Politicians routinely divert funds from where they’re promised

Money

If a person holding a handmade “homeless and hungry” sign came across your commuting path, you might have good reason to suspect that money given them would go toward something other than housing or food. One would hope that government would be more reliable, given their constantly repeated rhetoric of advancing citizens’ general welfare. However, there are reasons to think that government may not be.

California’s Proposition 56 offers one current example. It hiked cigarette taxes by $2 per pack last year, justified because, as the Los Angeles Times endorsement put it, “The bulk of the funds would go … specifically, to pay healthcare providers more to treat Medi-Cal patients.” However, Gov. Brown has allocated no money to that end, even to offset a 10 percent cut during the recession, leaving California with reimbursement rates that are 48th in the country. Similarly, in November, Oakland passed a tax on sugary beverages which was supposedly to finance health and education programs, backed by an advisory board to ensure the money was well spent. But Mayor Libby Schaaf already wants to divert $6 million of it to help fill a budget hole, and other revenue to different purposes.

Unfortunately, the diversion of funds from where politicians promise voters they will go is a fact of political life, undermining any confidence in such promises.

Politicians routinely divert funds from where they promised. Diversions of earmarked bond revenues have been so common that citizen oversight boards are now routinely created (with limited actual effect) to convince voters of public agency trustworthiness, this time. State lottery funds promoted to supplement education have met a similar fate. Politicians, taking into account those additional funds, reduce other budgetary support, freeing up money to be spent however the state government decides, just as if the lottery proceeds went directly into its general fund. As professors Patrick Pierce and Don Miller concluded in a study of education funding, “Regardless of the state, the educational spending rate declined once a state lottery went into operation.”

Even when government spends money where they promised, the effects are often far different than advertised. For instance, food stamps (now SNAP) are largely equivalent to cash, because the vast majority would purchase more food than their food stamp allotments. That allows food stamps to replace money that recipients would have spent on food anyway, freeing it up to use however they choose. Housing, winter heating and other subsidies have similar effects, because to the extent they replace money that would have been spent on those items, earmarked funds can be diverted wherever recipients select.

Similar diversions have also often hobbled the effectiveness of humanitarian foreign aid. It frees up resources otherwise required to buy such supplies, allowing them to be spent wherever the recipient government chooses. As a result, much is lost to corruption or converted to other uses, including military spending, sometimes used to threaten citizens or neighboring countries.

If you voted for California’s Proposition 56 because it would increase Medi-Cal reimbursement rates or for Oakland’s sugary beverage tax to help health and education programs, you are probably disappointed at the deception involved. Those latest installments of the victory of hope over experience justifies anger and cynicism about government. It cannot be trusted to do what is promised. And when it does what is promised, the results are often far different than intended. Neither fact offers much assurance that government can reliably advance our general welfare. That is worth remembering, as it will not be long before the next installment of the government’s “hungry and homeless” signs will again be put on display.

Gary M. Galles is a professor of economics at Pepperdine University, an adjunct scholar at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a research associate of the Independent Institute, a member of the FEE faculty network, and a member of the Board of Policy Advisors at the Heartland Institute. His books include “Apostle of Peace” (2013), “Faulty Premises, Faulty Policies” (2014) and “Lines of Liberty” (2016).

Gov’t Shutdown Could Mean No Food Stamps For Millions

The Obama Administration warned Tuesday a government shutdown would mean 46 million people losing their food stamps. This despite a similar claim in 2011 being proven false.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture, the problem is a lack of reserve money. The USDA runs the food stamp program. It is officially known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. If the government shuts down, the USDA claims, it will have to end benefits within the first several days of October.

“If Congress does not act to avert a lapse in appropriations, then USDA will not have the funding necessary for SNAP benefits in October,” Catherine Cochran, a spokeswoman for USDA, told The Associated Press. “Once that occurs, families won’t be able to use these benefits at grocery stores to buy the food their families need.”

Cochran refused to give details on how exactly the automatic food stamp payments would stop, or why it continued unabated during the 2013 shut down. The dangling of benefits in front of a shut down is not a new occurrence under the Obama administration. According to Politifact, in 2011 President Barack Obama lied when he warned Social Security checks would not be sent out if the government shut down.

A dispute on whether to defund Planned Parenthood is the main issue which threatens to shutdown the government. Lawmakers have till the first of October to pass a budget. If they don’t, the federal government will run out of funds and have to shutdown.

House Republicans passed a budget proposal Sept. 18 which would cutoff funds to Planned Parenthood for a year. The proposal looks unlikely to pass the Senate and even less likely to be signed by President Barack Obama. If the House proposal or an alternative doesn’t pass, the government shuts down.

The move to defund Planned Parenthood comes with renewed criticism over how the group handles abortions. The debate centers around a video The Center for Medical Progress, a right-of-center medical ethics group, published that shows a Planned Parenthood employee casually discussing, over a salad, how the organization harvest fetus organs after an abortion. The video was just the first in a series of footage that prompted a national backlash. This included renewed calls to end federal funding for Planned Parenthood.

The footage was part of a 3-year investigative effort. Dr. Deborah Nucatola talked to undercover actors she thought were buyers from a human biologics company.

Supporters of Planned Parenthood claim the videos were misleading and politically motivated. They also argue the organization offers too many critical services for women and families to be defunded.

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation

Follow Connor on Twitter

Why Food Stamps Usage Is Up Despite Poverty Being Down

SNAPFood stamp use has increased nearly 300 percent nationwide since 2014, despite a drop in the poverty rate, according to a report released Wednesday by The Foundation for Government Accountability.

“Even though poverty rates are declining, the number of people receiving food stamps continues to climb,” the report detailed. “Food stamp spending is growing ten times as fast as federal revenues.”

According to their report – ”Restoring Work Requirements Will Help Solve the Food Stamp Crisis” — the problem results from less restrictive eligibility requirements.

The United States Department of Agriculture is the main agency in charge of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. According to its own findings, SNAP has increased from 17 million participants in 2000 to nearly 47 million in 2014. Concurrently, work requirements were waived in many states.

“Federal law generally limits food stamp eligibility for non-disabled childless adults to just three months out of any three-year period unless they meet specified work requirements,” the report also noted. “These work requirements have become irrelevant in recent years, however, as states have been given waivers to exempt able-bodied adults from federal work requirements.”

The Obama administration had granted working requirement waivers to 40 states and partial waivers to another six states. As a result more states are providing food stamp benefits to more adults who don’t work despite not having physical disabilities preventing them from doing so.

“By 2013, a record-high 4.9 million able-bodied, childless adults were receiving food stamps,” the report continued. “Federal spending on food stamps for able-bodied adults skyrocketed to more than $10 billion in 2013, up from just $462 million in 2000.”

The size of the program alone has prompted concern among among many lawmakers. Some on the state and federal level have tried reforming the program by getting work requirements back or adding additional eligibility requirements. In July, the administration for Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker sued the USDA after the agency informed the state it could not drug-test those on food stamps. Walker is currently running for the Republican nomination for president.

“The way forward for states could not be more simple or clear,” the report concluded. “Governors should decline to renew the federal waivers that have eliminated work requirements for able-bodied childless adults on food stamps.”

Follow Connor on Twitter

Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation