When former President Bill Clinton signed the landmark 1996 welfare reform law, it was supposed to “end welfare as we know it.” Despite that pledge, spending on the 77 welfare programs administered by the federal government and the states has skyrocketed over the past 15 years.
But legislation introduced by Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, along with Republican Reps. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Scott Garrett of New Jersey, would cap welfare spending at 2007 levels once the unemployment rate reaches around 6.5 percent and would also introduce work requirements for many of these programs.
To put it in perspective, federal and state welfare spending on these 77 programs currently totals approximately $953 billion — larger than the $668 billion defense budget — according to a Heritage Foundation estimate. The Obama administration plans in the current fiscal year to increase welfare spending 42 percent above where it was when George W. Bush submitted his last budget in 2008.
The 2009 stimulus removed work requirements from the food stamp program and increased eligibility requirements, which has contributed to this increase.
As a result, the Obama administration has almost doubled spending on food stamps since taking office, increasing spending from $39 billion when he took office to approximately $75 billion this year.
“What Jordan is trying to do is bring welfare spending at least to where it was during the Bush years where it was still growing at 3 to 7 percent a year, but it wasn’t growing nearly at the rate that Obama has in place,” said Heritage Foundation welfare expert Katherine “Kiki” Bradley.
Estimates put forward by Bradley and Heritage Foundation fellow Robert Rector, who worked with the legislators to craft the bill, suggest the cap could save the federal government $1.4 trillion over the next decade. By contrast, the Obama budget projects total welfare spending to cost approximately $10.3 trillion over the next decade.
Read more
But legislation introduced by Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan of Ohio, along with Republican Reps. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Scott Garrett of New Jersey, would cap welfare spending at 2007 levels once the unemployment rate reaches around 6.5 percent and would also introduce work requirements for many of these programs.
To put it in perspective, federal and state welfare spending on these 77 programs currently totals approximately $953 billion — larger than the $668 billion defense budget — according to a Heritage Foundation estimate. The Obama administration plans in the current fiscal year to increase welfare spending 42 percent above where it was when George W. Bush submitted his last budget in 2008.
The 2009 stimulus removed work requirements from the food stamp program and increased eligibility requirements, which has contributed to this increase.
As a result, the Obama administration has almost doubled spending on food stamps since taking office, increasing spending from $39 billion when he took office to approximately $75 billion this year.
“What Jordan is trying to do is bring welfare spending at least to where it was during the Bush years where it was still growing at 3 to 7 percent a year, but it wasn’t growing nearly at the rate that Obama has in place,” said Heritage Foundation welfare expert Katherine “Kiki” Bradley.
Estimates put forward by Bradley and Heritage Foundation fellow Robert Rector, who worked with the legislators to craft the bill, suggest the cap could save the federal government $1.4 trillion over the next decade. By contrast, the Obama budget projects total welfare spending to cost approximately $10.3 trillion over the next decade.
Read more
2 comments:
I was wondering what happened to the welfare reform bill. It sounded so good. You would get so much time to get off or be cut off. Seems like now, you get pregnant, don't get married, and the money just rolls in. WIC, food stamps, Section 8, Medical Assistance and the list goes on. What happens when the workers all retire. Who is going to pay for all the freeloaders?
How about no extra money for the more kids you have? The rest of us don't get more money every time we have a baby, we have to save and do without some things. It 's our fault people take advantage of a program that makes them lazy and not responsible.
Post a Comment