Romney’s Welfare Plan: Cut the Waste


There’s this thing about management consultants: they’re all about trimming inefficiencies wherever and whenever they can. Often, that means eliminating wasteful overhead—in some cases, by firing people—to help businesses save money.

So it makes a certain amount of sense that Mitt Romney’s plan for fixing programs for low-income Americans is about sweeping out the federal bureaucratic overlords that administer them. At Sunday’s Meet the Press debate, Romney said that federal administrative costs siphon up the bulk of federal spending on Medicaid, food stamps, and housing vouchers. “You have massive overhead, with government bureaucrats in Washington administering all these programs, [with] very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them,” Romney said. His prescription: hand program funding directly over to the states, which, arguably, would put many of the people who administer the programs in Washington out of work.

There’s just one thing: between 90 and 99 percent of federal spending on the programs Romney wants to Bain back into stability reaches low-income recipients, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

Administrative costs ate up 3.8 percent of federal Medicaid spending in 2010, most of which went toward funding the federal portion of state administrative costs. For the Earned Income Tax Credit, over 99 percent of EITC spending went straight to families receiving it. In short: the premise behind Romney’s plan for saving the social safety net does not hold up.

But when it comes to issues affecting the poor, the bar’s already pretty low for Romney. He’s voiced support for Paul Ryan’s safety net-eviscerating budget, and has introduced a very regressive tax plan. Add to that his recent face palm-of-an-interview with Matt Lauer where he dismissed concerns over the wealth gap as rooted in “envy.” But at least he’s not tapping into recent Republican zeal for tagging welfare benefits to costly, punitive, stigmatizing measures like mandatory drug tests and high school diplomas.

THE BIG QUESTION...

as we head into 2020 is whether politics and media will be a billionaires’ game, or a playing field where the rest of us have a shot. That's what Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein tackles in her annual December column—"Billionaires Are Not the Answer"—about the state of journalism and our plans for the year ahead.

We can't afford to let independent reporting depend on the goodwill of the superrich: Please help Mother Jones build an alternative to oligarchy that is funded by and answerable to its readers. Please join us with a tax-deductible, year-end donation so we can keep going after the big stories without fear, favor, or false equivalency.

THE BIG QUESTION...

as we head into 2020 is whether politics and media will be a billionaires’ game, or a playing field where the rest of us have a shot.

Please read our annual column about the state of journalism and Mother Jones' plans for the year ahead, and help us build an alternative to oligarchy by supporting our people-powered journalism with a year-end gift today.

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

We have a new comment system! We are now using Coral, from Vox Media, for comments on all new articles. We'd love your feedback.