This is why we fight.

Here’s an article from from a favorite guy of mine, Matt Cover.

Read this one a couple of times, and then read the comments. So many people miss the point:

This is why we fight.

The way I see it, this isn’t about redistribution. That’s a given. Redistribution happens. It’s about getting to choose who cherry picks along the redistribution line.

Public unions? Yep, they are in there.
Companies who process those plastic food cards? Uh huh.

As this article explains, if we were to take out all the governmental layers who skim off the poor, they could be receiving so much more.

Yes, there a number of us who still use the phrase “smaller government.” What I thing we really want are fewer skimmers. Fewer folks with their hand in the till on the way to the needy.

And please, let’s separate the needy from the wanty. (I loved that phrase in the comments!)

Why is it so hard for liberals to comprehend this argument? Because they don’t want to do so. Back to those comments, you’ll see someone was quick to toss in Grandma. But that’s not the way this article is written. It clearly states those receiving needs tested assistance.

Rip this mess apart.

You know what? We’ve just had a great example courtesy of Mother Nature. Half the East coast has been swept into the ocean, and they’ll come back. They’ll rebuild.

Take apart our pathetic attempt to redistribute wealth. Refine to process so that it actually gets help to those in real need.

America will survive it. It’s just that there will be a largely different list of winners. Taxpayers will still lose. Those in genuine need will still be helped.

Let’s get it done.


  1. However, Obama is getting a BIG boost from the storm. It advances his argument that we all need big government.

    Remember, the last time the GOP was in control of FEMA, Hurricane Katrina happened and Bush came across as a bumbling idiot. Romney’s comments about FEMA last year don’t help his cause.

    Obama is now up in all the major polls in Ohio. PPP has him up by 5.

    National Journal has Obama up nationally by 5, and also commented that Chris Christie’s ringing endorsement of Obama and FEMA’s response to the storm helps him. People naturally swing to a leader who looks competent during a disaster. Bush after 9/11 is a perfect example, and it appears Obama after Sandy is, too.

    My guess is that Obama wins OH, VA, and possibly even FL. It isn’t going to be close. I think GOP supporters started looking at the national polls and claiming victory too soon.

  2. Take the largest single expenditure Medicaid, this program accounts for over 40% of all the listed spending. Who are you defining as the skimmers-administrative costs are 7% far less than private plans or providers.
    65% of people on medicaid are in working families. About three quarters of Medicaid spending is for the elderly and disabled, even though the two groups make up only about one quarter of the program’s enrollees.
    Poverty isn’t a lifestyle choice.

  3. Here’s more evidence. Obama is up big in Wisconsin and Ohio. He’s leading in Virginia and Florida. Those who think Romney has a chance are just fooling themselves or reading what they would like from the polls. Romney is going to get crushed next week.

    Today’s the last day of free Chicago Tribune access, so read it while you can:,0,4576126.story

  4. There would be no need for REdistribution if profit were distributed more justly between capitol and labor in the first place. 50 years ago, CEO to worker income ratio was 30 to 1. Now it’s 300. Trickle down my ass. Wait, that didn’t come out quite as intended.

  5. J. Strupp says:

    “Take the largest single expenditure Medicaid, this program accounts for over 40% of all the listed spending.”

    Oh exactly. And the EITC is in there too. So are Pell Grants. This is just another sad attempt by a Republican Congressman to lump in a bunch of different social programs and call it “welfare”.

    Bottom line: We’ve designed a society in which the skimmers are at the top of the food chain and not the other way around. Income inequality in this country is the worst it’s been since the 20’s. The fruits of our productivity gains over the past 30 years have almost all gone up the food chain and not down. THIS is the welfare we should be talking about.

  6. Student loans and financial aid have done more to drive up college costs than anything else. Remember, most universities are state-run or not-for-profit institutions. Tuition is high because those entities have no incentive (because of the subsidies) to become efficient.

    As for the EITC, I have less of an issue with it, but “liberals” seem to forget that the whole point of it is to subsidize the unskilled and low-wage workers who aren’t employable at higher wages, but who would cost more if they were on full-blown welfare. Thus, it’s disingenuous for liberals to push for higher minimum wages, as they push more low-skilled people out of the workforce altogether (and low-skilled includes 16-20 year-olds looking for a first job). The EITC is a more effective tool than raising the minimum wage.

  7. “It’s about getting to choose who cherry picks along the redistribution line.” Exactly!
    Tax expenditures are the other side of the same coin. The numbers are from 2008, but the top 10 tax ex. total over $600 billion/yr. ( Powerful, well connected individuals and groups exert a far grater influence over gov’t rules and regs than poor people. These policies may have admirable social goals but we have selected winners and losers.

  8. Since when did not raising taxes become “tax expenditures”? It’s the use of Orwellian terms like this that turn me off of most politicians.

    The issue I have with Democrats is that they claim to be for the little guy, but places that they control (e.g. California, New York) are some of the least friendly to small businesses and the most dependent upon big business. If cutting loopholes were so important to Obama, he’d have done it in his first 2 years in office, since budget moves can’t be filibustered. However, since he collects campaign donations from Wall Street and Hollywood, he won’t. Wall Street is one of the biggest supporters of the Democratic party.

  9. jimspice, I just never ever get that complaint. Stop working. It’s as easy as that. When the CEO doesn’t have employees he won’t have a company.

    Go find a job with Ben & Jerry’s.

    KPOM – why do I always want to go slit my wrists after reading your comments? Dude, you are on a permanent bummer lately.

    (Nice job with why college keeps getting more expensive, though. I’ve been preaching that for a while, too.)

    I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again just in case it catches this time.

    So what if Obama wins.

    Not my favorite idea, but the worst case scenario for government post election is status quo. That isn’t such a bad deal.

    (And to the one Dem who will swear we’re flipping the House this election, please share! I want what you use to alter reality.)

  10. Starve and die? Got it. That kind of makes my point. You know, the conservative theory might work for about the first 3 minutes after the exit from the state of nature, but as soon one actor has gained an advantage, there exists a class of little guys that are going to get screwed and can do absolutely NOTHING about it without organizing unions or having govt. level the playing field.

  11. I just tell it like it is. Every one of the swing state polls is trending in Obama’s direction. Before today, there had been a split between the national and state polls. Both couldn’t be right. The ABC News/WaPo poll shows them tied at 49% now, and the National Journal poll offsets the Gallup poll (both appear to be outliers). If I’m right, we’ll see Obama creep up closer and closer to 50% nationally, which would be game over.

    Natural disasters tend to favor incumbents, who get to fly around in helicopters and look “presidential.” Bush managed to screw it up with plenty of help from the hapless Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, but New York and New Jersey have more competent managers in charge. Bloomberg’s not running again so he can tell Obama to get lost, but Christie wants to get re-elected as a Republican in a state that Obama is going to win by 15 points, so of course he’d accept Obama’s visit.

  12. You know who else has thrown in the towel on Mitt Romney? Chris Christie. Man, he and Obama were practically holding hands and skipping through the floodwaters today.

  13. Randy in Richmond says:

    The belief that the government is more effecient in administering Medicaid than private insurance companies is a strawman argument. Because there is a huge number of Medicaid enrollees, about 60 million, compared to individual private companies, the administrative cost as a percentage of enrollees is smaller. But if figured as a cost per person basis to administer either private or the government run program, it cost more per person for Medicaid. And Medicaid doesn’t pay taxes. Included in the private companies operation costs are state imposed premium taxes that are a part of doing business. (2 to 4%)

    It’s almost funny that an argument is being made for an European type social government setup while many, if not most, of the countries that hitched their wagons to that star are imploding financially even as we speak.

  14. J. Strupp says:

    And none of them are imploding because of their health care system. Yet another falsehood.

  15. seems to me that many of the European type social governments are imploding, financially, after following an austerity program very similar to what Gov. Romney has espoused?

  16. Randy in Richmond says:

    Isn’t the title of the article on which this post is based-

    “Enough Spent on Welfare Programs in 2011…”

  17. @Amy, most of the European “austerity” programs have been significant tax increases with very little, if any reductions in spending. The UK put in place a 50% tax rate (above their previous maximum rate of 40%). It didn’t bring in any net revenue. France’s “solution” is a proposed 75% tax rate that is driving wealthier people to lower-tax countries.

    Incidentally, the status quo in the US results in a significant across the board tax increase next year (lower income people will see their rate rise from 10% to 15%), a reinstatement of the full Social Security tax, and a full reinstatement of the inheritance tax. IOW, exactly what passes for “austerity” in Europe.

  18. Speaking of CRS, here’s a study they did regarding top tax rates and GDP growth. Senate Republicans had it pulled because of the “wording”. I can see why since it tells the truth. Nothing new here but here you go:

  19. J. Strupp – Some of it was redacted? And if it is truly a government document, wouldn’t it be available from the source as written regardless of who liked what?

    Not buying that one as posted.

  20. J. Strupp says:
  21. @J Strupp, the WSJ debunks this on its editorial page. CRS specifically denied pulling the study because of political pressure. The study fails basic peer review standards and cherry picks evidence to reach its point. It was a partisan hit job from a non-partisan research entity. That’s why it was pulled.

  22. J. Strupp says:


    If Senate Republicans didn’t like the conclusion (which is consistant with a million other studies on this topic) then they have every right to refute it out in the open wth their own evidence. That’s how it works.

    Instead, they raised a stink over a CRS and got it pulled.

  23. Where are these “million other studies”? To the contrary, most studies have shown an impact. Even Bill Clinton lowered the capital gains tax rate while raising other taxes.

    The CRS published a flawed study. GOP senators called them out on it, so the CRS re-reviewed it and pulled it once they realized it didn’t meet their standards. In case you didn’t realize, the GOP doesn’t control the Senate, and they don’t control the CRS.

  24. Once again, Josh Strupp is busted telling whoppers.

    Aren’t you tired of getting the snot kicked out of you every time you trying pulling this crap, Josh?