Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Welfare Spending Could Increase 80 Percent In Next Decade

January 16, 2013 by  

Numbers out from Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee suggest that Federal welfare expenditures could snowball by 80 percent over the next decade if Washington doesn’t cut back.

According to information put out by the committee, if government could slow the growth rate of welfare spending from 80 to 60 percent, the Federal government could save taxpayers $1 trillion over a period of 10 years.

Overall spending on welfare in the United States dwarfed all other budget items in FY2011. Welfare spending (Federal and State) throughout the Nation topped out at more than $1 trillion for that fiscal year, “totaling enough to mail every household in poverty a check for 60k each year.”

The report states:

Currently, almost 95 percent of spending on means-tested poverty assistance falls into four categories: cash assistance, health assistance, housing assistance, and social and family services. Welfare spending has increased on a year-over-year basis regardless of whether the economy has improved or unemployment has declined, and is projected to continue this dramatic rise indefinitely. Spending on these poverty programs will rise approximately 80 percent from FY2013-FY2022, representing a total cost of $11 trillion—roughly one quarter of cumulative federal spending. Slowing the growth rate from 80 percent to a still massive 60 percent would thus result, according to standard congressional budget accounting, in a $1 trillion savings over ten years.

The Budget Committee blames the sprawling growth in welfare spending on the Federal government’s use of aggressive recruitment methods in recent years to grow the number of American welfare recipients.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R- Ala.), a ranking member of the committee, said last October when numbers were first released indicating that the Nation spent more than $1 trillion on welfare in FY2011: “No longer should we measure compassion by how much money the government spends but by how many people we help to rise out of poverty. Welfare assistance should be seen as temporary whenever possible, and the goal must be to help more of our fellow citizens attain gainful employment and financial independence.”

Sam Rolley

Staff writer Sam Rolley began a career in journalism working for a small town newspaper while seeking a B.A. in English. After learning about many of the biases present in most modern newsrooms, Rolley became determined to find a position in journalism that would allow him to combat the unsavory image that the news industry has gained. He is dedicated to seeking the truth and exposing the lies disseminated by the mainstream media at the behest of their corporate masters, special interest groups and information gatekeepers.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Welfare Spending Could Increase 80 Percent In Next Decade”

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.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Doc Sarvis

    Most of it going to the Red States.

    • Robert Smith

      What I find interesting is just a modist to moderiate rate of inflation could double everything. Look at the last ten years.

      Rob

    • rendarsmith

      The Red States? Really? Where do you get your information Doc? I’m curious….

    • alpha-lemming

      Yes…. percentage-wise, but in terms of sheer numbers, more goes to New York than what the top 5 red states recieve combined……. throw California and Cook County into the mix?? The blue bastions are drivers of that 80% inflation rate.

      • walter agard

        Hay Alpha, why didn’t you run for president if you know about all these % ?

    • http://www.facebook.com/benjamin.fox.98892 Benjamin Fox

      Doc more of your commie lie’s, mostly in the so called blue states, that is how your group of marxist control the people, tease them with free stuff at the expense of the tax payers, over 40% pay no taxes at all and live off the hard work of others, so go stick your head where the sun don’t shine you commie so and so.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Grow up, Benjamin.

      • ChristyK

        I am paraphrasing a Benjamin Franklin quote because I don’t have the quote in front of me, but “The best way that we can help the poor is to make them uncomfortable in their poverty.” If the poor were helped a little less, they would work harder to take care of themselves. If the poor are comfortable on assistance while not having to work, then why would they work hard to take care of themselves? If prison is comfortable and the prisoner is well fed, then why not commit a crime that leads to prison. In Gainesvill, FL, I heard a corrections officer talk about how they would have a rash of small-time crime early in the year such as throwing a rock through the window of a convenience store. They would then sit down and wait for the police. They knew the crime would lead to an effective 9 month prison sentence. They would be well fed, have a TV in the room, wall-to-wall carpet and a library. We should try to discourage both poverty

    • http://pweiters9.wordpress.com pweiters9

      1/17/13, BO’s welfare state. We all know who’s best known for dependence in lieu of freedom, don’t we? $11T? Make no mistake about it: The US’s finest days are behind it; it is breeding a new generation of slaves suited only to work in it’s prisons.

  • roger gunderson

    That’s just one reason our legislators have an approval
    rating around 15%.

  • ibcamn

    this is king Obama’s spread the wealth at it’s best,he’s not helping anyone out of poverty,he’s making it worse and in my view,creating a whole new generation of thieves and junkies…..

  • Chris

    SOMEBODY needs to be looking into just WHO these people ARE who are ON Welfare!

    • Robert Smith

      A lot of them are folks who lost their houses and jobs during the recession.

      Many more are folks who’s jobs have been exported to China.

      Yup, blame the union as your usual step, I’ll blame the greedy corporations… but in fact the diners, and hundreds of other small businesses went belly up when the jobs at the factories went away. It certainly wasn’t their fault.

      Rob

  • rhkokoodan

    A guaranteed $60,000 annual income to every welfare queen,who is able-bodied, healthy and refuses to work, while I work for $40,000 salary a year, and my first pay check for this year showed marked increases in Social Security, federal and medicare deductions?rhbu

  • Doug

    This corruption and waste in government has to stop. I’m sick and tired of working until June now just to see my first paycheck while obama is handing that money I should have made to able bodied welfare leeches. He has done nothing in four years but destroy small business and the middle class. It’s time for the working people to step up and put a stop to this.

  • Dorothy

    And now the King Obama has totally changed the work for welfare rules. Certainly that has an impact on what is occurring.

  • Right Brain Thinker

    A subtly biased article by Sam gets some folks screeching—-”corruption and waste”, “welfare queens”, and “these people”. Nice work, Sam, and if this thread catches hold we will soon hear big time from the “stealing from the haves to give to those who won’t work” people..

    I wonder what the NON-Republicans on the committee thought? And there are a lot of “suggests”, “if-coulds”, “the report says”, “put out by’s”, and “the committee blames” sprinkled around in there to make one wonder who is saying what. How about the CBO or some non-partisan group? Do they agree with the Republicans on the committee? After the lies told in the last campaign, I wouldn’t trust a Republican’s “numbers” one inch.

    But the biggest thing that makes me question the honesty of Sam or the GOP members of the committee is the nice little graph in the article. The first impression of those who don’t look at graphs closely is “Oh, Wow!—-the blue bar on the left is small and look how big the red bars are and they’re getting bigger!—-we’re in big trouble!”, exactly what “somebody” intended people to think.

    A closer look at the graph reveals some interesting things. First, where are the bars that show the data from 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012? If one is not trying to mislead, and wants to properly display the info, there should be four more bars between the blue one for 2008 and the first red one for 2013. Hmmmm—-wonder why those years were left out? Could it be that they represent O’Bama’s first term? And that when they ARE plotted, they show the rate of increase in welfare costs during that term? And that the slope isn’t as steep as the PROJECTED growth over the next four years? In other words, welfare spending under O’Bama perhaps did not increase at the rate that the “screamers” would like us to believe?

    Note too that the PROJECTED growth rate declines to a lower rate over the last six years of the PROJECTIONS. Why have I emphasized the word “projections”, you ask? To emphasize that we are right now engaged in a huge debate over taxes and spending, and this graph could look very much different in a few months. If the economy comes back strong and more people go back to work, that is likely to reduce welfare costs significantly, particularly over O’Bama’s second term where the growth rate seems highest.

    In closing, let me say that it seems as if “somebody”—-Sam or the “Republican members of the committee” is/are trying to mislead us here—–putting the word “could” in there isn’t enough to make me think otherwise. .

    • gunner

      Keep your head in the sand.

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Why? Do you want some company? That’s where yours is if you don’t take a close look at EVERY last thing you read on PLD. Lots of people who would mislead you live here, or haven’t you noticed?.

    • momo
      • Right Brain Thinker

        Yes, actually—-that graph has value. Although the guys that run the site tend to be right-wingers, that site does give a lot of data gathered from government sources that is useful, even if some of it is “cooked” a bit. (It is not an official government site although it looks like one–it is basically a blog). It’s one of the places I look for data (and ALL data that comes from anywhere but the government sources and the few truly “independent” groups is a bit suspect and needs to be cross-checked).

        The graph you linked us to is interesting for a number of reasons. First, the numbers don’t agree with the numbers on the graph in Sam’s article, so there are apparently some “apples and oranges” in there as to what is included. For instance, the govspending.com graph shows welfare spending declining from 2011 forward, and in the late teens holding level at around $650 billion, while Sam’s graph shows a steady rise to $1400 billion by 2022. Sam’s graph shows ~$600 Billion for 2008, the other graph around $500 billion. There is so little agreement between the two graphs that the “Republican” graph is even more suspect in my mind, especially in the way it shows such a steep increase in spending over the next ten years. Fear-mongering perhaps? As in trying to give the impression that “If we don’t get it under control , it will bankrupt us”, even though that may not be true?

        And I suspect you really wanted the graph to make the point that welfare spending during O’Bama’s first term DID rise rapidly to a high level, as it should have considering the number of people out of work, the hungry children, and the big increase in the numbers in poverty. No surprise there—I knew it and most informed people do—-I was just “playing dumb” to see who bit. I don’t know who took those years out of Sam’s graph, but if I were a Republican, I would have left them in. Of course, if they HAD been left in, then everyone would see that “it was Bush’s fault” LOL

        I still maintain that Sam’s graph is a bit “fishy” and biased, but we may need to look in several places to find the whole truth about the actual “welfare” spending. Reading the “report” would probably give some clues but it’s not worth the time.

      • Warrior

        I suggest one review this chart and plug in US spending on Welfare from 1970 to 2012. Absolutely astounding and scary!

      • Right Brain Thinker

        Warrior says: “I suggest one review this chart and plug in US spending on Welfare from 1970 to 2012. Absolutely astounding and scary!” His closing may be “absolutely” a bit over the top, but his general premise IS correct—-”welfare” costs are high and the history of welfare spending is eye-opening, if not astounding.. The graph Momo linked doesn’t go back that far but going back only into the ’90′s as it does, will get one thinking.

        Of course our entire history from 1970 is chock full of “Absolutely astounding and scary!” happenings—-I can remember some “absolutely astounding and scary” stuff going all the way back to WW2. LOL

  • Rick Haines

    We need to make our Gov.CUT MILITARY and instead of welfare MAKE SURE there work waiting out side the door of your house that you can live on.This is what they do in China! It keeps the money circulating in the US.keeps PRODUCTIVITY going on,and gives the TAX PAYER MORE SERVICES from their MONEY.Write your Congress over and over and over.If nothing else copy your letter and mail it once a week.

  • ONTIME

    WTP because of our inept government and this Fraud in the WH are going to hear the sound of several dropped shoes, the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac fake financing, Student Loans, reparations , energy denial, security denial, medical care destruction, entitlement growth and greed, industrial skills depletion and phony college educations…ect, ect…..

    This is the very essence of how communism works and how your once vibrant country will have to struggle in the future to work it’s way out of a depression so deep and vast it will either rip out our heart or make us cynical and bitter for allowing this political destruction to have come about…America the beautiful will be a very hardened nation and I hope we can remember from whence we came with dignity and remember our optimism..

  • http://gravatar.com/bychoosing WTS/JAY

    People had better get acquainted with the “Psychopaths” that are running our nation!

    Webster Tarpley: The Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination (FL-HD)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3Eo2YTQUr8

    • Right Brain Thinker

      WTS/JAY is apparently looking in on even the “obscure” threads on PLD today, like this one which has only 18 responses as I write. I’ll have to surf the others and see if he is spouting inflammatory horsepucky on them also. JAYS latest game seems to be going back to the days of the old Wake The Sleepers (JAY) and posting crazy stuff—-just like yelling “Fire” in a crowded movie theater. I thought he had outgrown that.

      Some of you may have noticed the exchange he and I had on the “Gun Grab” thread. I’m sorry to say that JAY is at it again on this thread, posting a link with an inflammatory title as some sort of evidence that we should believe his insane statement that “Psychopaths are running our nation”. Lord love a duck, JAY! Will you ever stop trying to mislead folks and stir them up over nothing? Is it that much fun to do so?

      I went to the link—-”Webster Tarpley: The Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination” and discovered it’s nearly an hour long. This is one of JAY’s propaganda tricks too. Spend just a few minutes looking for something with an inflammatory title (JAY doesn’t actually have to watch it, just give the link), make an unfounded assertion about “psychopaths” and give the link, knowing that nobody is going to spend an hour watching it. Even if they do watch it, very few are likely to take notes, analyze it, and compose a reply. So JAY “pollutes your subconscious” with very little effort, and you would have to spend 1-1/2 to 2 hours to “come back”. I will waste 10 minutes for you.

      I DID view the link and analyze it’s contents. But only to a point—–it took only a few minutes to strongly suspect that Webster Tarpley is a wing nut. So I skipped ahead and looked at several short segments. In each and every one of those small samplings, Tarpley said things that proved that he is indeed a wing-nut, making many outrageous statements. I should say that this video clip consists of Tarpley “reviewing” the writings of John P. Holdren, the current White House science advisor, by flipping through a book and making comments on what Holdren said, and most of his comments would result in him being laughed out of the room in any gathering of serious scientists. For instance, Tarpley seems to think that it is “no problem” if the population of the earth rises to 45 billion in the immediate future—that’s 6-1/2 times the present population of 7 billion and I would love to know the name of ANY scientist who agrees with him.

      Actually, what Tarpley did was ATTACK Holdren—-anyone who would make up so much horsepucky to attack someone must really have some sort of grudge—-maybe Holdren ran over his dog?. Or did Holdren run over JAY’s dog, and is JAY just using Tarpley to try to get even?

      In closing, everyone should ask themselves why JAY would post something that is mainly an attack on the president’s SCIENCE advisor on a thread that is concerned with welfare expenditures. Can JAY answer that? Will he? Jay?

  • Rennie

    The biggest problem as I see it, is these sucklings will give their loyalty to whoever they see as the source of these freebies, in otherwords they have no patriotism or pride, they can be bought cheaply, and if teh USA runs out of money and some foreign power picks up teh tab, we now have a HUGE fifth column problem, especially in the 11 states where there are more welfare recipients than workers to support them. Needless to say these are mostly blue states with a long democrat history, lots of regulations, high taxes and crime, and now the most restrictive gun laws. Yet with a majority of people who expect something for nothing, thos ewho have worked for what they have are faced with an uphill struggle of being able to keep it should the welfare system collapse. Have no fear the powers that be will flee those states by helicopter with their personal armed guards. But the rest of us had better think long and hard about trying to remain in a blue state any longer. There is no opportunity and no future, unless you work for the govt.

  • Melissa

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-11-27/when-work-punished-tragedy-americas-welfare-state

    Article from Tyler Burden, includes interessting comparing statistic from the office of public welfare and Secretary Gary Alexander .

  • Chris

    This was what lit “my” fuse: I personally know someone on public assistance who needed their teeth pulled and instead of getting a set of dentures, public assistance paid for them to get their teeth replaced with implants and caps because they did not want to have to deal with dentures………..the ENTIRE MOUTH! Do you know what “ONE” implant costs? Those who “WORK” have to pay around $3,000.00 just for ONE implant, not to mention what caps alone cost. Now I don’t begrudge a poor person a set of teeth, but they SHOULD have ONLY been allowed “dentures” and DEFINITELY “NOT” IMPLANTS AND CAPS??!?!?!?!?!? I, a worker, can’t afford that for “ME”, but “MY” taxes have to pay for someone who does “NOT” work to get this? There’s something VERY WRONG with this picture!!!!!!!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.