Saturday, December 29, 2012

Pew induces puking

A little with this report, anyway. Pew Research is an admirable organization that has given me buckets of food for thought and more than my share of blogging material to make use of, all without asking anything of me in return. Countless hours of entertainment for free. What could the organization possibly owe me? If anything, I owe it. Still, while this report might not be the Worst. Report. Ever., omission and obfuscation abound.

Entitled "A Bipartisan Nation of Beneficiaries", it opens by showing that a full 59% of Obama voters and 53% of Romney voters received benefits from at least one of the six major entitlement programs considered. Wow, looks like "the 47%" thing was an understatement! Voters tend to be a notch above non-voters and yet majorities of both parties' electorates are welfare queens! This graphic, presented later in the report, sheds some light on why the recipient percentages are so high, however:


Virtually all seniors have been on the public dole because medicaid and especially social security--which is there for the taking for everyone, the only restriction being geriatric--are included in the analysis. With the 65+ age bracket breaking 56%-44% for Romney, the inclusion of these universal old age government-provided benefits stacks the deck to make it appear as though Obama voters were hardly any more likely to be feeding at the public trough than Romney voters were. That, of course, is technically accurate, and it sheds some light on how politically perilous the Ryan budget plan was. Excepting defense, cuts in the rate of growth in these programs are among the least offensive to the Democratic party. But in the public mind, social security is something everyone pays into and subsequently is entitled to take from, while things like TANF and food stamps are there for those who are incapable of providing for themselves.

If Pew spun the findings as noted above but disaggregated the data in the index of the report, I wouldn't be whining, but the organization doesn't. It would be nice to know, for instance, the electoral breakdown among medicaid, TANF, food stamps, and unemployment insurance recipients without the inclusion of social security (which has the greatest number of recipients among the six programs considered) and medicare recipients in the mix. As written, the report clearly indicates that Pew has the data broken out in such a manner but intentionally doesn't report it as such, as doing so would show that the takers are squarely in Obama's camp.

There is still something to be gleaned from the report as is that will be of interest to regular readers, however. It's well known in these parts that women are leading the way towards our progressive leftist future. If only men had voted in November, Romney would've won as convincingly as Obama actually did. Why do women--especially the unmarried ones--like the welfare state so much? Because men foot the bill for it while they enjoy the lion's share of the benefits it provides. The percentages, by sex, who use none, one, two, and three or more of the six entitlement programs:

Sex0123+
Men51%23%15%12%
Women39%22%19%19%

6 comments:

Noah172 said...

Unemployment benefits go to people who have lost jobs -- i.e., people who were, up to that point, paying taxes to support, among other things, unemployment benefits (granted, people have been staying on this program for too long since the 2008 crash).

As for Medicare, check out this chart:

http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/how-is-medicare-financed.png

Neither the payroll tax nor beneficiaries' premiums comes anywhere close to covering Medicare's expenses, which have ballooned thanks to Bush's monstrous Part D. A slight majority of Medicare's funding comes from "general revenues": a combo of income taxes and debt (much of that foreign-held).

With SS, current workers are paying for the benefits of current recipients. You "pay into" the system by having more babies who grow into workers to support you in your senescence. The Baby Boom was followed by a Baby Bust -- way to go, women's lib! -- so here we are, on the cusp of massive SS defecits, where once there were huge surpluses (which politicians raided to finance other spending).

"I paid in" is a crock.

Audacious Epigone said...

Noah,

Wow, even worse than I thought. Thanks for that.

Yes, people don't pay into a personal "trust fund" that they receive back upon retirement (and went nuts when Bush 43 pushed for something along those lines), but it really is thought of as an entitlement that everyone 'should' receive when they hit old age. Lumping that in with true welfare programs obfuscates. Pew could come out with another report finding that, surprise surprise, 98% of the population benefits from government spending because they have driver's licenses and thus use public roads.

Anonymous said...

In 1937 the SCOTUS ruled that Social Security is a plain old tax that can be eliminated at any time by simple legislation. You are not entitled to anything ever. It is simple legislation that can be stopped at any time. There is no guarantee of anything. Those receiving it are not receiving it because they paid into it, even though that is a stated requirement, just like having no money is a requirement for getting welfare. SCOTUS ruled in 1937 that it is unconstitutional for Social Security to be insurance because insurance is a contract and the Congress may not compel citizens into contracts, but may tax them. Congress can also spend. It looks like insurance by contract and the lying scum in Congress talk about it as though it is, but it simple tax and spend legislation and the benefits can end at anytime. You have no right to anything no matter how much you paid.

Congress can levy the tax, but it doesn't have to.

Congress can legislate spending on benefits, but it doesn't have to.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/socsec/course/readings/301us619.htm

Anonymous said...

Tons of people receiving Social Security are not indigent. Social security is a tax levied on younger poorer people and redistributed to older richer people. Given that Congress is under no obligation whatever to continue it, certainly not to the non-indigent, how long will poorer NAMs support the current structure that allows richer old white people to "get back what they paid in" ?

Anonymous said...

Avg. net worth by age:

http://www.moneyrelationship.com/retirement/the-average-net-worth-of-americans-where-do-you-stand/

Audacious Epigone said...

Anon,

Provides a little perspective on how little net worth most people my age have, thanks.