New data compiled by Republicans in the Senate Budget Committee shows that
the United States spent over $60,000 per household last year to support welfare
programs. They based the calculations on data from the Census, the Office of
Management and Budget, and the Congressional Research Services.

Let’s see how they came up with that figure. The number of households with
incomes below the poverty line in 2011 was 16.8 million. If you divide the total federal
and state spending by this number of households, the average spending per household in
poverty was $61,194.

Let’s put this in perspective. This dollar figure is almost three times the amount
the average household in poverty lives on per year. The federal poverty threshold for a
family of four was $22,350. The threshold is different for families of different size.

We should also note that not all households received $61,194 worth of assistance
last year. Much of the money goes to the welfare bureaucracy. And some benefits from
social welfare programs go to people about the poverty line (such as Pell grants).

Nevertheless, the numbers illustrate something I have said for years about poverty
programs. There is a significant overhead cost to these government programs. If we got
rid of all these bureaucracies and simply wrote checks for $60,000 to every poor
household, they would be much better off. I’m not advocating we do that. But perhaps
you can see the point. We are spending over $60,000 a year per household to address
poverty.

Imagine if we sent that amount of money to faith-based organizations, which have
traditionally done a better job of helping people out of poverty. Again, that won’t happen
for many reasons. First, we would hear about the separation of church and state. Second,
politicians and bureaucrats would never give up the power that comes with government
programs. Perhaps you can see the point. We are spending lots of money for an
inefficient government bureaucracy that is supposed to help the poor.

In his second inaugural address, President Obama criticized a phrase that is also
the title of a book. He said: “The commitments we make to each other—through
Medicare, and Medicaid, and Social Security—these do not sap our initiative; they
strengthen us. They do not make us a nation of takers; they free us to take risks that make
this country great.”

It was probably intentional that the president used the title of Nicholas Eberstadt’s
book “A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic.” He responded to the
president’s address with a commentary titled: “Yes, Mr. President We Are a Nation of
Takers.” The statistics he has collected should concern politicians and taxpayers alike.

For the last 50 years, entitlement transfers (government payments of cash, goods,
and services to citizens) have grown twice as fast as overall personal income. They now
account for three times as much of all personal income compared to 1960.

America has seen a long-term expansion of public reliance on “means-tested”
programs. Those would be benefits intended for the poor (such as Medicaid and food
stamps). About 35 percent of Americans are accepting money, goods, or services from
these programs. This is twice as high as the early 1980s.

What is this costing American taxpayers? Currently the federal government’s
social-welfare programs dispense entitlement benefits of more than $2.3 trillion annually.
Eberstadt points out that since these entitlements must be paid for (either through taxes or
borrowing), the burden of entitlement spending now amounts to over $7,400 for every
man, woman, and child.

Here is the faceoff between the two views. The president does not seem
concerned about entitlement spending. Nicholas Eberstadt says we have an entitlement
epidemic. I don’t know how you can look at these numbers and this trend and not be
concerned.