• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to Speak on Welfare Reform

    The 112th Congress is out of the gate, and so is its mantra of getting government spending under control. But there’s one piece of the spending pie that legislators can’t overlook if they plan to get the United States back on the track of fiscal responsibility: welfare.

    Despite the commonly held belief that the government “ended welfare as we know it” back in the 1990s, this year alone, federal and state governments will spend nearly $900 billion on means-tested programs for low-income people. (And no, this does not include unemployment spending.) The welfare reforms of the Clinton years accounted for just a small piece of total welfare spending in the first place, and while those reforms should not be downplayed for their significance and success, unfortunately even they have been all but eliminated over the years.

    The challenge with getting welfare spending under control is that no one really knows where all of the money goes. This is partly attributed to the fact that there are over 70 different welfare programs spread across 13 government departments providing assistance for things from food to housing to cell phones.

    With such a behemoth to tackle, is it possible to get welfare spending under control? Representative Jim Jordan (R–OH) says yes.

    The reforms made in 1996 provide proof that successful changes can be made to tackle welfare spending and shape welfare to do what it is meant to do: move people from government dependence to self-reliance. The provisions that made welfare reform possible included adding time limits and work requirements (in other words, elements of personal responsibility) to welfare—in that case, the cash assistance program Aid to Families with Dependent Children (which became Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). As a result, welfare roles shrunk and the number of children living in poverty decreased dramatically.

    Transferring such principles to other government welfare programs—food stamps and housing programs, for example—would prove a promising strategy to helping people off the dole and into independence, thus decreasing the burden on taxpayers. Also critical is ensuring that the U.S. does not increase current welfare spending.

    To discuss these ideas in greater detail, Representative Jim Jordan (R–OH) will speak at The Heritage Foundation on Thursday, January 20, at 10:30 a.m. Join us live or on the Web!

    Posted in Culture [slideshow_deploy]

    9 Responses to Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) to Speak on Welfare Reform

    1. Bobbie says:

      Independence is freedom and what America is all about! What proper leadership of America SHOULD RESPECT BY DISCIPLINE OF THE AMERICAN CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT!

      If welfare wasn't available, people would inherently expand their intelligence by figuring it out for themselves. The more government does for people the more the more power and control the government has over the people.

      Just think how strong this nation would be if everyone was living free and independently, taking care of ourselves and those in our care, respecting our fellowman if not by civil law alone…

      p.s. cell phones have to be worked for, not given to. I mean, where are the poor going 24 // 7 that a cell phone is a necessity?

    2. George Colgrove, VA says:

      The fox is in charge of the hen house!

      Simply put, Federal spending is out of control and no one is looking to bring it under control. The republicans are feeling pretty darned proud of promoting the cuts of a drop in the bucket $100 billion from the 2011 federal budget! We will be going into debt by over a trillion this year – like last year. We are only 10% there and they are patting themselves on the backs. Then we have people who say that here is no place to cut. Huhhhhh?

      From Wikipedia: “The federal budget for 2011 is projected at $3.83 trillion in total spending. This is to include: $787.6 billion in pensions, $898 billion in health care expenditures, $140.9 billion for education, $928.5 billion in defense spending, $464.6 billion in welfare spending, $57.3 billion in protective services such as police, fire, law courts, $104.2 billion for transportation, $29 billion in general government expenses, $151.4 billion in other spending including basic research, and $250.7 billion on interest payments.”

      Incidently this list does not include the massive behemouth of Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid (all over about a trillion as mentioned in the article). Plus we owe over 450 billion in interest – we are only paying half that.

      What to cut and how to do it:

      Yesterday (01/19) Rush Limbaugh pointed out this strategy just off the top of his head:

      1.Cut Obamacare (trillions in savings)

      2.Cut the EPA – not eliminate – just cut it. (total budget 10 billion – cost on business – immeasurable)

      3.Cut the federal workforce (Bureaucrats) by 20% ($66 billion)

      4.Cut Federal workforce salaries to bring them in line with the private sector. ($106 billion)

      5.Then an across the board budget cut of 10% in each and every department – evenly spread out. ($383 billion)

      6.Eliminate the FCC (not a big item, but impact on business is huge)

      7.Eliminate the Federal Election Commission (worthless)

      8.Eliminate all the Czars ($4.5 million)

      9.End Stimulus spending and things like TARP (Trillions in savings)

      10.Sell off 20% or more of the federal land mass (the feds own about 25% of all the land mass if the US) (massive revenue for the feds which could pay off much of the deficit!)

      11.Cut the number of government vehicles by 25%

      12.Cut the government office space by 20%

      As Rush said, there are “responsible reasonable, certainly excessive places to cut.”

      People commenting on this blog have mentioned far more places to cut. However, it comes down to this. Each of us has our beloved program that not only do we want to see preserved, but we also want to see it increased. We have heard the long stated justifications and the claims of what will happen if we do not increase these amounts. Heritage Foundation is a great advocate of federal cuts – so long as it does not touch defense. I know DHHS spending has recently eclipsed the DoD. These two departments are the biggest spenders of scarce taxpayer dollars and these two departments are the soul fault of driving the country into debt by more than $780 billion in 2010 and if we do nothing for 2011, these two departments will be the soul cause of driving us into debt by another $800 billion. Both of these departments have volleyed being just ahead of the other. Both have seen their already enormous budgets double in a short 8 to 9 years from around $300 billion to edging over $700 billion – today each stands at just under a trillion dollars! The DoD operating budget is currently about $930 billion. DHHS’s operating budget is under $100 billion with the rest as obligated direct payments to people. DHHS employs about 60,000 federal workers where the DoD employs 400,000 civilian workers.

      When applying Rush’s blanket cuts, the DoD will need to trim 80,000 federal workers (NOT soldiers) and the DHHS will need to trim 12,000. When the DoD trims its operational budget, it needs to cut $93 billion, the DHHS needs to cut 10 billion.

      I am willing to have the debate on cutting entitlements but this is a far touchier problem as we are dealing directly with people who have been conned by the United States Federal Government. This will need education and a transition period to get things like Social Security, and Medicaid/care back into the private sector where they belong. Nevertheless, we need to cut the federal government NOW and we cannot wait until after we cut entitlements to cut the egregious federal spending that is killing this country.

      We conservatives are supposed to feel proud of the Republicans who seemingly are delivering a $100 billion in cuts. Woopy-doo! With the 2011 budget set at $3.83 trillion, which means that cut represents a measly 2.6% of the budget. We want at least a 10% cut delivered now. But realistically we should be cutting over a trillion because that is how much we will be going deeper into debt. So in real dollars, that means at least $383 billion, but really we need to cut over a trillion dollars!.

      All of this is falling on deaf ears. We conservatives will fight to the bone to keep – or increase – defense spending while the left will fight to the bone to keep or increase DHHS spending. So in compromise, both side will keep the status quo in place all the while the country continues to slide into oblivion. We have kids ruining the federal government – both sides are spoiled. They have had it good for decades and now the piper wants to be paid, and both sides are throwing temper tantrums. It does not matter how many hard-hitting facts there are, we will continue to spend like the pockets are bottomless.

      I loved the United States, it was a great nation. Academia loved to refer to it as an experiment. Well I think the experiment worked and was a success. However, the second American experiment that began with FDR has been a dismal failure. Now the country is buried under a public sector motivated by greed, self-interest and now too many of them are grabbing for what they can before it totally sinks. There are no more patriots anymore – or at least people who are in a place where they can do something. The government is of the Feds, by the Feds and for the Feds. The government is of the special interest, by the special interest and for the special interest. The government is of the wealthy, by the wealthy and for the wealthy. The government is of the privileged, by the privileged and for the privileged. However, is the government of, by and for the people – heck no. I feel that government has “perished from the earth.” We did it to ourselves because of our own greed to grab what others worked so hard for.

      From a patriotic point of view, we are not done, but when you look at the greed and self-interest that is running amok in DC, I have little hope that we can survive this. The fox is in charge of the hen house, and for some reason the hens are all gone.

    3. O_Henry says:

      I would encourage all who read here, tell others, it is basic economics to understand this principle: for anything one subsidizes one gets more i.e. subsidize brick production and one will have more bricks, many more bricks. The principle works for poverty i.e. if the government subsidizes poverty it will get more, much more. Please keep this before our congress and remind those who disagree that one cannot "break" a law of economics but one may "break" one's self on a law of economics, or in this case one's country.

    4. shea lockerby says:

      What the Welfare system has done to people is a shame. I followed a women around a store as she explained to her four daughters how to make their welfare check and food stamps last through the month, as though there was no alternative and that was the best they could hope for. I reject the idea that the only way for a young woman to survive is to get knocked up and go on welfare. And it angers me to think that there are girls out that we the taxpayers have spent 12 years educating and their only contribution to society will be another Welfare case.

    5. Arkie says:

      I once stood in line behind a gentleman at the bank and he cashed eleven, count them 11, welfare checks. At that time checks were issued by counties, this gentleman wasn't living in any of them he was living overseas on a military base.

      We should eliminate any and all departments that are not set up under the requirements of the constitution. Any states that have to be bailed out shoud have to repay the bailout with interest. Any business that were bailed out should have to pay it back with interest and no further bails outs for private buisiness should be granted. Any buisiness that is so big that if it failed would hurt the US, should be broken up into smaller companies. The government should only pay for employees to retire starting at their full social security retirement age, except the military. Unemployment should be cut off at 6 months. Illegal immigrants should be put on buses and taken to the border and the country they come from should be charged for transportation, housing and any medical services provided. Prisons should be set up and ran under the supervision of Sheriff Arpiao.

    6. Frank W. Fisher says:

      Make those who are not disabled go out and work in some way or another and you would see them start to do the work that illegals do in oeder to get better pay. These people eat better then most people that actually work for a living so cut back on welfare and make them want to work. How about drug testing these people that are on welfare since we are cutting back on the food distribution we can now pay for the testing. If they fail they then get just bread and fresh water. I was unfortunately on welfare for 2 months and I hung my head in shame but I ate btter, I had better medical coverage and paying the bills was no problem but the key is that I was ashamed of myself………these people have no shame.

    7. sjean - Ohio says:

      O_Henry is so right. Subsidize bricks and you get more bricks. Bobby Jindal mentions this in his book "Leadership and Crisis". If you pay girls to have babies, you get more girls having more babies. Someone needs to explain that this is not a career objective.

    8. Dana Hoffman Minneso says:

      The one thing that really needs to be straightened out in the very first is that there is a law out there that puts those on welfare to be held responsible for their agencies errors. This is non-sense and it goes against the entire purpose and spirit of the program and with those on welfare having to pay back monies they can not afford to begin with is putting our kids in more danger because no one wants to be in program where they are made to pay for the fault of others.

    9. Pingback: Drug and dental insurance

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×