A Welfare Magnet

"[Our Fair State] is more attractive to low income individuals than high wage earners." - cited today in local newspaper.

Not long ago I ranted about people who take advantage of state-funded health insurance. Since that post, I have heard other stories that make me crazy in that special way I get crazy when I hear you say that it's someone else's responsibility to take care of you. If you don't pay for your own health insurance, food, and daycare, then you have no business spending money on cable and high-speed internet.

And now a recent study conducted at Princeton University pegs Our Fair State as a state where the people who fund such attractive (and, apparently, easily-obtainable) welfare programs (with substantially higher benefit levels than those of neighboring states) are leaving the state, while those who drain those resources are flocking to it. Apparently this isn't news, as a 'welfare migration' to our Our Fair State from Neighboring Large City was reported over a decade ago in the New York Times.

Our Fair State is also facing a $5 billion dollar budget deficit. So what is the solution?

1) Cut benefits. If you are able to work, then it is your responsibility to support yourself and your children. It won't necessarily be pleasant, but you are also entitled to start your own business doing whatever it is that you want to do. Non-custodial parents with child support obligations should be last on the list to receive certain benefits (or not on it at all) if they are able to work but simply choose not to do so. Unemployment or underemployment should not be attractive in any way to a person with children to support. If you have screwed around with your life and have a lousy employment history, then accept the fact that you will have to work at less than desirable jobs to repair that history until you can get hired for a more satisfactory position. You are not too good to work at McDonald's, and you are not too good to work two or more jobs at the same time.

I've heard people complain that if they make more money, their benefits go down and that money is gone anyway, or they end up with a net loss when the benefits are taken away. (Yes, that's you with the cable and high-speed internet.) The problem with that line of reasoning is that it's not the state's responsibility to feed your children, enable you to put them in daycare, and pay for your health insurance when you are perfectly capable of paying for these things yourself.

Our Fair State has higher benefit level than most of the neighboring states. We also have one of the highest rates of migration of lower-income individuals into our state. Whether the goal is to stop the influx of a potential drain on Our Fair State's resources, or to reduce the existing state budget deficit, it makes sense to bring our state's benefit levels in line with those of neighboring states with similar costs of living by cutting benefits.

2) Tighten residency restrictions on who is eligible for benefits. If there can be a two-year residency requirement (wherein you are not a student) in order to receive in-state tuition at public universities, then there can be a two-year residency requirement (wherein you are not unemployed) in order to qualify for certain welfare benefits, such as food stamps and state-sponsored health insurance.

We complain that Our Fair State loses too many of its best college graduates upon graduation. If retention of individuals who contribute more positively to the tax base is a goal, then perhaps in-state tuition at public universities could be traded for a residency requirement to be fulfilled after graduation.

3) Make working a more attractive option than not working.

Apparently Our Fair State has one of the most generous state earned income tax credit programs in the United States. This is a refundable tax credit that is available even to those who owe no taxes. The credit has three 'phases', which describe how the credit is calculated based on differing levels of qualifying incomes. One you hit a certain point within the qualifying income range, your tax credit begins to shrink. This tax credit can represent a significant amount of money, but it is not counted as income when judging eligibility for food stamps or low income housing. It is also possible to receive advance payments of your projected credit during the year.

So how about increasing EIC qualifying income ranges to allow the working taxpayer to take home more money, while decreasing the benefits available in programs, such as food stamps, that do not require or promote employment as a condition of assistance? How about adding new rules for obtaining EIC that stipulate higher payments and/or higher upper income limits for those who pay their own health care and daycare costs?

If handled correctly, these ideas might put barriers in place that stem the tide of welfare migrants (and their associated costs) into Our Fair State, and reform the existing system of payouts so that it's impossible to have so much 'assistance' that you can also afford to have cable and high-speed internet.