Poor Chad Schuldt. He's caught in a paradox of his own politics. Referring to this chart from USA today (which I first saw mentioned by Joe K at NLT), he can't decide whether more people being dependent on the government is a victory for the big government he loves or a sign of failure on the part of the George Bush he hates. He sides with hating George Bush.
The chart shows enrollment is up in many entitlement programs. Chad's conundrum is whether this means that big government is taking care of more people (which Chad likes), or if this is another sign of the bankruptcy of the Bush economy (which Chad likes to hate). All Chad needed to do was, well, read the chart and he'd have his explanation. First of all, we can dismiss enrollment numbers for Social Security and Medicare as eligibility for those programs is largely based on demographics, something that I believe George Bush has no control over. What about the rest of the programs mentioned? Well, Medicaid, Child Nutrition, the EITC, Unemployment Compensation and Pell Grants have all seen their eligibility expanded through new legislation. It says so right on the USA Today chart. In other words, it is now easier to get on these programs. So of course enrollment is up. Chad doesn't note the large decrease in those receiving traditional welfare (i.e. TANF). If the other programs are expanding because of evil Bush, is this program shrinking because of good Bush? No. Eligibility for this program has gotten tougher, that's why the decrease in enrollment.
We here at SDP have pointed out that the rise in the poverty rate has been mild under Bush, especially considering unpredictable economic catastrophes (e.g., September, 11, Hurricane Katrina) and by historical standards the poverty rate is quite reasonable. It is our position that low taxation and modest regulation makes business more productive. When businesses are profitable they invest and create wealth in ways that expand opportunities for all Americans. Nothing efficiently allocates resources like the market. Those nations that are the most prosperous are those that maximize human freedom and allow ingenuity to reap profit. The evidence of Europe and of overtly socialist nations is clear: attempts to plan economies and efforts to protect citizens from competition only lead to economic stagnation. I suspect I am the SDPer who is least enamored with the free market, but one cannot argue with its economic success. Perhaps Chad can favor us with his alternative explanation as to the nature and causes of the wealth of nations.
I also want to point out that in contrast to the reported stinginess of the Bush Administration, entitlement spending, not just enrollment, is up since 2000. Just look at Table 9 of this Congressional Budget Office report (pdf alert). The increase is about $370 billion and is now at 10.7% of GDP (Table 10), the highest in history. This Senate Appropriations report shows that over the last 40 years entitlement spending has gone from about 30% of the federal budget to about 64% of the federal budget. You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that Bush is pulling the rug out from under the poor, and then when it turns out that his administration has actually approved more money for more people argue that it's a sign of how bad the economy is. That's a "heads I win, tails you lose" argument. Remember, it's the conservatives who are supposed to complain about the welfare state, not the liberals. I remember Rush Limbaugh used to say that conservatives measure compassion not by how many people get benefits from the government, but by how many people no longer need the government. It is touching to see Chad Schuldt and Rush Limbaugh in agreement.
Recent Comments