A nation of takers?

By Cathy Young


Mitt Romney’s candid-camera comments, telling donors at a fundraiser that nearly half of Americans are sure to vote for President Barack Obama because they are handout-seeking, responsibility-shirking victims, have been widely deplored, even by many conservatives. But the blunder could be a teachable moment about the growth of the welfare state and entitlements — as long as the debate focuses on facts, not inflammatory rhetoric.

Romney’s claim was based on the fact that 47 percent of Americans don’t pay federal income tax and 49 percent live in a household where someone receives government benefits. As critics have pointed out, this hardly correlates with a population of moochers. Most who pay no federal income tax are either seniors or parents with minor children — for whom, ironically, Republicans once worked to create tax breaks. The vast majority pay other taxes (federal payroll taxes as well as state and local ones).

Takers vs. makers

Nor is it true that we face a crisis because the “takers” are starting to outnumber the “makers” and keep voting themselves more benefits. Yes, low-income people are more likely than the affluent to vote Democratic, but they are also much less likely to vote, period. And plenty of affluent people vote Democratic. In 2008, Obama and John McCain were tied among voters with annual household incomes of $100,000 and higher.

Yet spending on social benefits has unquestionably skyrocketed in our time. American Enterprise Institute scholar Nicholas Eberstadt, author of the forthcoming book “A Nation of Takers: America’s Entitlement Epidemic,” notes that, adjusting for inflation and population growth, government payouts to individuals have grown more than sevenfold since 1960, to $2.2 trillion in 2010.

Eberstadt, along with many other conservatives, argues that this is bad not only for America’s fiscal sustainability but for our character, recalling the times when people would rather suffer hardship than go on the public dole. In some cases, welfare programs can indeed create a morally unattractive, and expensive, sense of entitlement.

Yet in the United States, most federal benefits go to retirees, and two principal reasons for entitlement expansion are better medical care and longer life spans. There are also federally subsidized student loans, and benefits that help the working poor stay afloat.

Debt burden

These programs shouldn’t be sacrosanct. Given our debt burden, we should be able to review the Social Security retirement age as well as benefit levels for affluent seniors. We should also look at how subsidies in some areas, such as education, drive rising costs.

But criticism of big government should never turn into bashing lower-income Americans, particularly when, as libertarians such as Sheldon Richman of the Foundation for Economic Education point out, “corporate welfare” that benefits the wealthy — from bank bailouts to federal contracts — contributes to government growth as well.

Cathy Young is a regular contributor to Reason magazine and the website RealClearPolitics. This was written for Newsday. Distributed by MCT Information Services.

Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Don't Miss a Story

Sign up for our newsletter to receive daily news directly in your inbox.