Tag: welfare

New Study Raises Concerns Over Universal Basic Income Plans

In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I explore how the American republic can survive in the 21st Century given unprecedented economic, technological, and political changes.

The book addresses the increasing calls for a universal basic income (UBI). Various Democratic cities are already implementing UBI systems.

Now, a new study finds (as did some prior studies) that UBI systems have not achieved significant improvements and may actually have some negative consequences for recipients.

A working paper with the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that UBI recipients did indeed spend more money, including a 13 percent increase on child-related expenses. There was also a slight increase in parental supervision of children.

However, there was no improved school performance and a slight increase in reported developmental and stress-related problems with children.

Stanford’s Basic Income Lab is tracking more than 160 UBI projects in the U.S..

So far, the results are at best mixed.

One study in Compton showed that many recipients of the $500 monthly payment quit working part-time jobs.

Likewise, reports indicate that “a $400 monthly payment in Chelsea, Massachusetts, increased food spending and did not measurably reduce work, but it failed to produce results for the research team’s “primary downstream outcomes”—namely self-reported health and child school attendance.”

This follows earlier reports about the OpenResearch Unconditional Income Study (ORUS), an experiment in which lower-income Americans were given $1,000 a month for three years.

The result was a reduction in work and an increase in leisure activities.

Keep reading

Boston Democrats Opened Housing to Illegals Who Can’t Pay the Rent

The state of Massachusetts resettled thousands of migrant families into apartments at the expense of $30,000 per family to the taxpayers, but now many of the migrants cannot afford to pay their rent.

Starting in 2023, the state began pushing migrants into apartment complexes as an adjunct to the state’s emergency assistance shelter program and at least 5,000 families have been the recipients of the program, according to the Boston Globe. But little thought seems to have been given to the sustainability of the housing.

The paper noted that many of the migrants have used up their $30,000 allotment before even being able to begin paying rent regularly on their own. The money went for moving, furniture, security deposits, and other living start-up costs. And for many migrants, that left them without enough time to gain legal employment that could allow them to afford rent payments.

The cash shortage sent many of the migrants to move right back out of their new apartments before they were able to stabilize their income. According to the program, the migrants are not required to pay the entirety of the rent on their own. The state’s HomeBASE program only requires them to fork over 30 percent of their income for rent with the rest being pulled from the program’s initial $30,000 stipend.

The problem is, many of these families have been unable to gain jobs that can bring in enough cash to make paying rent sustainable. That means their $30,000 allotment runs out quickly as the fund pays most if not all of the monthly rent fees. And soon enough, that $30,000 allotment is eaten up and the families have to move right back out of their apartments in a matter of only a few months.

State officials have hailed the HomeBASE program because they can use it to show that migrants have been moving out of the controversial free shelter system. Officials try to use that to show they are successfully putting migrants into jobs and homes. But the reality seems to be that the “homes” are short term, leaving many migrants out in the street when their $30,000 funding dries up.

Keep reading

Cloward-Piven Strategy: How Mamdani and Other Socialists Could Overload the Welfare System Until the Country Collapses

During her failed bid for the U.S. presidency, Kamala Harris made free-market economists and freedom-loving Americans cringe when she said, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This fundamental Marxist slogan openly signals that if Kamala or her socialist-leaning allies were elected, those who work harder or earn more would be forced to subsidize those who refuse to work, or people who spend their days protesting, or make unsustainable life choices.

Kamala is gone, but Zohran Mamdani and several others in government are taking up the socialist banner. Among the self-proclaimed democratic socialists currently in Congress are Bernie Sanders, who serves in the U.S. Senate; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a former DSA; Summer Lee, a DSA member serving in the House; and Greg Casar, also a DSA member in the House.

Some recent changes in the landscape include Jamaal Bowman losing his Democratic primary in June 2024, and Cori Bush losing hers in August 2024. Rashida Tlaib continues to serve, though her DSA membership status is currently unclear. Meanwhile, New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani openly pushes socialist policies, with what appears to be the intent of destroying New York City through economic collapse, following a strategy reminiscent of Cloward-Piven.

Policies like state-owned grocery stores, government seizure of rental properties, rent control, universal basic income, debt forgiveness, and arbitrary wealth taxes are classic tools of socialism that ultimately break the economy. These and similar proposals have been pushed by various DSA politicians, including Mamdani.

All of these tools are part of the Cloward-Piven strategy, a Marxist framework designed to trigger economic collapse and usher in radical political change and authoritarian control. The concept originated in the 1960s with sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, who advocated for expanding the welfare state by lowering eligibility criteria to enroll more people. They believed that overwhelming the system would force a crisis, ultimately leading to reforms like guaranteed income and a universal social safety net.

This idea of dismantling the current system, rather than encouraging individuals to thrive within a free-market society, is rooted in Marxism, which centers on the conflict between the working class (proletariat) and the owning class (bourgeoisie). Marx believed capitalism would inevitably exploit workers to such a degree that they would revolt, overthrow the ruling class, and establish a classless society.

While Marxists claim their goal is to improve life for citizens, the real outcome of the Cloward-Piven strategy is to flood entitlement programs, welfare, unemployment, and more, until the system becomes financially unsustainable. The resulting collapse would spark widespread chaos, including violence and unrest, creating an opportunity for radical leftists to seize power and impose authoritarian rule under the pretext of “martial law.”

Open border policies can be used to accelerate systemic collapse by overwhelming public services. The system is further strained by the influx of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers who receive government-funded benefits without paying income taxes. At the same time, the creation of a large illegal workforce drives down wages and reduces job opportunities for Americans, pushing more citizens onto welfare rolls and increasing the burden on public assistance programs.

Socialism, supported by propaganda, often gains ground by identifying real problems and offering government solutions. For example, high rents are a genuine concern for many, making proposals like rent control or government-owned housing appear attractive. However, imposing rent control reduces the supply of available apartments while increasing demand, worsening the housing shortage.

Keep reading

Origins of Medical Harm

The level of compensation doctors receive from Medicare is currently under renewed scrutiny; these standards are mirrored by health insurers. The quantity of reimbursement weighted to specialists is likely to shift towards primary care physicians. Reconfiguration of doctors’ fees is overdue, although they are determined by a secretive American Medical Association committee. 

Analysis and debate about the ongoing healthcare crisis emphasize misdirected funding rather than considering how to revitalize the ethics of medicine. The Hippocratic Oath clarifies the priorities essential for the mindset of a physician. Despite its primary warning, first, do no harm, damage done to patients is rampant. Resolution of this tragic dynamic appears insoluble. 

When decisions are made by any medical organization with financial interests, the primary impetus of the Oath is lost; the AMA’s control over payment schedules reinforces and exemplifies a corrupt institutional flaw. The harm done by the business of medicine needs to be evaluated and controlled.

The seemingly intractable conflict of interest undermining medical care is directly tied to a profit-oriented model in mitigating human suffering. Dispensing treatments with earnings in mind is a form of profitable planned obsolescence and ultimately a methodology that degrades patient autonomy and vitality. 

Although there is often consensus among critics of the healthcare system about its numerous faults, approaching the central issue of profiting from illness is virtually avoided. 

In an attempt to broach the topic of money and medicine, the AMA’s Journal of Ethics presents a self-justifying analysis. The following excerpt exposes how this inherently conflicted view of healthcare depends on the illness of the nation. 

Keep reading

Louisiana ‘Medicaid millionaire’ bought Lamborghini while claiming government benefits for years

A Louisiana woman who purchased a Lamborghini while fraudulently obtaining Medicaid benefits is facing a fraud charge, authorities said this week. 

Candace Taylor, 35, of Slidell, dubbed the “Medicaid millionaire” by the office of Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, was arrested Monday. The state Bureau of Investigation began looking into Taylor after receiving a complaint from the Louisiana Health Department saying she underreported her income to qualify for Medicaid benefits.

“From 2021 through 2024, Ms. Taylor continued to transfer tens of thousands of dollars between her personal and business accounts, with personal inflows consistently exceeding the eligibility thresholds for Medicaid,” the affidavit directly states.

Medicaid provides health insurance for low-income adults and children. The program is partially funded and primarily managed by state governments. The federal government establishes parameters for states to follow. However, each state administers their Medicaid program differently.

Taylor initially applied for Medicaid in May 2019 under the alias Candace Sailor, listing a bi-weekly income of $1,900 and no dependents, authorities said. That application was denied.

Less than a year later, she re-applied under the same misspelled name, prosecutors said. She was allegedly inconsistent with the years she reported having a dependent. 

Investigators eventually discovered she owned six different businesses that generated more than $9.5 million between January 2020 and December 2024, according to court documents.

Keep reading

Coalition Of Dem AGs Sue Trump Admin Over Effort To Weed Non-Citizens Off Of SNAP Program

A coalition of 20 attorneys general, led by New York AG Letitia James and California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced the lawsuit Monday, arguing that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s demand that states turn over personal information about SNAP recipients dating back five years, violates privacy laws.

SNAP is a federally-funded, state-administered program that provides billions of dollars in food benefits to tens of millions of low-income individuals and families in the United States.

The new USDA demands, released last week, require states to provide a list of individuals who have applied or are currently receiving SNAP benefits, in addition to other information such as a list of their immigration statuses in the U.S., and information including their marital statuses, their residential and mailing addresses, and education and employment history, among other things.

The USDA has threatened to withhold administrative funding from states that don’t comply.

On April 24, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins issued a guidance to all State agencies directing them “to enhance identity and immigration verification practices when determining eligibility for the program.

Under Rollins’ direction, John Walk, acting deputy under secretary for Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, sent letters to state SNAP agencies, explaining that most noncitizens do not qualify for the benefits.

“By law, only United States citizens and certain lawfully present aliens may receive SNAP benefits. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-193) established that ‘aliens within the Nation’s borders not depend on public resources to meet their needs.’ SNAP is not and has never been available to illegal aliens,” Walk wrote.

Specifically, the USDA asked states “to cross-check Social Security numbers with a death master file and to use the free Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system provided by the Department of Homeland Security” to verify immigration status.

An estimated 1.5 million noncitizens collected a total of $4.2 billion in Food Stamp benefit payments in fiscal year 2022, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data.

Keep reading

Administration Finds Millions of Individuals Double Enrolled in Taxpayer-Funded Coverage

Earlier this year, The Federalist highlighted a Wall Street Journal investigation that found taxpayers had spent billions paying for individuals who had enrolled in Medicaid in multiple states simultaneously. The kicker is not surprising but still shocking: As bad as the Journal exposé seemed, the reality is worse.

A new investigation increased both the number of enrollees with duplicate forms of taxpayer-funded coverage and the amount taxpayers are paying for such unnecessary double-dipping. It provides an example — one of many — to rebut leftist claims that the recently passed budget reconciliation bill will somehow destroy the safety net.

Explosion of Wasteful Spending

The Journal analysis of Medicaid data from 2019 to 2021 found taxpayers spent $4.3 billion over three years, providing duplicate coverage to an average of 660,000 people per year. The Trump administration recently examined what happened after four years of Biden administration policies, designed to promote enrollment in taxpayer-funded coverage at all costs.

The analysis by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of 2024 enrollment data concluded that, last year, “an average of 1.2 million Americans each month were enrolled” in Medicaid in multiple states — nearly double the level of duplicate enrollment cited by the Journal in the opening years of the Biden presidency. Moreover, CMS also noted that another “1.6 million Americans each month were enrolled in both Medicaid” and taxpayer-subsidized coverage on the insurance Exchange plans.

According to CMS, the total cost of all this unnecessary spending on a total of 2.8 million duplicate enrollments is $14 billion per year — more than three times the $4.3 billion figure the Journal reported earlier this year. CMS didn’t specify if that $14 billion figure represented total Medicaid costs (i.e., including the share of Medicaid costs that states pay themselves), or only the potential costs to the federal government.

Regardless, it represents a large amount. For purposes of comparison, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that, during the last fiscal year, the federal government would spend $607 billion on Medicaid. Simply eliminating the duplicate payments would reduce federal Medicaid spending by roughly 2.3 percent — without doing anything to harm beneficiaries, who would still have taxpayer-funded coverage, just not in multiple places at once.

Phony Coverage Losses?

The CMS data highlights two important points regarding Medicaid and taxpayer-funded insurance programs. First, the discussion about the number of individuals who will “lose” coverage seems overstated.

CBO has yet to release detailed coverage estimates regarding the final version of the bill, enacted into law. But the case described above demonstrates the absurdity of this type of exercise. The left might scream about 2.8 million people “losing” coverage — even though they “lost” coverage only on paper and are still insured elsewhere (and at taxpayer expense) in the system.

Many of the other supposed “losses” from the legislation fall into similar buckets: individuals who choose not to comply with the new work requirements, undocumented migrants denied taxpayer-funded coverage for public policy reasons, and so forth.

A good percentage of Americans would have few qualms about lawmakers making these types of reasonable policy judgments. And yet the left hopes to overwhelm such rational behavior with screaming headlines talking about Trump taking away health care from 15 million Americans.

Keep reading

‘Obama Phone’ Scam: Florida CEO Headed to Prison, Must Pay $128 Million Fine After Defrauding Government

The owner of a Florida telecommunications company will spend the next five years in prison and his firm must pay a hefty fine regarding an “Obama phone” scam.

Q Link Wireless LLC and its owner, identified as CEO Issa Asad, previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit wire fraud and steal federal funds from the Lifeline program that began in the 1980s, Fox News reported Sunday.

The program offers subsidized cellphone services to lower-income people. In 2012, a video emerged of a protester outside a Mitt Romney event who claimed her neighbors received an “Obama phone,” Breitbart News reported at the time.

When asked why she supported Obama, the woman said, “Everybody in Cleveland low minority got Obama Phone. Keep Obama in President, you know? He gave us a phone, he’s going to do more.”

The clip shows the woman standing with other protesters on the side of a roadway while holding signs. The Breitbart News article speculated that she may or may not have been a paid agitator.

In 2013, Breitbart News reported that opposition to the “Lifeline” program was growing as Tracfone Wireless, “the company that most benefits from the government subsidy, is now advertising on inside-the-beltway news websites in an effort to save it.”

The Fox article said Asad was sentenced to prison and he, along with his company, must pay $128 million in fines.

Keep reading

The Empty Outrage Over Medicaid Cuts

Democrats bemoaning the loss of Medicaid coverage are glossing over a critical fact: States could fund the program themselves if they wanted to. The truth is, Medicaid is not nearly as popular as the taxes needed to keep it afloat.

There is a lot to complain about Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), signed into law last week. For example, it will add trillions to the deficit while allocating billions to be used for deporting hard-working immigrants and even American citizens. Yet Democrats are denouncing it not for its lack of fiscal responsibility, but rather for one of its only positive provisions: its reforms to Medicaid.

Original versions of the bill included various reforms to Medicaid, like work requirements for some able-bodied adults and provisions limiting funds for undocumented immigrants and gender transition procedures. To this, Democrats responded with instant outrage: “Medicaid is a lifeline for millions of kids, seniors, veterans, and people with disabilities in our states and nationwide. Republicans’ proposed cuts would be disastrous.”

The final version of the bill eliminated some of the more thorny cost-saving provisions while keeping the work requirements in place. Yet Democrats are still dissatisfied with the bill, with California Gov. Newsom claiming that “the President and his MAGA enablers are ripping care from cancer patients, meals from children, and money from working families.”

You can tell this is nothing more than political posturing because there are no cuts to Medicaid to begin with. The OBBB only reduces the rate of growth of Medicaid spending, but the overall cost of the program to taxpayers will continue to increase. Cutting means getting rid of something, not reducing the rate at which you add stuff.

Maybe we should not be too hard on the semantics. After all, Americans have very little experience with Medicaid cuts. Throughout its 60-year history, the only time Medicaid spending was truly cut was in 2006, by a mere 0.25%. This should come as no surprise since Medicaid promotes excessive spending by design.

Medicaid is structured in such a way that for every $1 that states spend on Medicaid, the Federal government matches it by up to $9. This design allows state politicians to grant their constituents $10 in political goodies (Medicaid) while only incurring $1 of political cost (higher taxes). Where does the rest of that money come from? Federal taxes and debt.

Now that Washington is cutting back its match rate, this windfall of benefits without costs to states will slow down. States must choose between filling the funding gap themselves (by raising taxes) or reducing coverage. State officials (many of whom will be facing reelection in the next few years) would rather do neither and keep this party going.

Keep reading

Debunking the 100,000 Medicaid Deaths Myth

“More Americans will die—at least 100,000 more over the course of the next decade,” wrote Yale law professor Natasha Sarin in a June 9 Washington Post column about the Medicaid cuts in President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“That isn’t hyperbolic,” Sarin added. “It is fact.”

The average reader might be inclined to believe Sarin, who holds a Harvard Ph.D. in economics as well as a Harvard law degree, and served in the Treasury Department during the Biden administration. But contrary to her characterization, her claim is both hyperbole and not “fact.”

Sarin’s assertion reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of “statistical lives saved.” In particular, she and several other prominent journalists misinterpreted a recent working paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

As a professional debunker of bad research, I can say with some authority that the authors of that study, Dartmouth economist Angela Wyse and University of Chicago economist Bruce D. Meyer, wrote an excellent paper—a rarity among academic studies these days. But the University of Chicago’s press office trumpeted the paper’s findings, declaring, “Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act saved about 27,400 lives between 2010-22,” which is highly misleading. 

That take was echoed in coverage of the study by major news outlets. “The expansion of Medicaid has saved more than 27,000 lives since 2010, according to the most definitive study yet on the program’s health effects,” reported Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz in The New York Times. Their May 16 article was headlined “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives.” 

The story was also picked up by Time (“Medicaid Expansions Saved Tens of Thousands of Lives, Study Finds”), NPR (“New Studies Show What’s at Stake if Medicaid Is Scaled Back”), NBC News (“Proposed Medicaid Cuts Could Lead to Thousands of Deaths, Study Finds”), and several other news outlets. These journalists either didn’t read the study, didn’t understand it, or willfully misrepresented its findings for partisan reasons. 

In the past, conservative opponents of Medicaid have been equally guilty of misconstruing academic research to support their policy views. That is what happened with the most famous study on the subject, The Oregon Experiment—Effects of Medicaid on Clinical Outcomes, which The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) published in 2013. The NBER and NEJM papers offer a similar account of Medicaid’s impact on health, but both have been misinterpreted.

Keep reading