Rep. Gwen Moore (D-WI) and other <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/house-democrats" target="_blank" rel="noopener">House Democrats</a> strongly objected to the renaming of a subcommittee because the new name contained the term “welfare.”
During a procedural <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfOse-LbCE8&amp;t=" target="_blank" rel="noopener">meeting</a> of the House Ways and Means Committee on Tuesday, a number of Democratic members asked why the “Subcommittee on Worker and Family Support” would be renamed the “Subcommittee on Work and Welfare.” Republican leaders, noting that the name of the subcommittee has changed five times in the past three decades, said that the shift reflected the urgency of addressing labor shortages by promoting workforce participation. Democrats nevertheless accused them of racially motivated intentions.
“I find it amazing that this committee would deliberately add a pejorative to the names of the subcommittees,” Moore remarked. “It is not true that denying people benefits would enable them to escape poverty &#8211; no. The American Rescue Plan is what kept people who were poor from falling into deep, deep poverty.”
Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-MO) responded that “the focus that we are going to have is to try to uplift people out of poverty” and contended that “the best way to uplift people out of poverty is with work.” When Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) asked whether Smith was trying to “shame people” who accept welfare, Smith responded that he had difficulty with taking the concern seriously given the rhetorical manipulation advanced by Democrats.
“This is clearly about the words and definitions,” he added. “Your party is one that we don’t know if you can say man or woman, birthing person or mother. It’s clearly about work and welfare.”
Democrats have indeed provoked controversy by using the term “birthing people&#8221; in official capacities, including the first budget proposal <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-budget-proposal-refers-to-mothers-as-birthing-people" target="_blank" rel="noopener">offered</a> by President Joe Biden. The purpose of the change was to support those who identify as transgender or “nonbinary,” although opponents contend that the phrase is demeaning toward women.
Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL) concurred with Moore that the name change has racial implications. “As an African American and ranking member of this subcommittee, what was ‘Family Support,’ I want to record my strong opposition to the change of the title ‘Work and Welfare.’ It is my hope that this title was not intended to be racially offensive, but in reality it really is,” he commented. “The term ‘welfare’ is a deeply pejorative term in our country that many people use to describe individuals who want to game the system.”
Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL) called the conversation “silly” and said that the committee had more urgent matters to address. “It seems to me a bit of a fabricated controversy,” he remarked. “I hope we can get beyond this and get to the work that needs to get done.”
Moore emphatically insisted that the name change was malevolent and accused Smith of prejudice. “Ronald Reagan really used it exclusively to describe the ‘welfare queen’ who had numerous names, Social Security numbers, different husbands, different welfare checks,” she said. “You know doggone well that it has not changed to be the dog whistle that it was there. It’s a foghorn at this point. And you know, Mr. Chairman, that the intent of this change, however many times it is changed, is to cast aspersions on the people who are served.”
Moore added that she should wear her “welfare queen tiara” to future meetings. “We know what the intent of the use of this word is,” she continued. “You’re telling us right now that the whole focus of this subcommittee is going to be demonizing particularly women who have children, and I don’t appreciate it.”
As noted by Smith and other members of the committee, labor shortages have increased the urgency among lawmakers to address welfare reform. Even as there exist roughly 10.5 million job openings and 5.7 million unemployed individuals across the economy, according to a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/unemployment-plummets-in-december-as-federal-reserve-vows-more-rate-hikes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a> from the <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.nr0.htm">Bureau of Labor Statistics</a>, families with neither parent working can receive welfare benefits worth more than six figures per year in multiple states, according to a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/some-families-with-no-one-working-can-receive-up-to-six-figures-of-welfare-in-three-states">study</a> from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.

House Democrats Speak On Child Benefits Of Build Back Better Act

House Democrats: The Term ‘Welfare’ Is A ‘Pejorative’ And ‘Dog Whistle’

Democrats Accuse Republicans Of Using 'Welfare' As A 'Pejorative' In Renaming Subcommittee

Congress

House Democrats

House Republicans

Racism

U.S.

Welfare

Families of four with neither parent working can receive <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/welfare" target="_blank" rel="noopener">welfare</a> benefits worth in excess of six figures per year in Washington, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, according to a study from the Committee to Unleash Prosperity.
A previous analysis from the conservative think tank found that federal supplemental unemployment benefits, food stamp expansions, child tax credit payments, and other benefits offered in the aftermath of the lockdown-induced recession could exceed $120,000 in multiple states as <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/jobs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">labor market</a> tensions were exacerbated by the handouts.
Even with the expiration of the supplemental programs, the more recent <a href="https://committeetounleashprosperity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Paying-Americans-Not-to-Work.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">study</a> found that unemployment insurance and the “dramatic recent expansion of ObamaCare subsidies” can exceed the national median income in 24 states for families with two parents and two children, according to the analysis, which was completed by University of Chicago economics professor Casey Mulligan and Heritage Foundation research fellow EJ Antoni.
“The federal government and the states offer a wide array of more than two dozen programs that provide cash assistance or in-kind benefits to low-income families. These ‘safety net programs’ are designed to keep families out of poverty,” the authors wrote. “But the expansion of assistance, especially in subsidized health insurance to families with children and no parents working, can mean that families can earn as much or more income from receiving government assistance than the median household does from working. Unemployment insurance benefits are time limited, but for the period when the benefits are provided, returning to work may not pay for many households.”
Such families in Washington can receive more than $122,000, while families in Massachusetts and New Jersey can reap more than $117,000 and $108,000 in annualized benefits respectively. Citizens of states such as Pennsylvania, Montana, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Kentucky can receive more than $80,000, roughly equaling or surpassing the median value of wages and benefits earned by electricians, firefighters, and secondary school teachers.
Many states do not subject unemployment benefits to payroll taxes, producing an implicit advantage over earning a salary. A family of four in Massachusetts with both parents out of work can “receive a maximum annualized unemployment benefit” of almost $104,000, which is equivalent to more than $112,000 in pre-tax earned income.
Labor force participation failed to recover over the past two years, worsening a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/americans-continue-to-opt-out-of-the-workforce" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decades-long trend</a> of low engagement in the job market and increasing inflationary pressures as businesses raised prices to fill positions. The metric dropped from 63.4% in February 2020 to 60.2% in April 2020 alone amid government lockdowns and business closures, according to <a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART" target="_blank" rel="noopener">data</a> from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor force participation climbed to 62.1% as of November 2022.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/federal-reserve-chair-jerome-powell-discusses-future-slowdown-of-rate-hikes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">remarked</a> that the workforce “participation gap” is largely a result of “excess retirements” that occurred beyond “what would have been expected from population aging alone,” even as young people largely return to the job market. “In the labor market, demand for workers far exceeds the supply of available workers,” he commented while discussing the central bank’s recent efforts to roll back monetary stimulus. “Thus, another condition we are looking for is the restoration of balance between supply and demand in the labor market.”

Partial view on a US Treasury payment check

Some Families With No One Working Can Receive Up To Six Figures Of Welfare In Three States

Economy

Jobs

Unemployment

The <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/white-house" target="_blank" rel="noopener">White House</a> announced a plan on Tuesday to “end hunger” through the expansion of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/welfare" target="_blank" rel="noopener">welfare</a> programs.
A <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/09/27/executive-summary-biden-harris-administration-national-strategy-on-hunger-nutrition-and-health/">press release</a> noted that the United States had not ended food insecurity since President Richard Nixon held the White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health in 1969. On Wednesday, President Joe Biden is slated to <a href="https://health.gov/our-work/nutrition-physical-activity/white-house-conference-hunger-nutrition-and-health">resurrect the event</a>.
“There is no silver bullet to address these complex issues, and there is no overnight fix,” the White House explained. “Making progress requires collective, sustained action and mobilization across every segment of society. That is why President Biden announced a goal of ending hunger and increasing healthy eating and physical activity by 2030 so fewer Americans experience diet-related diseases — while reducing related health disparities.”
Among other initiatives, the White House intends to increase access to free school meals by expanding the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer (EBT) program and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility, piloting medically tailored meals via Medicaid, and increasing Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries’ access to nutrition and obesity counseling. The plan likewise contains a push toward physical activity, with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) planning to expand the State Physical Activity and Nutrition Program nationwide.
“Too many families don’t know where they’re going to get their next meal,” Biden said in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=53&amp;v=AU5BeZ3Gtuc&amp;feature=emb_logo">video message</a> discussing the conference. “There are too many empty chairs around the kitchen table because a loved one was taken by heart disease, diabetes, or other diet-oriented diseases, which are some of the leading causes of death in our country. And the toll of these diseases is not distributed equally — it’s higher in certain racial and ethnic groups.”
Price levels between August 2021 and August 2022 rose 8.3%, according to <a href="https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm">data</a> from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, with <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/august-inflation-report-shows-several-nasty-surprises-biden-claims-victory-anyway">prices for food</a> increasing 11.4% over the same period. The cost of food at home, a category that includes grocery store or supermarket food purchases, rose 0.7% from the previous month. According to a <a href="https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bank-of-america-study-finds-84-of-employers-now-say-offering-financial-wellness-tools-helps-increase-employee-retention-301634130.html">report</a> from Bank of America, roughly 71% of Americans “feel the cost of living is outpacing growth in their salary or wages.”
Meanwhile, Biden has signed multiple federal stimulus packages during his tenure, including the $740 billion Inflation Reduction Act and the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, which <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/collections/bidenomics">economists argue</a> have contributed to inflationary pressures and low labor market participation.
The announcement of the expanded federal hunger initiatives comes days after Biden <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/biden-vows-cancer-moonshot-but-heres-what-his-own-cancer-charity-spent-on-research">unveiled</a> the Cancer Moonshot initiative with the intent of creating “a cancer research and care system that most people think we already have, but don’t realize until they already have cancer that we don’t.” The announcement came exactly 60 years after President John F. Kennedy’s historic vow to land astronauts on the Moon.
However, the Biden Cancer Initiative, a charity launched by the Biden family in 2017, raised nearly $5 million and spent more than $3 million on staff salaries during its first two years, according to a <a href="https://nypost.com/2020/11/14/biden-cancer-initiative-spent-millions-on-payroll-zero-on-research-report/">report</a> from The New York Post. The group spent $56,738 on conferences and $59,356 on travel during the first year — figures which swelled to $742,953 and $97,149 in the second year.

President Biden Visits The JFK Library In Boston To Deliver Remarks On Fighting Cancer

Biden Announced A Plan To ‘End Hunger.’ Food Inflation Is Still In The Double Digits.

Biden Announces Plan To 'End Hunger,' Resurrects Nixon-Era Conference

Joe Biden

White House

The federal government drastically overestimates income inequality in the United States by failing to account for certain <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/welfare" target="_blank" rel="noopener">welfare</a> programs and income <a href="http://dailywire.com/topic/taxes" target="_blank" rel="noopener">taxes</a> on the wealthiest earners, according to a study released on Tuesday by the Cato Institute.
The <a href="https://www.cato.org/study/myth-american-income-inequality">analysis</a>, written by Cato Institute adjunct scholar John Early, says that official statistics fail to account for more than two-thirds of transfer payments provided to low-income households and do not consider income loss from taxes, which average 35% of income for the wealthiest quintile of taxpayers. Poverty counts are 10 times higher than the true figure, while income inequality is overestimated by a factor of four, according to the study.
The Census Bureau’s official accounting method “excludes $1.9 trillion given to households in transfer payments and pretends that the $4.4 trillion that households pay in taxes is really income,” Early explained in an interview with The Daily Wire, “even though they usually never even see that money and can certainly never use it for the benefit of their families.”
If officials were to calculate income inequality while considering more transfer programs — including food stamp debit cards, bills paid by Medicaid, and checks that provide refundable tax credits in excess of tax liabilities to low-income households — earned income in the bottom quintile would rise by 700%, while earned income in the second quintile would rise by 70%, the study says.
Meanwhile, Early says the Census Bureau neglects to consider that only 7% of income in the bottom quintile is lost due to taxes, while 35% of income is lost in the highest quintile.
“Too many political and career bureaucrats ignore and even deny the existence of this prima facie evidence because if the data show a large gap of inequality, that gap will justify their existence to administer money to fill the gap,” Early, who served twice as assistant commissioner at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, continued. “Then, because the new spending is not counted as income, they are able to demand still more spending. The cycle is repeated over and over again.”
Indeed, many lawmakers have cited earnings disparity as justification for more federal social programs. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has <a href="https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1156386723955466240">argued</a> for a 70% marginal income tax for earnings above $10 million per year to “stem runaway income inequality,” which purportedly accrues as “wealth begins to automatically compound at obscene rates for the extremely rich.” Last year, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) <a href="https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/1416066195464273929">contended</a> that “massive wealth and income inequality” justified passing a reconciliation bill through Congress.
The study nevertheless argues that welfare programs’ introduction of incentives to work less place upward pressure on income inequality, especially as others toward the top of the income spectrum increase their productivity through education and more rigorous work. Other social trends, such as the reality that highly educated earners tend to marry one another, further contribute to reported income inequality.
“That added spending, of course, sends yet more money to the lower-income households while taxes take more from the higher incomes. And, as a side effect, this process enriches those who administer the programs,” Early added. “A whole industry feeds off these growing transfer payments, and it has a vested interest in continuing to use methods that belie the vast improvement of wellbeing for almost all Americans.”

Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate In Charleston Ahead Of SC Primary

‘The Myth Of American Income Inequality’: The Federal Government Drastically Overestimates Earnings Disparity, Study Says

Study Says That The Federal Government Overestimates Income Inequality

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Progressivism

Taxes

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/denver" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Denver</a> plans to dole out free phones and $12,000 apiece to 140 <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/l-a-city-officials-ok-ban-on-homeless-camps-near-schools-daycares-activist-breaches-chamber-barrier" target="_blank" rel="noopener">homeless</a> women and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/california-senate-passes-transgender-refuge-bill-eroding-parental-rights" target="_blank" rel="noopener">transgender and “non-binary”</a> people over the next year as part of a bigger partnership with a local nonprofit, according to a report.
The money, which totals about $1.7 million, will come out of a $2 million fund from the federal American Rescue Plan Act under a plan the city council approved, <a href="https://www.axios.com/local/denver/2022/09/16/universal-basic-income-homeless-denver?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_campaign=editorial&amp;utm_medium=social" target="_blank" rel="noopener">according to Axios</a>. The money comes with no strings attached and makes Denver the latest Democratic-run city to experiment with universal basic income.
“The Denver Basic Income Project is an opportunity to explore how the philanthropic community and the private sector can augment public support for those living in poverty, particularly our unhoused neighbors, and extend that hand up to stability,&#8217; Denver Mayor Michael Hancock said in a <a href="https://static1.squarespace.com/static/606b8fde23ab78621244f991/t/60907335c834b772f038259b/1620079413538/DBI_NewsReleaseLaunch_April_29_21_F-1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">statement</a>.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Denver to pay “gender nonconforming” homeless people $12,000 in universal basic income <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/copolitics?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#copolitics</a> <a href="https://t.co/BAvkPAYvzH">https://t.co/BAvkPAYvzH</a>
&mdash; Campfire Colorado (@CampfireColo) <a href="https://twitter.com/CampfireColo/status/1569708732694425600?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 13, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The city’s funds will be passed through the Denver Basic Income Project, a nonprofit that plans to raise some $9 million to hand out to an estimated 820 homeless women and transgender and non-binary people.
Denver Basic Income Project founder Mark Donovan told Axios most of the funding for the effort has come from charities, including the Colorado Health Foundation and the Denver Foundation. Donovan’s group will select those eligible for the stipends.
“As excited as we are about it, this isn&#8217;t something you can call in and apply for,&#8221; Angie Nelson, deputy director of the city’s Homelessness Resolution Fund, told the site.
Denver has an estimated 3,500 homeless people and just 2,000 spaces in shelters, according to <a href="https://denverhomelessoutloud.org/myths-and-reality-of-homelessness/#:~:text=Denver%20has%20at%20least%203%2C445%20homeless%20people%20and,than%20allowed%2C%20mental%20health%20concerns%2C%20and%20much%20more." target="_blank" rel="noopener">DenverHomelessOutLoud.org</a>. Many camp in tents in public spaces, which is a nuisance to businesses and residents.
Although city officials deny it, many suspect the Mile-High City’s homeless explosion is tied to its legalization of marijuana a decade ago. Tom Luehrs, executive director of Denver’s St. Francis Center, <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/03/us/colorado-survey-suggests-legal-marijuana-attracting-homeless/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told CNN in 2018</a> that marijuana was drawing transients to Denver and into his homeless shelter.
“We’ve seen that over the past several years,” he said.
The group plans to give 260 people $6,500 up front, then $500 per month for the next 11 months; 260 people $1,000 per month for a year; and 300 people $50 per month as part of an experiment on the effectiveness of guaranteed basic income. All participants will get a free phone and service for a year.
The Colorado Coalition for the Homeless will monitor how recipients spend the money, as well as help them find places to stay.
Nelson said the number of homeless women in Denver has tripled since the beginning of the COVID pandemic. She said transgender and non-binary homeless people often struggle to find safe and “inclusive” shelters.
Chicago and Los Angeles have similar universal basic income programs. The Windy City is spending $30 million to give 5,000 poor people $500 a month and L.A. started a program last month that will dole out $1,000 per month to 1,000 people for three years.

Homeless camp cleanup

Major City To Dole Out $12,000, Free Phones To Homeless Trans, ‘Non-Binary’ People

Major City To Dole Out $12,000, Free Phones To Homeless Trans, 'Non-Binary' People

Democrats

Denver

Homelessness

On Wednesday, the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/united-states">United States</a> Senate passed a bill subsidizing semiconductors that proponents say will allow America to compete with <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/china">China</a> while bolstering supply chains, but critics warn the legislation is nothing more than <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/economy">corporate welfare</a>.
The Senate <a href="https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-07-27/majority-of-u-s-senate-backs-bill-boosting-chipmakers-to-compete-with-china">passed</a> the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) and Science act in a bipartisan vote of 64-33. The bill will dedicate $52 billion in government subsidies for computer chip-making companies, alongside $24 billion in tax credits, while putting forth $170 billion in scientific research over the next five years. Folks like Senator Ron Johnson (R-WI) argue that the bill is a complete waste of taxpayer money.
“It makes no sense whatsoever,” Johnson <a href="https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/27/wisconsin-ron-johnson-votes-no-measure-boost-u-s-made-semiconductor-chips/10156283002/">said</a> in an interview. “We have more than enough money sloshed around the economy to invest in semiconductor manufacturing here. It’s about aligning the incentives properly. We’re not looking at that at all. We’re just throwing more money at the problem, which is what Washington does.&#8221;
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) also criticized the bill, arguing that it favors folks at the top of the economic food chain by taxing those making less.
&#8220;The poorer you are, the more you suffer,&#8221; Lee <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/27/senate-passes-chips-act-to-subsidize-domestic-semiconductor-production/?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIujo0T60zHCSqUEqeW1aaFTKq8lsXwqXY8C-M576A2nxmJH_HlCn9CHdNy48CV8WK9QgCv4FpBBQ8xJbv7_xlxgKaP7RouDD9xnWgAJiK9XxdTTYHLLvw9JYiXpE_r30tZMGIms5gMOEWgzW7Q_EV6o3x1EUNU9neO9yTqeajdt">said</a> prior to the vote. &#8220;Even people well-entrenched in the middle class get gouged considerably. Why we would want to take money away from them and give it to the wealthy is beyond my ability to fathom.&#8221;
On Wednesday, Lee tweeted, &#8220;Next time you file your taxes remember the Senate just voted to give $75 billion to huge chip manufacturers—regardless of whether they use that money in the USA.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Next time you file your taxes remember the Senate just voted to give $75 billion to huge chip manufacturers—regardless of whether they use that money in the USA.
&mdash; Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenMikeLee/status/1552385542817546247?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 27, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Lee&#8217;s counterpart, Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT), praised the bill for boosting global competition with the Chinese Communist Party.
&#8220;Remaining competitive with China is critical to our security and economic well-being,&#8221; Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) <a href="https://twitter.com/SenatorRomney/status/1552342653672595456?s=20&amp;t=tDMX5TddJDS4uD46ZVjQFA">tweeted</a> on Wednesday. &#8220;Proud to join my colleagues in passing a package of China bills that will promote innovation, foster scientific talent, expand research, and break our dependence on China for microchips.&#8221;
Yet Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) condemned the plan, noting that the tech companies which would receive government funding have been raking in billions in recent years.
&#8220;The five biggest semi-conductor companies that will likely receive the lion’s share of this taxpayer handout, Intel, Texas Instruments, Micron Technology, Global Foundries and Samsung, made $70 billion in profits last year,&#8221; Sanders <a href="https://techcrunch.com/2022/07/27/senate-passes-chips-act-to-subsidize-domestic-semiconductor-production/?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvLw&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAIujo0T60zHCSqUEqeW1aaFTKq8lsXwqXY8C-M576A2nxmJH_HlCn9CHdNy48CV8WK9QgCv4FpBBQ8xJbv7_xlxgKaP7RouDD9xnWgAJiK9XxdTTYHLLvw9JYiXpE_r30tZMGIms5gMOEWgzW7Q_EV6o3x1EUNU9neO9yTqeajdt">said</a> in a recent statement about the CHIPS act. “Does it sound like these companies really need corporate welfare?&#8221;
Advocates of the spending hailed it for protecting national security and giving our economy a boost.
&#8220;This legislation is going to create good paying jobs, it will alleviate supply chains, it will help lower costs, and it will protect America’s national security interests,&#8221; Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) <a href="https://money.usnews.com/investing/news/articles/2022-07-27/majority-of-u-s-senate-backs-bill-boosting-chipmakers-to-compete-with-china">said</a> in a statement.
Republican Senator John Cornyn (TX) also praised the bill.
&#8220;This is a bad day for President Xi and the Chinese Communist party,&#8221; Cornyn remarked after its passage. &#8220;The slumbering giant that is America has finally awakened to the challenge that we face from the People&#8217;s Republic of China.&#8221;
President Joe Biden also tweeted that he and his staff took a moment to watch the Senate vote on the bill.
&#8220;I took a moment today to watch the Senate pass the CHIPS and Science Act, a bipartisan bill that will accelerate semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S.,&#8221; he said. &#8220;It will lower prices, create jobs, and – critically – decrease our reliance on imported chips. The House should pass it ASAP.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
I took a moment today to watch the Senate pass the CHIPS and Science Act, a bipartisan bill that will accelerate semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S.
It will lower prices, create jobs, and – critically – decrease our reliance on imported chips.
The House should pass it ASAP. <a href="https://t.co/dnsa3xVdDr">pic.twitter.com/dnsa3xVdDr</a>
&mdash; President Biden (@POTUS) <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/1552346838229032960?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 27, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
It is expected that the House will vote on the bill sometime this week.

USA, Washington DC, Capitol Building dome and statue

Corporate Welfare Or Needed Investment To Beat China? Senate Passes Computer CHIPS Subsidy Bill

Senate Passes Computer CHIPS Subsidy Bill

Bernie Sanders

China

Computer

Mike Lee

Ron Johnson

spending

Economists predict that the United States’ debt-to-GDP ratio will reach 210% by 2050 — and that cutting welfare is a far more effective strategy to address the crisis than “taxing the rich.”
According to Penn Wharton Budget Model, a nonpartisan think tank at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School, the United States’ debt-to-GDP ratio is projected to hit 210% within the next three decades.
Since COVID and the lockdown-induced recession, the ratio has<a href="https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S"> soared</a> from 108% to 125%. In other words, the national debt is now 25% larger than a full year’s worth of output from the entire American economy.
PWBM released an<a href="https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2021/6/29/interactive-tool-options-to-reduce-the-national-debt"> interactive tool</a> last summer with which Americans can see the effects of tax and spending policies on the federal budget. Among the possible solutions to climbing debt levels are various taxes on the wealthy and various welfare reforms.
The group’s projections reveal that in virtually every category — including debt reduction relative to GDP, economic output, and wealth equality — reforming welfare is significantly more advantageous than raising taxes on the rich.
<h4>Taxing The Wealthy</h4>
The package for raising taxes on the wealthy — which would add $4.1 trillion in budget surplus by 2031 — includes raising the top rate on ordinary income from 37% to 45%; taxing capital gains and dividends at ordinary rates and taxing unrealized gains at death; expanding the base of employment taxes to cover all pass-through income; lowering the estate tax exemption from $11.7 million to $3.5 million; levying an annual 1% tax on net worth above $50 million; and raising the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%.
Compared to current policy conditions, taxing the wealthy would boost GDP by 2.4%, capital stock by 7.4%, and average wages by 2.1% within the next thirty years — a reality that would thereby lower the projected debt-to-GDP ratio from 210% to 168%.
The policy proposals would severely and disproportionately harm older Americans in the top quintile of income earners, who tend to rely on capital gains. Taxpayers who are 70 years old at the beginning of the simulation would lose an average of $5.7 million in wealth for the remainder of their lives.
Meanwhile, younger Americans in the top income quintile would most strongly benefit; on average, wealthy Americans born fifteen years after the simulation’s start would observe lifetime wealth rise by $159,200.
<h4>Cutting Handouts</h4>
In comparison to taxing the wealthy, however, enacting welfare reform would be more successful in encouraging economic growth — even while pushing debt below current levels.
The package for cutting handouts — which would likewise increase budget surpluses by $4.1 trillion over the next decade — includes slowing Social Security expenditure growth by indexing benefits to the chained Consumer Price Index; making the Social Security benefit formula more progressive; raising the full-benefit Social Security retirement age from 67 to 70; increasing the Social Security payroll tax rate from 12.4% to 14.4%; doubling the Social Security taxable minimum earnings threshold; raising the Medicare retirement age from 65 to 67; and allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
These policies would boost GDP by 5%, capital stock by 9.5%, and average wages by 1.4% within the next thirty years — respectively representing 2.6%, 2.1%, and 0.7% improvements over taxing the wealthy.
Welfare reform would also lower the debt-to-GDP ratio from 210% to 118% — a 50% improvement over taxing the wealthy, and a 10% reduction from 2021 levels.
By enacting cuts to welfare, Americans across both age and income groups more equally share the resulting economic burdens. Although the worst of the impact — a lifetime wealth drop of $38,200 — still applies to wealthy Americans, no cohort would lose nearly as much as under the higher tax environment.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Zeisloft – To Cut National Debt, Welfare Reform is a Must

To Cut National Debt, Welfare Reform Is Much Better Than Taxing The Wealthy

Congressional Budget Office (CBO)

National Debt

Readers Pass

One of the greatest insights into human nature came from Ralph Waldo Emerson, who said the more a politician insists something is true, the more his listeners should know it’s a lie. “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons,” <a href="https://archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/essays/worship.html">wrote</a> Emerson. The same principle applies to every government policy, as President Joe Biden’s administration has proved with his stern defense of paying Americans a federal bonus to stay unemployed.
The policy, known as enhanced unemployment benefits, did not originate with President Biden. The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security <a href="https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/about-the-cares-act">(CARES) Act,</a> which passed Congress in March 2020, gave people who were unemployed due to the COVID-19 pandemic an extra $600 a week over and above what they would have earned from standard unemployment benefits. It also broadened eligibility for unemployment benefits. That policy came to an end in August 2020. The stimulus package signed by President Donald Trump in December 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, reinstated higher unemployment benefits but reduced them to $300 a week through March.
President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan allowed states to extend the extra $300 a week through September 2021, but several governors noted that virus-related unemployment no longer constituted the greatest peril to the economy; instead, employers’ inability to find workers willing to work left stores and restaurants closed from coast to coast. As a result, 25 states voluntarily severed the extra benefits last June. “We definitely saw more job searches when we announced that you had to search again, and then the discontinuing of the 300 [dollar] supplement. And we did see increased jobs in June and July,” <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VnUbK6CxrY">said</a> the governor of one of those states, Florida Republican Ron DeSantis (R).
President Joe Biden defended the extra government handouts, insisting that enhanced unemployment benefits made little difference to labor participation — and claiming that those who noticed the policy’s disincentive for work had impugned the sacred honor of the American worker. “I know there’s been a lot of discussion … that people are being paid to stay home rather than go to work. Well, we don’t see much evidence of that,” President Biden <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKQsYFls740">insisted</a> last May. The president then cast himself as defending the integrity of the American people. “I think the people who claim Americans won’t work even if they find a good and fair opportunity underestimate the American people,” he said.
Yet a single month later, the president acknowledged the impact the extra federal funds had made on the sagging labor market — with apparent pride. He <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBpNoY9XTEY&amp;t=2s">said</a> his advisors told him, “‘Guess what? Employers can’t find workers,’ I said, ‘Yeah, pay them more.’ This is an employee’s bargaining chip now.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="President Biden: “Pay Them More”" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rBpNoY9XTEY?start=2&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Biden’s rhetoric combined the typical duplicity of a politician with the malicious boasting of a scoundrel. On the one hand, dear middle-class American, I had no intention of redistributing your tax dollars to the Democratic Party’s base in such a way as would make it <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/dollar-general-hiring-spree-50000-workers-labor-shortage-rage-quitting-2021-7?op=1">more difficult</a> for you to buy household necessities at <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/typical-dollar-general-shopper-demographic-older-worker-earning-lower-income-2021-8?op=1">your local Dollar General</a>. On the other hand, screw you.
Now the numbers have come in, and they prove Republicans right. Three scholars — Harry Holzer, Glenn Hubbard and Michael Strain — now offer strong empirical evidence that Biden’s policy kept people at home instead of in the workforce. In a <a href="https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29575/w29575.pdf">paper</a> published late last month by the National Bureau of Economic Research, it was discovered that enhanced unemployment benefits significantly increased the number of people who were unwilling to work during the pandemic. “The flow of unemployed workers into employment increased by around two-thirds following early termination” of enhanced benefits by the 25 states in question, they wrote. “Among unemployed workers ages 25 to 54, we find that early termination is associated with a 14 percentage point increase in the unemployment-to-employment flow.”
Specifically, “the unemployment rate among prime working age Americans in the 24 states that maintained the richer benefits through Labor Day would have been 0.7 percentage points lower in August had they ended benefits in June,” <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/pandemic-jobless-benefits-and-work-unemployment-expansion-stimulus-covid-19-workforce-participation-omnicron-build-back-better-11641163730?mod=opinion_lead_pos3">summarized</a> the Wall Street Journal in its coverage of the report. “The national unemployment rate would have been 0.3 percentage points lower had all states ended benefits early.” The report’s authors note that their conclusion “runs counter to the conventional wisdom that these programs had a very small or even negligible effect on unemployment and employment.”
The reason for the greater jobless rate should surprise no one: Many recipients made more money from the enhanced benefits than they did from their jobs. The Congressional Budget Office found that in the initial part of the enhancement, <a href="https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-06/56387-CBO-Grassley-Letter.pdf">eight out of 10 workers</a> made more money collecting unemployment than they would have earned from their jobs. That jibes with an <a href="https://bfi.uchicago.edu/working-paper/2020-62/">independent study</a> that found 76% of people made more from the extra $600 a week unemployment than they did from their old salary — the median rate being 145% of their wage income. In fact, more than two-thirds of workers (69%) would have made more from unemployment than the cash value of their wages and fringe benefits, with the median worker collecting 134% of his former earned compensation on the dole.
Even after those benefits were reduced to $300 a week in December 2020, about <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/01/an-unemployment-cliff-is-coming-more-than-7point5-million-may-fall-off.html">half</a> of all workers still would have lost money by going to work, according to a private industry study. This was particularly true in low-wage jobs like retail. “The average unemployment benefit and $300 supplement exceed the weekly minimum wage in every US state, as the federal minimum wage is $290 per week,” <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/unemployment-benefits-versus-average-wages-across-the-us-2021-5">reported</a> Business Insider.
The media did not keep this trade-off a secret. <a href="https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/many-americans-are-getting-more-money-from-unemployment-than-they-were-from-their-jobs/">FiveThirtyEight blog</a> — which secular Beltway politicians regard the same way most Americans revere the Bible — and <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/05/26/861906616/when-returning-to-your-job-means-a-cut-in-pay">NPR</a> both ran stories highlighting these facts. Beltway Democrats either ignored the reports or found that the policy accomplished their objectives. As <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-one-thing-that-explains-everything-democrats-do">this author has reported</a>:
<blockquote>In a 2019 <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6449023/">study</a> published in PLoS One, researchers from Indiana University found that increasing government health care coverage correlated with an increase in the Democrats’ share of the vote in the 2008, 2012, and 2016 presidential elections … That aligns with <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/61-of-americans-paid-no-income-tax-in-2020-report">numerous studies</a> tying social welfare to voting for the Democratic Party. The Pew Research Center <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/12/the-politics-and-demographics-of-food-stamp-recipients/">found</a> that Democrats are more than twice as likely as Republicans to have received food stamps.</blockquote>
Greater government dependence favors the party of bigger government.
As devastating as these analyses are, they overlooked two other factors. First of all, many unemployment recipients qualified for a panoply of other government benefits — SNAP, Section 8 housing benefits, etc. — allowing welfare state programs to outbid employers cumulatively. Secondly, even when enhanced unemployment benefits do not make up 100% of lost wages, they do eliminate 100% of work. “There are people, rich and poor, who would consider trading [a percentage] of their net income for forty free hours per week,” noted the late <a href="https://therightswriter.com/2004/07/farewell-chairman-bill/">William F. Buckley Jr.</a> “You can catch up on your reading, for one thing.”
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-1972-video-explains-how-the-left-won-the-culture">Once again, William F. Buckley’s words proved prophetic</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Readers-Pass—Johnson—Surprise!-Enhanced-Unemployment-Benefits-Significantly-Increased-Unemployment–Study_2

Surprise! Enhanced Unemployment Benefits Significantly Increased Unemployment: Study

Economics

After Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) effectively halted President Joe Biden’s legislative agenda, the legacy media accused the senator of representing “plutocrats” over the poor, resurrecting a discredited and racist “myth,” and being “part of the problem” in Washington.
ABC News’ Terry Moran and his fellow panelists leveled those charges the day after Christmas on “This Week.” Moran said that Senator Manchin, whose concern that authorizing a multi-trillion-dollar spending plan would <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/u-s-tied-for-highest-inflation-of-all-the-worlds-developed-nations-imf">trigger inflation</a> scuttled the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/whats-in-joe-bidens-build-back-better-act">Build Back Better act</a>, had abandoned his state’s voters. Senator Manchin “does represent one of the poorest states in the Union. He seems to represent the plutocrats a lot,” said Moran. “Look, Manchin is just part of the problem.”
Moran’s attacks echoed those of democratic socialists in Congress, who have skewered the three-term West Virginia senator. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) shared a picture of herself <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/aoc-posts-photo-of-her-glaring-at-joe-manchin-not-obligated-to-smile-at-people-doing-hurtful-things">glaring</a> at Manchin and Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/democrat-blasts-manchin-on-cnn-as-white-man-who-doesnt-care-about-black-people">called</a> Manchin “a white man” who “doesn’t care about black people; he doesn’t care about Latinos; he doesn’t care about immigrants; he doesn’t care about women; and he doesn’t care about the poor.”
But 53% of West Virginian voters, including 59% of registered independents, strongly oppose the Build Back Better act, according to a <a href="https://tt0dl1563d22haik02ol9k9a-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/WV-Key-Findings-Memo.pdf">poll</a> released this month by the Remington Research group. Nearly two-thirds of state voters (64%) “believe the BBB will make inflation worse,” the group found.
In this case, the West Virginian senator has his finger on the national pulse. “[A]ccording to public opinion polls, he represents the majority of American voters, including Democrats, Republicans, and Independents,” <a href="https://www.aei.org/op-eds/in-breaking-from-bbb-manchin-aligns-with-most-americans/">wrote</a> Angela Rachidi, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. A recent AEI study found that converting the Child Tax Credit into a monthly government handout would convince <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w29366">1.5 million Americans</a> to remove themselves from the labor force. Democrats “planned to transform [the CTC program] into another welfare program for non-workers — something only 28 percent of registered voters and 47 percent of registered Democrats supported in one <a href="https://americancompass.org/essays/child-tax-credit-expansion-survey/">poll</a>.”
The effort to portray Manchin as an unfaithful Democrat runs aground of his voting record: Joe Manchin votes with President Joe Biden <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/biden-congress-votes/joe-manchin/">97.4%</a> of the time, according to FiveThirtyEight — <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/liz-cheney/">more frequently</a> than Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) voted with President Donald Trump, whom the legacy media regularly touted as a loyal Republican.
President Joe Biden will attempt to jumpstart negotiations over the Build Back Better act in the new year, hoping that proves more successful in moving Senator Manchin, said ABC political director Rick Klein. “Clearly he didn&#8217;t like the pressure campaign that was mounted by the White House and others,” said Klein.
Since Manchin warned that instituting a social welfare state would increase welfare abuse, the ABC panel also accused the senator of “resurrecting the myth of the welfare queen, that Reagan-era trope used to argue against entitlements, implying that the poorest among us are inherently irresponsible and incapable of using government services for their intended purposes.” ABC News’ Averi Harper said that Manchin’s “glaring statement” had “outraged folks who heard it, and illustrates just how out of step Senator Manchin is with this current Democratic Party.”
Many outlets have attempted to downplay the reality of welfare abuse before the partial reform of welfare under President Bill Clinton in 1996. CNN’s John Blake <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2021/05/16/politics/biden-welfare-queen-blake/index.html">asserted</a>, “The Welfare Queen myth was a racist fable that reinforced some of the ugliest stereotypes about [b]lack and poor people.” But the Manhattan Institute <a href="https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/IB-SW-0616.pdf">summarized</a> the successes of shifting welfare away from an open-ended, lifetime entitlement program:
<ul>
<li>
<blockquote>The child poverty rate—the proportion of all U.S. children living in families below the poverty line—in 1993 was 29 percent, unchanged from 29 percent in 1967. By 2000, the rate had declined to 18 percent, subsequently falling to 17 percent in 2009 and climbing back to only 19 percent in 2012 despite the country’s close brush with worldwide depression. … </blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>In 1994, there were 58 families on welfare for every 100 female-headed families. By 1998, this figure had fallen to 34; by 2008, it had fallen to 17. </blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>Employment rates among never-married mothers rose less than 10 percentage points from 1980 to 1996 but jumped 15 points from 1996 to 1999. </blockquote>
</li>
<li>
<blockquote>As a result, the share of single mothers living below the poverty line has declined, even when including government cash benefits in income before welfare reform but excluding all government benefits today. In other words, the income from work, cash benefits, and other family members was enough to reduce poverty below pre-reform levels—without food stamps, refundable tax credits, or health care benefits. </blockquote>
</li>
</ul>
Manchin is not the only politician in the “current Democratic Party” to have entertained concerns about welfare abuse. Blake noted that the same issue had been raised by President Joe Biden:
<blockquote>In 1988, when he was a US Senator, Biden wrote a column for a Delaware newspaper in which he argued that the welfare system had collapsed.
&#8220;We are all too familiar with the stories of welfare mothers driving luxury cars and leading lifestyles that mirror the rich and famous,&#8221; he <a href="https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-joe-biden-worried-about-welfare-mothers-driving-luxury-cars">wrote</a>. &#8220;Whether they are exaggerated or not, these stories underlie a broad social concern that the welfare system has broken down&#8230;&#8221;</blockquote>
The panel noted that Biden had little leverage over Manchin, since the Biden-Harris ticket won just <a href="https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_in_West_Virginia,_2020">29.7%</a> of West Virginia’s vote in the 2020 presidential election.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Joe Manchin

Joe ‘Manchin Is Just Part Of The Problem’: ABC News Correspondent

ABC News

Media Bias

A new analysis argues that government welfare policies encourage able-bodied men to opt out of the labor force.
Many point to weak wage growth, technological change, or international trade as potential explanations for the low labor force participation rate among young men — which has dropped from 97% in 1955 to 89% in 2020. However, Republicans on the <a href="https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/5ac0a254-ff00-4a18-baf0-bdfedb9bb154/connections-to-work.pdf">Joint Economic Committee</a> argue in their “Reconnecting Americans to the Benefits of Work” report that a significant share of the young men who receive handouts from the government are “voluntarily disconnected” from work:
<blockquote>Only 12 percent of inactive, prime-age, able-bodied men said they wanted a job or were open to work. Among men who are inactive for reasons other than disability, retirement, education, or homemaking, 41 percent personally receive government assistance.
One key piece of evidence that suggests labor force trends are driven largely by workers, not employers, is that the decline in prime-age labor force participation has been mostly voluntary, as told by the men themselves. Three out of four disconnected men say they do not want a job, and only 12 percent of inactive, prime-age, able-bodied men said they wanted a job or were open to it in 2014. If more men are genuinely choosing to stay home with the kids, go to school, or retire early, policymakers should not be concerned.</blockquote>
The report names welfare as an important explanatory factor behind the “voluntary” disconnection:
<blockquote>A significant body of empirical evidence suggests that government transfers — especially those without work requirements — tend to lower employment. For example, labor force participation and earnings fall after receiving housing assistance, losing Medicaid coverage increases employment and gaining the coverage can reduce it, and the introduction of the food stamp program in the 1960s and 1970s decreased employment significantly. A series of temporary income support trials also find that disincentives to work generally increase with the size and duration of the benefit, although the effects are often smaller than predicted.</blockquote>
“In the big picture, our labor participation problems can’t be fixed without serious rollbacks of the welfare state,” commented <a href="https://fee.org/articles/new-report-shows-growth-of-the-welfare-state-has-fueled-long-term-declines-in-the-labor-force/">Foundation for Economic Education</a> policy correspondent Brad Polumbo.
In response to COVID-19 and the lockdown-induced recession, the federal government <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/top-hedge-fund-ceo-calls-for-fed-to-hit-brakes-on-inflation">spent</a> over $5 trillion on economic stimulus. Even though there are 2.8 million more available jobs than workers willing to take them, Democrats in the Senate are attempting to <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/budget-reconciliation-bill-build-back-better-act/">pass</a> a $1.75 trillion social welfare bill.
Among its programs are a $400 billion universal preschool program, an expanded child tax credit that will last through 2022, and an expansion of Medicare to include dental and vision benefits.
American voters also signal a high willingness to receive additional COVID-19 stimulus checks — with one <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/moneyforthepeople-petition-for-2000-monthly-covid-checks-nears-3-million-signatures">petition</a> for $2,000 monthly handouts receiving nearly three million signatures. A survey from Quinnipiac University in January <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/moneyforthepeople-petition-for-2000-monthly-covid-checks-nears-3-million-signatures">confirmed</a> that 78% of Americans — including 90% of Democrats and 64% of Republicans — approved of the $1,400 checks supported by President Biden.

hiring 811

Report: Welfare Is Encouraging Able-Bodied Men To Stay ‘Voluntarily’ Out Of Work

Analysts predict that President Biden’s American Families Plan would add 21 million Americans to federal benefit programs.
Writing for <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bidens-plan-for-an-entitlement-society-11624918494">The Wall Street Journal</a>, Hoover Institution fellows John F. Cogan and Daniel Heil unpacked their recent analysis, which discovered that the Biden administration’s $1.8 trillion omnibus bill would drastically expand the welfare state.
<blockquote>The federal government’s system of entitlements is the largest money-shuffling machine in human history, and President Biden intends to make it a lot bigger… For the first time in U.S. history — except possibly for the pandemic years 2020 and 2021, for which we don’t yet have data — more than half of working-age households would be on the entitlement rolls if the plan were enacted in its current form.</blockquote>
The academics note that families earning six figures would be eligible for generous handouts. Indeed, “most” of President Biden’s spending would benefit middle-income and upper-income households.
<blockquote>Two-parent households with two preschool-age children and incomes up to $130,000 would qualify for federal cash assistance for daycare. Single parents with two preschoolers and incomes up to $113,000 would qualify. And some families with incomes over $200,000 would be eligible for health-insurance subsidies. Other parts of the plan, such as paid leave and free community college, have no income limits at all.</blockquote>
Under the American Families Plan, 57% of all married-couple children would receive handouts, while over 80% of single-parent households would enter the entitlement rolls. Noting that the legislation has a number of “gimmicks” that hide the extent of its revenue proposals, the report forecasts that President Biden’s proposal would add $1 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade.
Other economists have expressed similar concerns with the American Families Plan. Analysts from the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/bidens-american-families-plan-is-far-from-a-new-deal-economic-boon">Penn Wharton Budget Model</a> — a nonpartisan think tank at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School that examines the impacts of major legislation — concluded that the American Families Plan would slow long-term economic growth. 
By increasing income taxes for wealthier Americans, introducing $2.3 trillion in federal expenditures, and spending with borrowed money, the legislation would slash output by 0.4% within the next three decades. The bill would also decrease the capital stock — the total amount of machinery, buildings, and other productive equipment in the American economy — by 1.2% over the same period.
In essence, long-term economic growth would be hindered by greater demand for federal debt financing, which would cause investors to direct money into loans for the government rather than ventures in the private sector. Such a phenomenon would restrict innovation and productivity, inhibiting American economic vitality for decades to come.

President Biden Hosts Outgoing Israeli President Rivlin

American Families Plan Would Put 21 Million More People On Welfare: Analysts

Infrastructure

In just the first 20 days of President Joe Biden’s administration, he has signed an unprecedented 52 executive orders and actions. While some have received reasonable scrutiny, others have slipped beneath the radar. One of these has, in short, begun the reversal of long-standing policies which prevent immigrants from becoming a burden of the state under the “public charge” rule.
What is the “public charge” rule?
According to the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), “public charge” under the Trump administration was <a href="https://www.uscis.gov/news/public-charge-fact-sheet">defined</a> as “an alien who receives one or more public benefits (as defined in the final rule) for more than 12 months, in total, within any 36-month period (such that, for instance, receipt of two benefits in one month counts as two months).”
“The public charge ground of inadmissibility has been a part of the U.S. immigration law for more than 100 years,” where “An alien who is likely at any time to become a public charge is generally inadmissible to the United States and ineligible to become a lawful permanent resident.”
According to the USCIS, the adjudicating officer must “weigh both the positive and negative facts,” reviewing “the totality of an alien’s circumstances when deciding whether an applicant is likely at any time to become a public charge.” 
They must consider factors including “age; health; family status; assets, resources, and financial status; education and skills; prospective immigration status; and expected period of admission.”
The benefits considered by the Department of Homeland Security as part of determining the likelihood of the applicant “becoming a public charge” include:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Supplemental Security Income;  </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly called food stamps); </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Public Housing </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Federally funded Medicaid</li>
</ul>
The benefits which are not considered by the Department of Homeland Security include:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Emergency medical assistance;  </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Disaster relief;  </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">National school lunch programs;  </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">The Children’s Health Insurance Program;  </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Subsidies for foster care and adoption;  </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Government-subsidized student and mortgage loans; </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">Food pantries and homeless shelters; and </li>
</ul>
What is the history of the “public charge” rule?
The term “public charge” was first introduced in the Immigration Act of 1882, which found that immigrants who were “unable to take care of himself or herself without becoming a public charge” were unsuitable for American citizenship, with their entrance then denied.
The Immigration Act of 1891 built upon this exclusion, saying “the following classes of aliens shall be excluded from admission into the United States &#8230; All idiots, insane persons, paupers or persons likely to become a public charge, persons suffering from a loathsome or a dangerous contagious disease, persons who have been convicted of a felony or other infamous crime or misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, polygamists…”
The Immigration Act of 1903 permitted the deportation of immigrants who became a “public charge” within their first two years of residence.
In 1915, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Gegiow v. Uhl that the “public charge” restriction applied exclusively to immigrants who “by reason of poverty, insanity, disease or disability would become a charge upon the public.&#8221;
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (amended in 1965) declared that “any alien likely at any time to become a public charge&#8221; should not be admitted. In addition, any immigrant who had received public benefits within their first five years of residence could be deported.
In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act required sponsors of immigrants to show greater financial capacity, and required that they reimburse the government for “means-tested public benefits” received by the immigrant.
How is the “public charge” rule used?
The Department of State is responsible for granting entry visas, while the USCIS are responsible for awarding immigration statuses, a role previously held by the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Prior to 1999, the interpretation of “public charge” was broadly (and sometimes inconsistently) applied by the relevant departments or offices.
In 1999, however, the INS issued formal guidance regarding the definition of “public charge.” 
“Field Guidance on Deportability and Inadmissibility on Public Charge Ground,” defined “public charge” as an immigrant who was “primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, as demonstrated by either the receipt of public cash assistance for income maintenance, or institutionalization for long-term care at government expense.” Examples of such “government subsistence” or “assistance” included Supplemental Security Income, state or local cash assistance programs, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program income. Sources such as Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance and housing benefits were explicitly excluded.
In 2019 under Donald Trump, the USCIS announced a new rule which restricted poorer immigrants from receiving Green Cards. Under this rule, legal immigrants who received benefits such as Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Medicaid or housing assistance for “more than a total of twelve months within any 36-month period” may be categorized as a “public charge,” and would therefore be ineligible for permanent residency. Those excluded from these restrictions include refugees, asylum seekers, pregnant women, children, and family members of those serving in the Armed Forces.
What does Biden’s executive order say?
On February 2, Biden <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/02/02/executive-order-restoring-faith-in-our-legal-immigration-systems-and-strengthening-integration-and-inclusion-efforts-for-new-americans/">signed</a> an “Executive Order on Restoring Faith in Our Legal Immigration Systems and Strengthening Integration and Inclusion Efforts for New Americans.” In Section 4 of the order, titled “Immediate Review of Agency Actions on Public Charge Inadmissibility,” the order states that “The Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of other relevant agencies, as appropriate, shall review all agency actions related to implementation of the public charge ground of inadmissibility,” and that they “shall, in considering the effects and implications of public charge policies, consult with the heads of relevant agencies, including the Secretary of Agriculture, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.”
According to the order, this review should consider and evaluate the “effects of these agency actions,” in the context of “the implications of their continued implementation in light of the policy” described in the order’s introduction:
<blockquote>“Over 40 million foreign-born individuals live in the United States today.  Millions more Americans have immigrants in their families or ancestry.  New Americans and their children fuel our economy, working in every industry, including healthcare, construction, caregiving, manufacturing, service, and agriculture.  They open and successfully run businesses at high rates, creating jobs for millions, and they contribute to our arts, culture, and government, providing new traditions, customs, and viewpoints.  They are essential workers helping to keep our economy afloat and providing important services to Americans during a global pandemic.  They have helped the United States lead the world in science, technology, and innovation.  And they are on the frontlines of research to develop coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines and treatments for those afflicted with the deadly disease.
Consistent with our character as a Nation of opportunity and of welcome, it is essential to ensure that our laws and policies encourage full participation by immigrants, including refugees, in our civic life; that immigration processes and other benefits are delivered effectively and efficiently; and that the Federal Government eliminates sources of fear and other barriers that prevent immigrants from accessing government services available to them.  Our Nation is enriched socially and economically by the presence of immigrants, and we celebrate with them as they take the important step of becoming United States citizens.  The Federal Government should develop welcoming strategies that promote integration, inclusion, and citizenship, and it should embrace the full participation of the newest Americans in our democracy.”</blockquote>
The relevant line in this introduction when it comes to Biden’s instruction to identify “appropriate agency actions” is the call for the Federal Government to eliminate “sources of fear and other barriers that prevent immigrants from accessing government services available to them.” 
In other words, any interpretation of the “public charge” rule which can be described as a “source of fear” should be identified so that “relevant agencies” can “clearly communicate current public charge policies and proposed changes, if any, to reduce fear and confusion among impacted communities.”
Conclusion
By definition, the “public charge” rule “prevents immigrants from accessing government services.” To eliminate such “barriers,” the entire “public charge” rule would need to be eliminated.
By working to eliminate the “public charge” rule, Biden’s executive order will likely result in immigrants facing no economic scrutiny regarding their likelihood of becoming a burden to the state, meaning that no immigrant would be disqualified from permanent residency on the basis of income or benefits received, and could immediately access all “government services,” including every relevant form of monetary welfare.
Ian Haworth is an Editor and Writer for The Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter at <a href="https://twitter.com/ighaworth">@ighaworth</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Joe Biden Executive Order

Biden Administration Quietly Removes Law That Prioritized Immigrants Who Were Less Likely To Need Welfare

Executive Orders

Immigrants

Immigration

Menu