Is Trump’s Budget an Attack on the Poor? No—the administration’s cuts mark a return to sensible principles on welfare programs.

City Journal ^ | March 5, 2020 | Charles Fain Lehman

[karpov]

Last month, the Trump administration rolled out its Fiscal Year 2021 federal budget request—and progressive critics howled. “Trump’s budget is a $292 billion attack on poor Americans,” Mother Jones alleged. Vox accused Trump of cutting Medicare and Medicaid and lying about it. Kentucky Democratic representative John Yarmuth claimed that Trump was proposing “deep cuts to critical programs that help American families” and “destructive changes to Medicaid, SNAP, Social Security.” The anger was mostly hot air because, as National Review’s Robert VerBruggen notes, the budget is “an irrelevant document that mainly serves to give political journalists stuff to complain about.”

It’s still necessary, however, to dispel misconceptions. The supposed welfare cuts make up a set of uncontroversial reforms, including work requirements, limited access for unemployed immigrants, and changes to poorly designed programs. The administration’s welfare proposals would cut roughly $407 billion from the federal deficit over 10 years. The spending reductions would erase another $57 billion through 2030 by cutting the number of inefficient or redundant programs.

The lion’s share of the budget reduction comes from expected savings on work requirements. Able-bodied adults between 18 and 65 enrolled in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program and Medicaid would be required to work, job-train, or look for work at least part-time. This change aligns SNAP and Medicaid with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, at projected savings of $334 billion.

While derided by some on the left as “workfare,” work requirements enjoy broad public support. In a 2016 American Enterprise Institute/Los Angeles Times poll, 87 percent of respondents supported requirements, including 81 percent of low-income respondents. At that point, the Obama administration’s high rate of work-requirement waivers had swelled the SNAP-beneficiary rolls. As a result, many able-bodied adults now hold work exemptions designed for the Great Recession, not a booming economy

[from occupied ga]

Just a drop in the bucket, but a step in the right direction. I have never understood why I or anyone else should be forced to pay for someone else's lifestyle.

Examples from the grocery store

1. Black female with regular groceries (including rib eye steaks that I only buy about twice a year) separating her beer so I knew she was paying with a snap card after taking an inordinate amount of time finally finished and headed out of the store. I had one item and finished while she was still in sight. When she got to the parking lot she got into a fairly new Mercedes 2 seat sports car.
2. Skinny white guy again separated beer and two large bags of dog food from the rest of his stuff. I also noticed before he left he stopped at the cust service desk and bought a strip of scratch off lotto tickets. Why are we taxpayers paying for his dog and lotto tickets?

If you can afford an SLC or a dog or lotto tickets or beer why am I and my fellow taxpayers paying for your groceries?

[Rurudyne]

Now if only we could return to government by constitutional means (10th Amendment in particular) and ditch all this progressivism at the federal level....

[bgill]

I haven’t been able to afford a rib eye for 20 years and remember that because they were on a super great sale for a couple weeks. We cook on sale boneless beef ribs like steaks and chew and chew and chew.

Adults should not be allowed to be on welfare more than 6 months twice in their lifetimes. Too many think it’s a way of life generation after generation birth to death.

[Go Gordon]

If you can afford an SLC or a dog or lotto tickets or beer why am I and my fellow taxpayers paying for your groceries?

Because we're suckers and are unwilling to do what is necessary to stop it.

[from occupied ga]

If you're on welfare you should not be allowed to have pets - they're expensive luxuries. Now the woman could have bought the car used for a reasonable price and you need a car to get around in Atlanta, but the guy with the dog food, beer and lotto tickets was just milking the system. Basically I and my fellow taxpayers were supporting his lifestyle. It's bad enough to pay for someone else's food, health care, housing, etc., but paying for their pets is just the cherry on the soda.

[ridesthemiles]

I have owned a number of vehicles in my life, but never owned a Mercedes. They are expensive, and also expensive to maintain.

As for the dog-—in parts of the black community, that dig might be their only safety valve until the cops show up.

I just lost my dog, and to feed her, I bought a 50# bag of Wal Mart “Old Roy” for about $22 with tax. It lasted her over 3 months++. Need another ‘security’ dog.

[from occupied ga]

The guy with the dog food was white. And I still maintain that if I’m paying for your expenses via my taxes you have no business owning pets.