Joshua Rashedah Alexander ENG 112-72 23 Febuary 2014 Rogerian Argument The Economics of Dependence The word economy

is very broad and encompasses a wide variety of topics. A

particularly strong force affecting the economy is the spending done by the Federal Government on social welfare. The American social welfare system is a controversial topic. Some people claim that it is a necessity, while others believe that over-spending on welfare programs stifle economic growth. Although both sides of this argument have merit, our current system represses our country. This is a result of the abuses made by citizens who could contribute in the nurturing of our economic state, but decide against it, in favor of free aid. These abuses are fostering an aid dependent republic inhabited by people who cannot function without the governments helping hand. The Federal Government spends billions upon billions of dollars each and every year. This money spent finances everything from our military training and operations to social welfare programs to healthcare. The federal budget is daunting to view, because of this, many

Americans have little idea how the federal budget works, much less how much money is being spent. Regardless of which side of this argument over social spending you side with, everyone would agree that a populace ignorant of its own government spending is a dangerous one. For this reason, this argument will begin with a very brief description of the federal budget. The entire federal budget is broken down into two distinct groups. The first group of the budget is mandatory spending; the second group is discretionary spending. The difference between these two groups is that discretionary spending is set to a fixed dollar amount. While

discretionary spending is immobile, mandatory spending is allowed to fluctuate. Mandatory spending covers programs that must, by law, pay out money to people who apply and qualify. If a family applies for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, also known as food stamps, and qualifies, they must by law receive federal aid. (Kramer) Money going to families in need is not the problem this paper is meant to address. The problem lies in the fact that fifty five percent of mandatory spending done by the Federal Government is expended specifically into social welfare programs. (Kramer) These programs include food stamps, section 8, unemployment, and social security, among other programs. Is it possible that so many people in America, the greatest country in the world, are in poverty? That strictly depends on your definition of the word poverty. The term poor or poverty brings many images to the forefront of our minds. We see people who are wearing oversized tattered trench coats, along with gloves that dont cover their fingers warming themselves beside a burning barrel beneath a thundering overpass. While images similar to this are what many people see when they imagine poor, the Federal Government has a much different image. According to several surveys done by the Federal Government approximately 30 million people are viewed as living in poverty. This survey also found that the average person in poverty owns a car, two color televisions, a DVD player or VCR, and does not live in an overcrowded home. (Rector) With this as the definition of poor, it begs to question how many people are requesting and receiving aid. One of the largest government programs is the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program. This program, also known as food stamps or SNAP, was created to help families in need not go hungry. The Federal Government publishes the program data online. This data can be accessed on any computer without special privileges, and makes for an eye-opening read. Joshua R East 2

Throughout fiscal year 2013 at any given point there were an average of 47,636,084 people receiving aid from the food stamp program. (Program Data) This is roughly one in seven Americans. The total amount of money paid out under SNAP during fiscal year 2013 was $76,067,237,586. (Program Data) These numbers both allude to one very strong point. We need to reevaluate our social welfare programs. No one will argue against money spent to help impoverished families from starving, in fact both sides of this argument can reach a middle ground and agree that money should be spent to keep people from famishing. But with over seventy-five billion dollars being spent on food stamps, we need to know where that money goes. Food stamps do not only allow people to purchase bread, vegetables, meats and dairy products; they also allow the benefited to purchase soft drinks, candy, cookies, snack crackers, and ice cream. Not only can you purchase your favorite ice cream under the current program, you can also buy certain energy drinks. (Eligible Food Items) The divide on this issue begins here. Disadvantaged individuals should be helped, but they shouldnt be entitled to such luxury items as T-bone steaks, coke, and snickers bars when this money is meant to keep them nourished. The Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program is only the tip of social program iceberg ran by the Federal Government. Another popular program offered to the American people is the unemployment benefit. People who qualify for this benefit receive a weekly check from the government that allows them to spend that money how they see fit. The setback to this program is that people will most always use their unemployment benefit for its entire duration. John Stossel, a television reporter, did a very interesting and revealing piece regarding welfare abuse. He interviewed a social worker from California who found that many people feign a job search to maintain their unemployment benefit. (BurnOutXL) Joshua R East 3

The United States is not the first country to recognize this as a problem. The country of Denmark ran into very similar issues in the past. In fact Denmark recently reduced their unemployment benefit because they found that people would take full advantage of their benefit and not look for a new employment opportunity until the end of said benefit. Another discovery made by the Danish government is that the longer people were out of work, the more difficult it was for them to find work. (Alberman) We have a large safety net that over serves its purpose and allows people to completely rely on welfare comfortably, rather than find work. This is not acceptable. With so many people relying on aid from the Federal Government to eat, we need to understand that America could possibly be looking at an aid dependent state in the near future. A recent congressional report looked into the issue of dependency. The definition of a

dependent family is one that receives over fifty percent of its total gross income from federal aid. With this definition in mind the congressional report found that just barely fewer than four percent of Americans are dependent. (Chapter II. Indicators of Dependence) This is simply unacceptable. Mandatory spending funds another program that may possibly be more destructive than either food stamps, or unemployment, section 8. Section 8 is a government housing initiative that allows families who fall below a certain point on the poverty line to live for free in government housing. Section 8 also allows people to rent homes and apartments free of charge with the government remunerating the bill. Multiple housing projects have had to be demolished because mistreatment and disrepair. (BurnOutXL) Another problem with section 8 is that it has negative consequences upon the housing market. In fact a study done by The Fannie Mae

Joshua R East 4

Foundation found that section 8 housing had hostile effects upon homes within a two thousand foot radius. (Galster, Tatian, Smith) The issue we are faced with when we see these facts is not that we have a problem, but rather that we lack a proper solution. Simply pointing out that there is a flaw is very much like a vehicle spinning tires, it draws a lot of attention to an issue, but it will get us all nowhere fast. Many people suggest furthering government aid to help people; many will suggest that giving a hand out is the same as a hand up. This is not true. There is a direct correlation between how much money is spent on benefit programs to the amount of people that are qualified to receive them. (Ladner) The United States needs welfare reform for the good of our economy. People are able to take government benefits to supplement their employment, housing and nutrition. Taxpayers fund these benefits. The surge of people taking these benefits will lead to a greater deficit of people sponsoring the subsidy of these programs. Continuance down this path will lead to a larger population that is in need of government assistance to survive. Government aid is free aid to those who receive it. The only prerequisite to collect aid is to qualify for the benefit. The issue here is not with government spending on social welfare programs, but rather the waste generated by excess spending. Nearly one in every seven Americans relied on the food stamp benefit during 2013. With the debate on social welfare programs growing ever more popular, it is interesting to think about the how the people receiving these benefits will vote in reaction to opposing politicians suggesting reform. Social economic reform is essential to the growth of our country. Social welfare education and reform is the best way to create a knowledgeable and productive society that doesnt need to have its hand held through life. A stronger social economy is a stronger America. Joshua R East 5

Works Cited Alberman, Liz. Why Denmark is Shrinking Its Safety Net. The New York Times. 16 August 2010. Web. 5 February 2014. BurnOutXL. Stossel on Unemployment Fraud & Welfare Addiction w/Star Parker Common Sense. Online Video Clip. YouTube. YouTube, 18 December 2010. Web. 4 February 2014. Chapter II. Indicators of Dependence. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. United States Federal Government. Web. 3 February 2014. Eligible Food Items. United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. United States Federal Government. Web. 5 February 2014. Galster, Tatian, Smith. The Impact of Neighbors Who Use Section 8 Certificates on Property Values. Housing Policy Debate. 10.4 (1999): 879-917. Print. Kramer, Mattea, et al. A Peoples Guide to the Federal Budget. Northampton: Interlink Books, 2012. Print. Ladner, Matthew. How to Win the War on Poverty: An Analysis of State Poverty Trends. Goldwater Institute Policy Report 14 November 2006: Print. Program Data. United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service. United States Federal Government. Web. 26 January 2014. Rector, Robert. Understanding Poverty in America. National Review Online. 10 September 2009. Web. 25 January 2014.

Joshua R East 6