian,” which does not fit into the 20th Century way of looking at politics.
Saying this however we’ll go forward.
The question is whether those who advocate ever larger government have to get people “hooked” on welfare of one sort or another in order to win elections.