One of the
turning points in the 2012 presidential campaign was Republican nominee Mitt
Romney privately saying that 47 percent of the population -- supporters
of President Barack Obama, he said -- were people who are "dependent upon
government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has
a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health
care, to food, to housing, to you name it."
The 2012
election is long over, but this theme -- sometimes framed as "makers"
vs. "takers" -- is an enduring topic in American politics.
Recently, the
widely read conservative website TownHall.com posted a column by Terry Jeffrey, editor of the conseravative news service CNSNews.com, in which he compared Americans
"on welfare" to those who are "full-time year-round
workers." Specifically, Jeffrey wrote, there were more people on welfare
than working. He wrote:
"In 2013, according to the Census Bureau, there were 105,862,000
full-time year-round workers in the United States -- including 16,685,000
full-time government workers. These full-time workers were outnumbered by the
109,631,000 whom the Census Bureau says were getting benefits from means-tested
federal programs -- e.g. welfare -- as of the fourth quarter of 2012.
"Every American family that pays its own way -- and takes care of
its own children whether with one or two incomes -- must subsidize the
109,631,000 on welfare."
A reader asked
us to take a closer look at Jeffrey’s column, so we did. We found that the
numbers he cited are real, but his descriptions of those numbers, and thus his
interpretation, were off base. (Jeffrey did not return an inquiry for this
article.)
The number
109,631,000 does, as Jeffrey wrote, refer to the Census Bureau’s figure for the number of Americans receiving
benefits from means-tested federal programs. And the Bureau
of Labor Statistics’ figure for full-time workers was pretty close to his stated
105,862,000 for 2013, although not all of these workers necessarily worked all
year.
But his comparison
is a case of apples and oranges. We found three broad concerns about Jeffrey’s
characterization, which we’ll take in order.
The term 'welfare' is being used at its most expansive.
The word
"welfare" has different meanings for different people. Many think it
refers to cash payouts to people who aren’t working; others think it includes
anyone who receives government assistance of any type.
Jeffrey has
chosen to use the most expansive definition. The number Jeffrey cited includes
the "traditional" type of welfare, such as Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families, or TANF, but also programs such as Medicaid and food stamps.
In fact, the
beneficiaries in the Census Bureau’s accounting who received TANF and other
cash-based payments were dwarfed by those who received Medicaid, food stamps
and the food program called Women, Infants and Children, or WIC -- the three
most widely used categories in the agency’s accounting.
Jeffrey isn’t
wrong to frame it that way, but it’s worth noting that the definition he’s used
broadens the universe of recipients.
The number includes many children and senior citizens.
Jeffrey doesn’t
take into account that the Census Bureau arrived at its figure by counting
"anyone residing in a household in which one or more people received benefits
from the program." This means the agency would count an entire family of
four as receiving means-tested benefits as long as one individual within the
family received such benefits.
On its own,
this definition is defensible. If one person in a household qualifies for food
stamps, then the food purchased with those funds will likely be shared among
all family members. However, the problem arises when Jeffrey compares this
number to the number of full-time workers.
He’s not
comparing the number of households with a means-tested beneficiary to
the number of households with a full-time worker. That would have been
an apples-to-apples comparison. Rather, he’s comparing the number of households
with a means-tested beneficiary to the number of full-time workers.
This matters
because it juices the numbers, effectively increasing the number of people on
the welfare side of the comparison. Children and senior citizens can be counted
as receiving means-tested benefits, but children cannot legally work, and many
senior citizens may be retired or physically unable to work due to age.
The difference
isn’t trivial. In 2013, more than half of Medicaid recipients -- 51 percent --
were children, and another 5 percent were over 65, according to the Census
Bureau. This pattern skews the comparison Jeffrey is trying to make.
The number of 'welfare' recipients actually includes many workers.
Just because
you’re receiving means-tested benefits doesn’t mean you’re not working.
According to 2012 Census Bureau data, roughly 23 percent of households with
at least one working adult received means-tested benefits.
For Medicaid,
28 percent of recipients between the ages of 18 and 64, worked full time,
according to the Census Bureau. (Another 15 percent of recipients in that age group
worked part time.)
Other
means-tested benefits show considerable overlap with the population of working
adults. Roughly 60 percent of food stamp recipients who were of working age and
weren’t disabled were employed while receiving benefits, according to a Census Bureau sample calculated by the liberal Center for
Budget and Policy Priorities.
This matters
because working recipients of means-tested benefits would be counted on both
sides of the comparison, casting doubt on the notion that there’s a strict
divide between people who work and people who are on welfare.
Our ruling
Jeffrey said
that in 2013, there were 109,631,000 Americans "on welfare,"
outnumbering the "105,862,000 full-time year-round workers in the United
States."
While the claim
is based on real numbers, it’s a fundamentally flawed, apples-and-oranges
comparison. The number of "welfare" recipients -- unlike the number
of workers -- is enlarged by the inclusion of children and senior
citizens. The comparison also ignores that many "welfare"
recipients actually work, so trying to separate the two categories creates a
false dichotomy. We rate the claim False.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/28/terry-jeffrey/are-there-more-welfare-recipients-us-full-time-wor/
No comments:
Post a Comment