Posted on 06/16/2010 1:18:36 PM PDT by oblomov
Posted by Daniel J. Mitchell
The Center for Immigration Studies recently put out a study arguing that immigration has had negative effects on California. One of their measures was a comparison of how many people in the state were receiving some form of welfare compared to other states. I found that data (see Table 3 of the report) very interesting, but not because of the immigration debate (I’ll leave others to debate that topic). Instead, I wanted to get a better understanding of the variations in government dependency. Is there a greater willingness to sign up for income redistribution programs, all other things being equal, from one state to another? The “all other things being equal” caveat is very important, of course, since the comparison produced by CIS may simply be an indirect measure of the factors that determine welfare eligibility. One obvious (albeit crude) way of addressing this problem is to subtract each state’s poverty rate to get a measure of how many non-poor people are signed up for income-redistribution programs. Let’s call this the Moocher Index.
A few quick observations. Why is Vermont (by far) the state with the largest proportion of non-poor people signed up for welfare programs? I have no idea, but maybe this explains why they elect people like Bernie Sanders. But it’s not just Vermont. Four of the top five states on the Moocher Index are from the Northeast, as are six of the top nine. Mississippi also scores poorly, coming in second, but many other southern states do well. Indeed, if we reversed the ranking and did a Self-Reliance Index, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia would score in the top 10. Nevada, arguably the nation’s most libertarian state, is the state with the lowest number of non-poor people signed up for welfare.
Let’s now emphasize several caveats. I’m not an expert on the mechanics of social welfare programs, but even I know that eligibility is not governed solely by the poverty rate. Indeed, some welfare programs are open to people with much higher levels of income. This means that a more thorough analysis at the very least would have to include some measure of income distribution by state. Moreover, states use different formulas for Medicaid eligibility, so this index ideally also would be adjusted for state-specific policies that make it easier or harder for people to become dependent. There also are some states (and even colleges) that actually try to lure people into signing up for welfare, which also might affect the results. And I’m sure there are many other factors that are important, including perhaps immigration. If anybody knows of substantive research in this area, please don’t hesitate to share material.
"Hidey Hidey Hidey Ho...."
ping
Beat me!
Ah...the ‘something for nothing tribe’!
I’m amazed that Illinois is in the bottom third.
Unemployment compensation is insurance we pay into and collect when the need arises; I don't consider it welfare.
Until it is abused or scammed, that is.
If I counted correctly, New Jersey stands as 35 out of 50. I’m surprised we’re that far down, what with the cities of Newark, Camden and Trenton in the mix.
bookmark
Me too, this can't be right.
It is both legal and illegal immigrants that are the problem. Facts on Immigration and Health Insurance :
http://www.cis.org/HealthCare-Immigration
In 2007, 33.2 percent of all immigrants (legal and illegal) did not have health insurance compared to 12.7 percent of native-born Americans.
Immigrants account for 27.1 percent of all those without health insurance. Immigrants are 12.5 percent of the nation’s total population.
There are 14.5 million immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) who lack health insurance. They account for 31.9 percent of the entire uninsured population. Immigrants and their children are 16.8 percent of the nation’s total population.
In 2007, 47.6 percent of immigrants and their U.S.-born children were either uninsured or on Medicaid compared to 25 percent of natives and their children.
Cultural factors may also contribute to the high rate of immigrant uninsurance. College-educated immigrants are twice as likely as college-educated natives to lack health insurance.
In an earlier study, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 64 percent of illegal immigrants were uninsured in 2006, accounting for one out of seven people without insurance. If the U.S.-born children (under 18) of illegal immigrants are included, they account for one out of six people without insurance.
It isn’t insurance. It is a transfer payment program just like every other welfare program. Any government effort that takes income from one person, and gives it to another as a “benefit”, is welfare.
Sure, you “pay into it”, just like SS and Medicare.
So where are the assets for the Unemployment “Insurance”, Social Security, and Medicare programs being kept?
....she was a hoochie coocher. Can you believe such great music was once in children’s cartoons? Betty Boop
With all due respect, I pay for homeowner's insurance, auto insurance, etc., but hope I never have to use them. I've always thought that way about unemployment. Maybe I'll have to rethink!
One person’s welfare or wasteful spending is another person’s national mandate.
Do we count Ag subsidies? Export subsidies? Tax loopholes? Regulatory favoritism?
I agree with you on unemployment comp. Most of those on comp are able to find a job within 1 week of losing their benefits. If the benefits are extended 6 months, it takes them 6 months longer to find a job.
There was a recent report that detailed over 3 million jobs in the US that are going begging with employers unable to find anyone to fill them. I see it weekdays where I work.
Last weekend I overhead 2 high level executives discussing their inability to staff up a project in which most positions were six figures. They were debating whether they should send the project to India where it could be staffed, or just kill it.
Repeatedly at the places I’ve consulted (Chicago & midwest) I’ve seen projects killed or sent to India for the sole reason that they could not be staffed here. People willing and able to do the work just could not be found.
>>Do we count Ag subsidies? Export subsidies? Tax loopholes? Regulatory favoritism?
I consider all of those a misuse of government power. I’m a conservative minarchist. I believe in having the minimum amount of government consistent with public order.
Your observations regarding the labor market are spot on.
Yesterday the construction workers on the big hospital expansion a block from my house started a strike. They admit that their demands are small and petty. But
they
“thought it was a good time for a strike.”
Apparently, if they don’t use up their strike benefits they lose them, in the same way that if some don’t use their vacation days or sick days, or their HSA, they lose it. So rather than lose it, they strike.
Actually, employers pay into the UI fund, not taxpayers directly. I suppose one could say that we still pay into it, since an employer could pay his workers more if he didn’t have to pay into the UI fund.
It’s not really insurance. That’s just a nice euphemism for another government program. Just think of all the state bureaucrats who are employed to run the thing. Abolish the whole mess of it, and the economy would improve, as would prospects for employment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.