How much help the state should provide to the people isn't even the question.
The piece is an argument that federal entitlement spending has expanded beyond its stated goal of assisting the poor, and then proposes reasonable limits to the qualifications for the programs that would bring their levels of spending back in line with their stated goal.
I post articles I agree with, and I agree with this one wholeheartedly you can treat the positions taken in the article as my own.And frankly, I agree with cafe. It is tiresome. Come up with a comprehensive strategy, a plan, rather than look at one piece of the pie here.
I'm not (and frankly no one is) enough of a wonk to bring the requisite facts and figures to bear on every policy area they want to discuss.
For instance David Armor is a professor of public policy at George Mason. He's spent his entire life going over the intricacies of these policy issues.
Without this article I wouldn't have the depth of knowledge required to make a compelling case for entitlement reform.
But for your sake, my argument is that we should limit the beneficiaries of entitlement programs to those at or below 130% of the federally designated poverty level (for non disabled persons) and possibly 110% of that level.
The budget can't be balanced unless these cuts fit into a larger program of deficit reduction that includes revenue increases and defense cuts.And this. Looking at one piece in isolation removes the context of overspending and under-taxing in other areas of the budget. It's like trying to trim the monthly grocery budget whilst still paying $200 a month for cable TV.
This article isn't meant to show that the only cuts that need to be made are these, but that meaningful and substantial savings from entitlements can be realized without unduly burdening those benefiting from those programs now.
HELPING THE POOR
To be sure, reforms in this direction should not be implemented all at once. There are millions of individuals and families well above poverty thresholds who currently depend on benefits from one or more of the programs reviewed here; they will need time to adjust to any changes in eligibility. But Congress can easily begin the transition by applying tighter eligibility constraints to any new applicants to federal welfare programs, and by gently phasing them in for current beneficiaries over a period of five years or so.
The key to controlling our swiftly growing welfare programs is to think in terms of the purpose and not just the size of government. The idea that anti-poverty programs should help those who are poor is so obvious as to be a tautology. And yet — as the data above illustrate clearly — this is not at all how our federal anti-poverty programs work today. By bringing these programs into line with their original, stated aim — providing a safety net for people who are actually poor or who have serious disabilities — enormous budget savings can be realized. And because our massive debts put all federal programs in danger, making the reasonable reductions outlined above will actually put our welfare programs on more sustainable long-term footing. In so doing, it will also preserve a true safety net for Americans in need.
I wouldn't have posted the article if I didn't agree with it and share it's position.
It's easy to propose changes that don't have a snowflakes chance in hell of passing.