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.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

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

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.