The New York Times is outraged: not enough New Yorkers are on welfare. Government needs to take an "aggressive approach" to pumping up the number of people on the dole. That's the gist of the Times editorial this morning, "Why the Hungry Refuse Help."
The Times' recycles findings from the left-wing "Urban Justice Center" [emphasis added]:
[O]f 9,500 recipients surveyed, more than 5,800 had their benefits cut off within 20 months of enrollment. The vast majority remained eligible for food stamps, but, in most cases, they simply did not show up to get their aid renewed. Many said they could not deal with the paperwork and long waits, or get time away from work or children to reapply at a city office.
Got that? It's not that government is heartlessly kicking people off welfare. It's that eligible welfare recipients "simply did not show up" to renew their benefits.
The Times wants to "maximize enrollment" and proposes a variety of measures to pump up the welfare rolls, including "allowing reapplication by telephone . . . and requiring recipients to reapply only every 12 months, which is the federal standard, rather than every six."
Along the way, the Times also claims that "as many as 1.3 million New Yorkers, about one-quarter of them children, do not have enough to eat." That represents 15.8% of the city's population. What is evidence for that startling claim? The Times doesn't tell us. As I described here, the left has a tradition of inflating the extent of the problem, regularly claiming a national figure of 36 million hungry Americans. But as Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, an expert on these issues, recently wrote on the subject:
While hunger due to a lack of financial re-sources does occur in the United States, it is limited in scope and duration. According to the USDA, on a typical day, fewer than one American in 200 will experience hunger due to a lack of money to buy food.
Applying that 1/200 figure to NYC's population would translate to 41,000 hungry New Yorkers on a daily basis. Even allowing that the city has more than its fair share of poor people, and multiplying by a factor of 10 yields only 410,000. So where does the Times get its 1.3 million?
In any case, the editorial is the epitome of paternalism. Not enough poor are taking advantage of welfare benefits . . .and it's all government's fault.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Too hungover
September 13, 2007 - 07:28 ET by Mica the MagnificentIt's hard to fill out a form when you're nursing a hangover.
If you're unmotivated to keep a job, makes sense you'll be unmotivated to show up at the welfare office. That's work, too.
That's why they're poor to begin with. Duh.
Demonstrating again...
September 13, 2007 - 07:33 ET by Sergeant ROCK... that liberalism is not about SOLVING problems, but rather treating them!
NYT welcomes you to Uncle Sam's Plantation!
Yeah! ! ! I hate having to
September 13, 2007 - 07:52 ET by Sua SponteYeah! ! ! I hate having to stand in line, fill out paperwork just to get a government handout. If the government where efficient, someone would come to my house, fill out the paperwork and all I would have to do is verify that I'm getting all I can.
Of course, hurry up and get it over with. I'm going to the bling sale at Big Mo's corner, then I gotta pimp out the ride for the party tonight (you know, it's Friday night and I gotta get my freak on)
Well, gee whiz, why even
September 13, 2007 - 08:03 ET by motherbeltWell, gee whiz, why even bother to make them re-apply, even by phone? That's just humiliating; no wonder they don't want to do it. Just keep it going until they notify you to stop it. <sarc off>
As for the 1.3 million New Yorkers, about one-quarter of them children, do not have enough to eat."
Besides not justifying the number, do they define what "not enough to eat" is? I guess not.
I remember when my kids were little, reading the articles on how much
they should be eating to get all their vitamins, and I thought, no kid
can eat that much, even of stuff they LIKE (it included something like 3 cups of green vegetables.) So it would be interesting to see how they define "enough."
I am so tired of free
September 13, 2007 - 08:17 ET by dvdaughtryI am so tired of free rides! I just picked up a second job delivering pizzas so I can knock out my bad debt (and I got more than I care for).
I think I heard somewhere "if you don't, you don't eat". If we followed the source of that line, we would have fewer problems.
Well, for once, the rich white man is in control. --Montgomery Burns
I'm not good with "chapter
September 13, 2007 - 09:32 ET by motherbeltI'm not good with "chapter and verse" but I believe that is in one of St. Paul's epistles to the early Christians living together: that they should all share food, but share labor too, and anyone that didn't work wouldn't eat.
Are you poor?
September 13, 2007 - 08:32 ET by old croThe definition of being poor was floating around somewhere on the internet last week (I think I saw it here). You know, how the person classified as being poor owned two tv sets, had air conditioning, ect. I suppose these people can be considered sub-poor.
"I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom."
- President George W. Bush
A guy walks into the local
September 13, 2007 - 09:18 ET by compguytracyA guy walks into the local welfare office, marches straight up to the counter and says, “Hi . . . You know, I just HATE drawing welfare. I’d really rather have a job”.
The social worker behind the counter says, “Your timing is excellent. We just got a job opening from a very wealthy old man who wants a chauffeur/bodyguard for his nymphomaniac daughter. You’ll have to drive
around in his Mercedes, but he’ll supply all of your clothes. Because of the long hours, meals will be provided. You’ll be expected to escort her on her overseas holiday trips. You’ll have a two-bedroom apartment above the garage. The starting salary is $200,000 a year”.
The guy says, “You’re bullshitting me!”
The social worker says, “Yeah, well, you started it.”
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought?…
Ceteris paribus
"Why the Hungry Refuse
September 13, 2007 - 09:32 ET by Senior Chief"Why the Hungry Refuse Help." Could be:
As an optimist---the poor figured that begging money from other people and government is just not right. So, work they went and hola, they're out of poverty level!
Besides, a country with 4.6% unemployment, there's no way to answer "can't find job" or "no job available" as reasons for receiving dole-out money.
But then again, leftoid media will NEVER find the answer why they refuse help. Right, it is Bush's fault that they refuse help...
Another idea.
September 13, 2007 - 11:00 ET by Dave in Texas"... but, in most cases, they simply did not show up to get their aid renewed ..."
I have my suspicions that the main reason for this is that they found out not everything in the grocery store is eligable for purchase with food stamps.
Shame on me
September 13, 2007 - 11:17 ET by Sua SponteI'm raising my son wrong. Not only is he doing well in school, while playing on the Baseball team and a member of the JROTC program (shamefully his HS has Air Force and not ARMY, but...)anyway.
He's working at the grocery store, received his first paycheck and I explained to him the difference in how much he made and how much he brought home and why. He understood part of it (the neccessary evils) but was upset and even used one of my favorite phrases; OXYGEN THIEVES
1.3 Million...
September 13, 2007 - 13:20 ET by JungusI guess he gets his numbers from seeing over 15 of every 100 children laying dead of starvation all over the city.
Well, darn it, I'm not on
September 13, 2007 - 16:48 ET by lnthompWell, darn it, I'm not on the NYC welfare rolls. Some-one mail me the paperwork, and I'll add my name to their list.
Lee T.
U.S. Navy (ret.) / Vancouver, Washington
The history of the race, and each individual's experience, are thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.-- Mark Twain
Anyone of us here could
September 14, 2007 - 03:49 ET by CooltomAnyone of us here could spend 5 minutes with a typical "poor" person and know EXACTLY why they are poor.
As for the starving chilluns -- how come most "poor" kids are obese?
Soem people are legitimately screwed over by life
September 14, 2007 - 07:26 ET by GrannyGrump42My daughter is struggling, as I've often struggled. Some people just have crappy luck and were never taught how to navigate success.
But I've also taken in homeless people and learned pretty quickly that for them, homelessness is a lifestyle choice. One woman put almost as much effort into mooching as most people would put into working. She knew every handout and entitlement in a five county area.
Christina Dunigan
September 14, 2007 - 07:23 ET by GrannyGrump42Maybe they're just not hurting enough for it to be worth the bother to go in do the brouhaha. Which is something only the Left could get their panties in a twist over.