Russell: US government spending: More welfare, less warfare

Since glitches in Healthcare.gov gained national attention, Republicans have found a new issue to scoff at besides perceived Democratic wars on (insert Christian tradition here).

Interpreted by members of the right as evidence of the program’s inherent deficiency, the technical errors within the government website have somehow managed to extend the months-long tantrum of Republicans in the House of Representatives and Senate. In an interview with Sean Hannity this past Monday, former New York mayor and former representative Rudy Giuliani, called Obamacare “a total disaster.”

In other words, the right is pretending that the technical difficulties with the website are grounds to deprive working-class people of access to health care. I can’t say that I’m surprised, as conservatives have been massacring aid programs for the poor since the tenure of Ronald Reagan, but when spending on the military is five times greater than spending on welfare, it may be time to stop chastising food stamp recipients with smartphones and start paying attention to which countries we’re invading this week.

The total amount of government spending on welfare (not including food stamps and unemployment) is $131.9 billion per year. In 2012, the U.S. spent $695.7 billion in military funding, dwarfing the military budget of every other country in the developed world. To illustrate just how wide the gap in spending is between the U.S. and comparable countries, China comes in second place, spending $120 billion.

In the Hannity interview, Giuliani went on to compare the website’s glitches with the hyperbole of Y2K that he faced while he was in office. Bragging about being able to overcome a problem that ended up only being a minor glitch, Giuliani said, “And it wasn’t my signature achievement. I guess reducing crime or welfare was.”

There’s a stereotype of welfare recipients as leeches of the system who are unemployed or spending more than they need. I always seem to doze off when the rationalization from the right begins with, “Give a man a fish, and feed him for a day,” and ends by miraculously transforming welfare cuts into measures that help the poor instead of hurting them. Readers, I give you the mental acrobatics of the conservative right.

Welfare recipients can earn a maximum of $1,000 per month to qualify for the program, meaning that the potential for abuse — especially with restricted programs such as food stamps — is minimal. However, one common argument from the other side is that welfare gives people an incentive not to work, and in some ways, they’re right. In 39 U.S. states, welfare pays more than an $8-per-hour job. In six states, it pays more than a $12-per-hour job. And in eight states, it pays more than the average salary of a U.S. teacher. Conservatives interpret this as a sign that welfare gives the poor too much money, but I see it more as a sign that there is something wrong with our economic system if workers can’t make living wages.

Beyond anecdotal evidence for abuse of the welfare system, let’s take a look at the facts. According to the Department of Commerce, 4.1 percent of the U.S. population uses the welfare system, and the unemployment rate was estimated at 7.3 percent in August of this year. It doesn’t take a statistician to see that even the unemployed aren’t taking advantage of social government programs.

Perhaps if we stopped starting wars for “humanitarian efforts” and started actually putting some of that money toward humanitarianism in our own country, the U.S. might not have the fiscal burden it currently carries.

Write Natalie at ncr11@pitt.edu.