RSS FEEDSRecent Research
January 24, 2012 | Commentary by ELIZABETH STELLE, JAY OSTRICH
Welfare Reforms Protect Poor, Taxpayers
Regardless of where you stand on taxpayer-funded entitlements, few Americans argue against the maintenance of temporary safety nets or modifications aimed at ending welfare fraud, waste and abuse.
September 20, 2011 | Commentary by ELIZABETH STELLE
Public-Private Parking Prevents Tax Hikes
Facing immense fiscal and political pressures, many local governments are looking for ways to fund services without raising taxes. But officials need not curb their enthusiasm for fiscal responsibility if they simply put the brakes on being in the parking business.
Pennsylvania has 41 special government parking authorities; the rest of the nation, combined, has five. Despite their abundance, few can explain exactly why Pennsylvania relies on government-run parking monopolies.
August 26, 2011 | Testimony by ELIZABETH STELLE
Marcellus Shale Local Impact Fee
Testimony of Elizabeth Stelle to the Marcellus Shale Municipal Co-Op
Good evening. I am Elizabeth Stelle, a Policy Analyst for the Commonwealth Foundation. We are Pennsylvania's free market think that crafts and promotes free-market policies based on guiding principles like limited government and personal responsibility. I would like to thank Representative White and members of the Co-op for the opportunity to discuss a local impact fee on natural gas development.
Recent Blog Posts
FEBRUARY 6, 2012
Even Big Government Advocates Understand the Welfare Trap
Big government lobbyists and CF don't agree on much with welfare, but funnily enough, even they acknowledge that Pennsylvania's welfare system keeps people in poverty.
It [a food stamp asset test] encourages poor people to avoid building up their savings, and to spend down their assets in order to stay on food stamps.
They're right on the overall effects of welfare, but wrong on what an asset test does. The newly announced higher asset limits for food stamps and the long list of exemptions give beneficiaries plenty of opportunities to build wealth while still receiving benefits. But as a whole, welfare programs encourage dependence. When families earn more their total income declines because as their salary increases, their benefits (which are worth more than their raise) are reduced.
Basically, there are two solutions to the problem of perpetual poverty. One solution is to expand food stamps to everyone so no one is needy. Or we can look at reforms that encourage independence and employment. Work requirements, time limits, and restructuring Medicaid to give patients the freedom to choose their own health care insurance are just a few ways to reorient the system.
The welfare trap doesn't just harm the poor, it's also bankrupting today's taxpayers. Welfare spending in the commonwealth is out of control, growing 52% since 2002-03. If we ever hope to reduce poverty levels and balance the budget, we must completely overhaul the welfare system to encourage work and restore individual dignity.
posted by ELIZABETH STELLE | 08:30 AM | 0 comment
JANUARY 31, 2012
The "Facts" on Food Stamps
City Paper contributor Daniel Denvir tries to diminish the impact of our Philadelphia Inquirer column on food stamps by offering "facts" in rebuttal. Unfortunately, most of these "facts" are merely matters of opinion or simply wrong.
The first "fact" claims that we shouldn't worry about food stamp growth because most of the money is "federal dollars." But federal funds are not free money, and yes, residents of Pennsylvania pay federal taxes. The high cost of federal spending on food stamps—and costs are growing rapidly—should worry taxpayers. In just eight fiscal years, total costs for food stamps (formally called SNAP) have more than doubled in Pennsylvania. The national picture is even worse, with food stamp spending doubling since 2008.
Denvir then cites an Inquirer reporter citing advocates citing a federal report that the "fraud rate" (really referring to the error rate) is 0.1 percent. Except this isn't true—the reported error rate is at actually 40 times higher. According to the USDA, the latest SNAP payment error rate for Pennsylvania is 3.93 percent. Twenty-two states have better error rates, and Pennsylvania's rate is slightly above the national average of 3.81 percent.
Another "fact" cited is that there must not be errors, because the Inspector General has a unit to look at fraud and waste. But eliminating the asset test and other eligibility limits was a deliberate decision to reduce the official error rate-you can't make an eligibility error when everyone is eligible. On top of broadening eligibility, the Rendell administration cut in half the number of fraud referrals to the Inspector General. In 2002, approximately 47,000 cases of suspected welfare fraud were referred annually to the Inspector General. However, by 2010 the Inspector General received only 27,645 referrals, even though caseloads had dramatically increased. Is it any surprise the state won awards for low error rates when so few cases were investigated?
Finally, the City Paper claims there is only one known millionaire who collected food stamps, so this really is all unnecessary. This is a straw man argument. While the savings from an asset test may be small in the scope of government spending, and there may be only a few cases of millionaires receiving benefits, Pennsylvanians with adequate resources should not be allowed to abuse the system. Reinstating an asset test is not about punishing the poor, but protecting the truly needy at a time when taxpayers are stretched thin.
posted by ELIZABETH STELLE, NATHAN BENEFIELD | 11:10 AM | 0 comment
JANUARY 24, 2012
SNAP Back to Reality, Senators
Courtesy of the Pennsylvania Senate Democrats' Twitter, @PaSenateDems, comes some high-stakes rhetoric during a Capitol press conference today. In reaction to the Pa. Department of Public Welfare's decision to reapply an asset test to the food stamps program better known as SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program), here is what some senators had to say:
"This gov has a vision of meanness." - Sen. Mike Stack, Philadelphia
"We don't understand this draconian nature of this administration." - Sen. Vincent Hughes, Philadelphia
"Only conclusion drawn: administration hates poor people." - Sen. Mike Stack, Philadelphia
"You can't beat a person when they're down. We should be giving them a hand up." - Sen. LeAnna Washington, Philadelphia
While we don't question the sincerity of the senators' desire to protect those who truly need help, we have to ask whether furthering dependency is truly compassionate? Are the poor better off being dependent on unaffordable and unsustainable taxpayer-funded programs or learning to become self-sufficient through personal responsibility and true charity care? Please take a look at the CF commentary on the asset test today, examine the facts and decide for yourself.
There is no question that many in the commonwealth are in need, but what has the last decade of generous benefits gotten us? For one, we get a higher poverty rate, which dramatically climbed from 8.8 percent in 2000 to 12.2 percent in 2010 regardless of economic conditions. No matter how you look at it, welfare spending is simply failing to lift Pennsylvanians out of poverty.
Gov. Corbett's effort to target benefits for the poorest Pennsylvanians doesn't stem from meanness or hate for the poor. It comes from his unwillingness to settle for the sad status quo of more Pennsylvanians becoming dependent on Harrisburg rather pursuing their own ambitions.
Democrats and Republicans should work together to figure out what changes can be made to our safety net to offer a hand up and reward self-sufficiency, not just through enabling handouts that feed dependence. Simply demanding taxpayers fork over more of their hard-earned dollars to support exploited and broken programs is not compassion but coercion, which breeds an unearned and unnecessary contempt for the legitimately needy. A better solution is to encourage true voluntary charity in our communities throughout the commonwealth, a step that cannot be taken until we address needed welfare reform.
posted by JAY OSTRICH, ELIZABETH STELLE | 03:30 PM | 0 comment
