CONNECT
NationofChange / Op-Ed
Published: Thursday 2 February 2012
“If anything, America’s safety nets have been too small and shot through with holes.”
The Republican Myth of Obama’s “Entitlement Society”
One of the few things Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich agree on is that President Obama is turning America into “European-style welfare culture.”
In his standard stump speech Romney charges Obama with creating a nation of dependents. “Over the past three years Barack Obama has been replacing our merit-based society with an entitlement society.”
Gingrich calls Obama “the best food-stamp president in American history.”
What’s their evidence? Both rely on federal budget data showing direct payments to individuals shot up by almost $600 billion, a 32 percent increase, since the start of 2009.
They also point to Census data showing that 49 percent of Americans now live in homes where at least one person is collecting a federal benefit – Social Security, food stamps, unemployment insurance, worker’s compensation, or subsidized housing. That’s up from 44 percent in 2008.
Finally, they trumpet Social Security Administration figures showing that the number of people on Social Security disability jumped 10 percent in Obama’s first two years in office.
They argue our economic problems stem from this sharp rise in “dependency.” Get rid of these benefits and people will work harder.
But they have cause and effect backwards. The reason for the rise in food stamps, unemployment insurance, and other safety-net programs is Americans got clobbered in 2008 with the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression. They and their families have needed whatever helping hands they could get.
If anything, America’s safety nets have been too small and shot through with holes. That’s why the number and percentage of Americans in poverty has increased dramatically over the past three years. According to a study by Northeastern University, a third of families with young children are now in poverty.
This is the real scandal. For example, only 40 percent of the unemployed qualify for unemployment benefits because they weren’t working full time or long enough on a single job before they were canned. The unemployment system doesn’t take account of the fact that a large portion of the workforce typically works part time on several jobs, and moves from job to job.
Republicans also object to Obama’s health care law, which covers 30 million more Americans than were covered before. That law still leaves over 20 million without health insurance. They’ll get emergency care when they’re in dire straights — hospitals won’t refuse them — but we all end up paying indirectly.
Regressive Republicans pretend they’re about opportunity. In reality they’re back at what they’ve been doing for years — promoting Social Darwinism.
This article was originally posted on Robert Reich's blog.
Get Email Alerts from NationofChange
ABOUT Robert Reich
ROBERT B. REICH, one of the nation’s leading experts on work and the economy, is Chancellor’s Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley. He has served in three national administrations, most recently as secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. Time Magazine has named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including his latest best-seller, “Aftershock: The Next Economy and America’s Future;” “The Work of Nations,” which has been translated into 22 languages; and his newest, an e-book, “Beyond Outrage.” His syndicated columns, television appearances, and public radio commentaries reach millions of people each week. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, and Chairman of the citizen’s group Common Cause. His widely-read blog can be found at www.robertreich.org.
FEATURE A
Connect with your friends
Find new content you might like and see what your friends are sharing!
19 comments on "The Republican Myth of Obama’s “Entitlement Society”"
February 03, 2012 4:30pm
what we need is a much higher Minimum Wage - At least $ 15 per hour which is almost a living wage, given the Minimum Wage back i 1963 in todays dollars was a $ 12'/ hr We also need to bring all manufacturing back to the US There is nothing we cant manufacture here - and that can be done simply through import tariffs What that? That would start a trade ? HA We lost that war decades ago We have a trade DEFICIT with every nation we do bis with We would be better off if we exported NOTING and imported NOTING
How about a national goal of elliinaating poverty and thus Gov Welfare by putting every0ne to work manufacting for ourselves Unlike most nations, we do have the natural resources to do that
February 03, 2012 4:43pm
and 30% unemployment
February 03, 2012 8:46am
There were plenty of irresponsible borrowers; to believe otherwise is idiocy. If one lacks the ability to understand that there is always a risk involved when concerning bowrrowed money and blindly fed into what a lender 'marketed' as the truth, they were irresponsible. There is no ifs, ands, or buts about that.
February 10, 2012 12:09pm
Yes, one could easily make the case that there were irresponsible borrowers, and they found the perfect match in the pre-melt down mortgage industry who were irresponsible lenders. Ever hear of a "NINA" loan. Industry jargon. It means- No Income, No Assets. Lenders were seriously giving loans to peole who had no demonstrated income and no demonstrable assets. I'm yet to hear how many borrowers who qualified for a more conventional loans, were then steered into a no-down loan with balloon interest adjustments after two years. If someone is trying to practically hit you on the head with a sack of money (with a huge interest rate), and the bland unverifiable promise that the borrower would be able to refinance before the shit hits the fan (a patent lie), how many people longing for their own piece of surburbia are going to turn it down. Moral hazard? Sure. But who started this? How did it get so bad? And when it was clear enough to the industry insiders that the whole a system was so over rated that they took out insurance policies against thir own products, why didn't someone speak up sooner? Why didn't the government choose to intervine? And why when the shit WAS actually in full propulsive mode, did the government choose to bail out the perps? I've no doubt there were plenty of irresponsible borrowers, but if we hope to avoid a repeat of this ugly enterprise in the future, we are going to need to address the industry that manufactured this crisis and you can spare us the finger wagging at people who bought the snake oil.
February 03, 2012 8:06am
What are Bush tax cuts now, the the 1% look at that as a entitlement! Look at what that entitlement has cost the middle class!
February 02, 2012 5:11pm
Apparently the Republicans want to model us after third world countries
February 03, 2012 4:45pm
the democrats want to away with American exceptionalism and put USA into dust bin of history
February 03, 2012 2:23am
That would be correct.
February 02, 2012 4:14pm
Are some Americans blind and stupid? Other industrial countries consider having healthy, educated people to be desirable and positive for their countries. Too many people in this country have been duped into thinking that the private sector will provide both for them, despite their experiences. They continue to ignore what has happened to the middle class over the past few decade at the hands of the private sector with complete support from Republicans and some Democrats. Ronald Regan dealt a devastating blow to organized labor as his first act as president. Government
February 02, 2012 3:06pm
This goes back to the REASON people don't have jobs and why those who do are receiving less real income. Something Bob, who seems to want to be known as a deep thinker doesn't want to talk about; about Clinton's passage of NAFTA, GATT and establishment of the new WTO that sent all the jobs offshore and brought foreign workers and ILLEGAL ALIENS in to take the place of American workers. Without those agreements Vulture Capitalist would not have been able to carve up our country - you know the folks on Wall Street who are the big contributors to the Democrat Party! - Think maybe there was a plan?
February 02, 2012 3:05pm
This new "great depression" is a direct result of the Gramm, Leach, Bliley Act. This act did away with Glass Steagal. Why didn't the Obama Administration seek to restore Glass Steagal? We are just going to repeat this same collapse over again with ultra wealthy banks reaping the rewards of government bailouts.
That is bad enough.
The really huge scandal, however, one that is never mentioned, is how the Obama Administration allows the Republicans and far far right wing extremists like Limbaugh to frame the argument that somehow poor people are responsible for the economic disaster. Obama even aids them in their deception. He said in his state of the union address that the collapse was caused by both "irresponsible borrowers" and "irresponsible lenders." As if both were equally responsible. This could only come from the mouth of someone that is ideologically Republican.
There were no irresponsible borrowers. Borrowers were told by predatory lenders that because homes would ALWAYS increase in value there was no risk to them, or the banks. Why would anyone take out a mortgage knowing that they would be foreclosed on? There is no logic in that, and no gain. In other words, that little meme is pure bullshit.
I was an Obama supporter in 2008. I was so very wrong. But I have changed. In my opinion voting for Obama in 2012 would even be worse than voting for Mittens or Newtie. Obama is a Trojan Horse. His mission was to absolve the Wall Street fraudsters and the Bush Administration of wrong doing, to dismantle the social safety net and to continue perpetual war. I'll say it again, Obama is a Trojan Horse.
February 03, 2012 3:03pm
If you think voting for Obama is worse than voting for the rich-coddling Republican candidates, then why don't you admit that you're the Trojan Horse? No matter how many times you repeat what you say, that doesn't make it so.
N. California
February 02, 2012 2:39pm
It's not even "Social Darwinism" anymore, Robert. 'Social Darwinism' implies it is humans eating humans (where "strongest/fittest" = wealthiest). We are now in a situation where the strongest are not human at all. They are behemoth corporations in which all the humans that work in them are equally viewed as interchangeable, expendable units - fuel for the consumption of their engines. We'd like to think it is individuals (and punish them when we can) that are eating us and our future generations. But Mumford observed, back in the 50's, that the managers of giant corporations weren't even in charge of the machines they managed. Now, as these machines go 'stateless' (they never really had much loyalty to the nations that spawned and protected them) they are not even controllable by the nations in which they claim residence. Darwin never contemplated the evolution of the machine - the animated process. But here it is.
February 03, 2012 2:54pm
excellent analysis But Corporations were created by man and they can be destroyed by man. We need leaders with common sense so will implement controls on corportations Maybe one answer are Corporate Co-ops where the people have direct control I can see how that could work
February 02, 2012 2:16pm
Social Darwinism that leads to Devolution of Species. What a concept. At some point a few seemingly fortunate souls will board the last flight out of Hanoi on Virgin Galactic as the remaining masses clamor for survival as clean air, water and arable land disappear.
Exporting this aberration of the American Dream to developing nations will hasten this outcome. Thank you Ronald Reagan, we're just now getting to really know you. Too bad you were a witting actor in this Greek tragedy. Couldn't simply appear on a few Love Boat episodes and let your career wane naturally could you?
February 02, 2012 1:17pm
Republican candidates and their recent stand on issues remind me of Loyola, the Jesuit, who said "if your eyes see the milk to be white but the church says it is black, believe the the church, not your eyes". What shall we expect from the party of the .0005% who has been axing the roots of our society. They just don't get it. They are addicted to hoarding for no reason. They have not seen like I have, the wrath of THE PEOPLE. It is not a pretty sight after it happens.
February 03, 2012 2:58pm
I am thorougly disgusted with the Democrats in Congress They have caved to Obama from day one I fhey had any guts, they would have impeached him, the VP and Speaker and caused a Constitutional Crisis which is what this country needs - a real shaking up
February 03, 2012 2:56pm
Rioting IS the next thing I hope you all have an escape plan
February 02, 2012 12:44pm
Amen