No Brainer: Less Welfare Means More People Looking For Jobs


Though liberals will never admit it, it is no secret that an overabundance of welfare benefits leads people to abuse the system. Evidence of the point is currently on display in England, Scotland and Wales, where government announcements that unemployment benefits would soon be capped led more than 12,000 people to successfully seek gainful employment.

Officials in the regions announced that non-working people aged 16 to 64 in about 40,000 households would be seeing smaller checks from the government as early as September. According to the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), 12,000 claimants found jobs over the last year following the news.

Via BBC:

Couples and lone parents will now not receive more than £500 a week, while a £350 limit applies to single people.

But critics say the changes will hit parts of the country unfairly, and will not tackle underlying problems.

Those in work who also claim benefits, are not affected by the cap.

“What the job centre staff have told us is that they’ve seen a genuine increase [in people looking for work] since they’ve alerted people that they’re likely to be in the cap,” said the Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith, who has spearheaded these changes.

He argues the current level of benefit discourages people from looking for work.

“We will always be there to support those who need help but the days of blank cheque benefits are over,” he said.

Perhaps it’s time to consider that taking away the incentive to not work is a viable way to combat poverty stateside. Currently, more than 20 percent of Americans are on the Federal dole in one way or another.

Here are some disturbing facts from the Heritage Foundation’s 2012 Index of Dependence on Government about easy money in America:

One in five Americans—the highest in the nation’s history—relies on the federal government for everything from housing, health care, and food stamps to college tuition and retirement assistance. That’s more than 67.3 million Americans who receive subsidies from Washington.

Government dependency jumped 8.1 percent in the past year, with the most assistance going toward housing, health and welfare, and retirement.

The federal government spent more taxpayer dollars than ever before in 2011 to subsidize Americans. The average individual who relies on Washington could receive benefits valued at $32,748, more than the nation’s average disposable personal income ($32,446).

At the same time, nearly half of the U.S. population (49.5 percent) does not pay any federal income taxes.

In the next 25 years, more than 77 million baby boomers will retire. They will begin collecting checks from Social Security, drawing benefits from Medicare, and relying on Medicaid for long-term care.

As of now, 70 percent of the federal government’s budget goes to individual assistance programs, up dramatically in just the past few years. However, research shows that private, community, and charitable aid helps individuals rise from their difficulties with better success than federal government handouts. Plus, local and private aid is often more effectively distributed.

Unfortunately, the American welfare state isn’t likely to go anywhere anytime soon. Increasing handouts, such as so-called “Obama phones” and welfare, is a much easier way for American politicians to get votes than advocating for policies that nudge people into paying jobs.

Personal Liberty

Sam Rolley

Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After covering community news and politics, Rolley took a position at Personal Liberty Media Group where could better hone his focus on his true passions: national politics and liberty issues. In his daily columns and reports, Rolley works to help readers understand which lies are perpetuated by the mainstream media and to stay on top of issues ignored by more conventional media outlets.

Join the Discussion

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

  • William

    And…where do you suppose these folks are going to obtain gainful employment when “paying jobs” simply do not exist? This situation is far from your “cut and dry” assessment/attitude that jobs are coming out of the “woodwork”.

    • Trav

      Thats exactly what I was going to say…Do they expect a person to work at McDonalds to support a family?

      • Nadzieja Batki

        Is that become the limit of your dreams and ambitions? Besides it is not sin to work at McD.

      • Margaret

        My sister-in-law works for McD’s – she started flipping burgers and worked her way up to regional manager. So, quit thinking you are “too good” to work there. That’s the “lazy” attitude talking. It is not wrong for people to have to start at the bottom and work their way up – but no – the egos out there all think they shouldn’t have to actually work and earn that better job.

        • Bob Pante

          Same for Walmart the largest employer in the world. They pay from minimum wage to over a million a year and everything in between.

    • Dave

      Therein lies the main problem. Manufacturing has been moving overseas to cheaper labor markets. What are the solutions to that? Lower corporate taxes. American companies want to stay in america but the cost is too high.

      • Dave


        What corporations actually pay is actually low comparitively to other countries. The United States will never be able to have the cheapest labor costs due to the nature of our economy. The conservatives would like this country to become a 3rd world country due to their hatred for unions

        I support getting rid of Cap Gains taxes as long as people cannot hide their incomes in the company. Taxes should be on people and consumption only but we have people who game the system and therefore the need for Cap Gains.

    • Nadzieja batki

      It may be time for people to create their own work instead of relying on others to employ them and suffering when they don’t get employed.

      • Dave

        Everyone is an “owner” now? Is that it?

        Most people work for others and most people do not want to work at McD’s or Walmart but have to because the their economic situation, skill sets, location etc.
        There will always be a need to have the workers that make the idea, clean up, serve etc. But to some, playing those people a living wage is a sin. That idea is put forth by those making double digit increases in their salaries year after year… The corporatists and the wealthy.
        The top 10% have 60% of the wealthy.
        The 47% that Tricky Mitt Romney says do not pay any income tax at all, they own 5% of the wealth.
        If you do not see a problem that stems from those numbers then you need to read up on history.

    • Bob Pante

      Their are plenty of jobs the ILLEGALS have them all.

  • laura merrone

    There are “paying jobs” out there. My sister makes almost $100,000 a year in computer networking. I don’t do as well because, I am not into computers as much as her. However, with both my husband and I working, we should be able to get by and pay our bills without government support. It takes a lot of “elbow grease” but its worth the effort and is possible. I’m tired of all the excuses unless its a valid one.

  • FreedomFighter

    BAD NOW?
    Wait till ObamaCare kicks in next year, the economy is going to go into a tail spin of epic proportions, then add the 15 to 30 million illegal aliens looking for jobs and absorbing huge amounts of entitlements at the state an federal level… and you have a recipe for complete disaster.

    Laus DeoSemper FI

  • Dave

    Katrina vanden Heuvel has an excelent piece in the WAPO

    There really isn’t any other word. Congressional Republicans are simply appalling. They have absolute control of the House. They set the agenda. They decide what comes to the floor. They decide what passes on to the Senate.

    They know that extreme legislation isn’t going to be enacted into law. The Democratic majority in the Senate and the Democratic president stand in the way. So the legislation they choose to pass is a statement of their own values. It is simply designed to proclaim, “This is where we stand.” And for the vast majority of Americans, what they proudly proclaim is simply beyond the pale.

    Republicans just passed a farm bill. It lards out $195 billion in subsidies for agribusiness. At the same time, they chose to drop food stamps — the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — from the bill for the first time in 40 years. In this time of mass unemployment, 47 million Americans rely on food stamps. Nearly one-half are children under 18; nearly 10 percent are impoverished seniors. The recipients are largely white, female and young. The Republican caucus has decided to drop them from the bill as “extraneous,” without having separate legislation to sustain them. Who would want to advertise these cruel values?

    Republicans in the House passed a 2014 budget guideline. They know the Senate won’t accept it. They refuse even to enter into negotiations with the Senate to find a compromise.

    What does their bill do? It would deprive millions of health care with deep cuts in Medicaid and, of course, the repeal of Obamacare. It not only continues the mindless and damaging sequester cuts, but it exacts them all from domestic services – education, environmental protection, clean water, food and drug testing, head start, infant nutrition – while exempting the Pentagon.

    The Pentagon is the largest source of waste, fraud and abuse in the federal government. The White House is ending wars. Troops are coming home. Why in the world should the Pentagon — still investing in Cold War weapons that are simply relics in the modern world — be exempt from deficit reduction? Who would defend these priorities?

    It gets worse. The Senate passed comprehensive immigration reform. The compromise bill earned rare bipartisan support, its provisions made much harsher to meet conservative objections. There’s likely a majority that would vote to pass that reform in the House. But the Republican caucus demands that no legislation reach the floor without the support of a majority of the Republican caucus. And, at this point, a majority of House Republicans rail against reform. They are considering passing piecemeal laws to arm the border, spend billions on more walls, and provide for more guest workers for agribusiness to exploit, while simply ignoring the 11 million people living in the shadows.

    Congress has passed inadequate legislation to try to curb the excesses of Wall Street. But Republicans in both houses are now pushing to weaken, delay and gut even these changes (in return for growing campaign contributions from the financial sector). What voters stand with Wall Street over homeowners?

    Why are Republicans so appalling? Some argue that they must take these extreme positions to fend off primary challenges from the tea party right. But even tea party members want banks to be policed. Some say it’s because Republicans come from gerrymandered districts, so they don’t have to cater to majority opinion. But many of these gerrymandered districts are in poor regions, with high numbers of people dependent on food stamps. And how many conservative voters would defend exempting the Pentagon, and the rich (Republicans call for more top-end tax cuts), and corporations (Republicans have insisted that corporate taxes should be lowered) from contributing anything to getting our books in order? Some say it is simply corruption. Big interests buy the legislators and rig the rules. But Democrats are compromised by the money race without completely abandoning common decency.

    Republican obstruction and outrages have left Congress with record low approval levels. There’s much talk in Republican circles about how to “relaunch” the “brand.” But packaging won’t replace leadership. What Republicans need is a conservative leader with the common sense of former President and World War II hero Dwight D. Eisenhower. Commenting on the Republican yahoos of his time who wanted to repeal Social Security and Medicare, Eisenhower wrote his brother in 1954:

    “Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things … their number is negligible, and they are stupid.”

    Eisenhower was a conservative and frugal president who insisted on balancing the budget. He put a lid on Pentagon spending. He defended Social Security and labor laws, while building the interstate highways and funding the national education defense act. He was re-elected in a landslide.

    Now it looks like the “stupid” wing of the Republican Party has taken over. Our nation suffers as a result. And Republicans are likely to pay the price for that.
    So just so we are clear again… Conservatives and the GOP stand for big business interests and against the middle class and the poor. The proof is in this thing called a “record”