Republicans argue that safety net programs can inadvertently discourage work by offering benefits that make low-wage jobs less attractive. They imply programs such as long-term unemployment benefits, rental assistance, and food stamps reduce incentives for people to seek work. Republicans often highlight examples of fraud, misuse, or administrative inefficiencies in safety net programs. That’s not the case at all. Far from serving a static underclass of poor people, safety net programs benefit most Americans – 70 percent – at some point in their lives. Cutting these programs to pay for tax cuts for wealthy people and large corporations is both bad social policy and bad economics.
In 2023, the federal government spent over $1 trillion on safety net programs, much of it tied to poverty. But these programs are a good investment. Economists have suggested that poverty costs the U.S. economy between $1 trillion and $2 trillion annually, accounting for lost productivity, increased healthcare and crime costs, and safety net expenditures.
Studies have shown that antipoverty programs that target children offer an excellent return on investment to taxpayers; the children are more likely to graduate from high school, attend college, enter the middle class, and become taxpayers. Programs to reduce childhood poverty alone could save up to $1 trillion annually by mitigating its long-term societal costs. Safety net programs and anti-poverty programs not only lift millions of families out of poverty, they also support broader economic growth.
I’ve submitted the following before, but it’s just as timely now while the Republicans in Congress are making noise about the need to cut programs such as Medicare, and Trump wants to eliminate environmental regulations. I suggest they read this column and consider how much of it applies to their own lives.
A day in the life…
He gets up at 6 AM and fills his coffeepot with water; he knows the water is clean and safe because the EPA ensures water quality. He has eggs and bacon for breakfast; the bacon is safe because the U.S. Department of Agriculture regulates the meat processors. When he showers, he reaches for the shampoo; the ingredients are on the label because the Federal Trade Commission requires that consumers know what they put on – and in – their bodies.
He takes his medications, also safe because the Food and Drug Administration evaluated their safety and efficacy; all but $15 of their cost is covered by his employer’s health plan, which was negotiated by a union he doesn’t belong to. He is considering changing jobs, but he would be dropped by his employer’s health plan. About six years ago he was diagnosed with a chronic illness; because of this pre-existing condition, his premiums would increase from $400 to about $3,000 a month. But then he found a health plan available on the ACA marketplace. He will be able to purchase a plan he could afford from the same insurance company he has now.
When he leaves his house – which he bought with an FHA-insured mortgage – he breathes fresh air because the government-imposed air-quality standards on the nearby industries and got lead out of gasoline. He gets in his car for the drive to work. His car is safer (air bags, seat belts, etc.) because the U.S. Department of Transportation requires it. He drives on highways built and maintained by the government, and cost much more than vehicle owners like him pay in gasoline taxes. He transfers to public transit which is also supported by the government. If he gets hurt on the job or laid off, he can count on mandated workers compensation or unemployment benefits.
At noon, he makes a deposit at a federally insured and supervised bank, so he knows his money is safe. His children live in an area served by the federally owned Tennessee Valley Authority, so they don’t pay as much as most people for their electricity. He makes a payment on his federally subsidized student loan, he also had a Pell Grant to help pay for his education at a state-supported university.
After work, he visits his parents’ house, which was originally financed by the Farmers’ Home Administration (banks didn’t make many loans in rural areas), and didn’t have electricity until the federal Rural Electrification Administration sponsored rural electrification. His parents are retired, but they receive social security checks, and a pension negotiated on their behalf by the unions they belonged to, and are covered by Medicare. They have discounted telephone service (a/k/a/ an Obama phone) including broadband internet access, through the federal Lifeline program and receive help paying their utility bills from the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program.
On his way home, he turns on his car radio to listen to a talk show host rail against the intrusion of “big government” into our lives. “Yes,” our protagonist agrees, “we don’t need those tax-and-spend liberals. I’m a self-made man, and I take care of myself. Everyone should.”
Mark Berg is a community activist in Adams County and a proud Liberal. His email address is MABerg175@Comcast.net.
Mark Berg is a community activist in Adams County and a proud Liberal. His email address is MABerg175@Comcast.net.
I’d ask Mr. Berg, Why do we have “70% of people on the safety net”? Earlier generations (including my great-grandparents) do not understand this. The difference between Democrats and Republicans really has to do with primarily one thing – government does Everything for you/Gives Everything to you vs PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY/staying out of Victimhood. I never worked for the government; I do not have the blessing of a permanent, government pension either. I am paying now over $1,000.00 per month in 2025 for the cheapest (high deductible) medical insurance thanks to Liberal policies of Obamacare. I am paying for the smokers,… Read more »
Is there anything a person can and should be allowed to do for themselves? Or shall it all be done for and to them by government? What’s the proper limit, if one even exists, where the theft of a persons’ labor through taxes ceases?