[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE GROWTH OF
THE WELFARE STATE, PART I
=======================================================================1
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH CARE
AND FINANCIAL SERVICES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 11, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-4
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available on: govinfo.gov
oversight.house.gov or
docs.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
58-805 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JAMES COMER, Kentucky, Chairman
Jim Jordan, Ohio Gerald E. Connolly, Virginia,
Mike Turner, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
Paul Gosar, Arizona Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of
Virginia Foxx, North Carolina Columbia
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin Stephen F. Lynch, Massachusetts
Michael Cloud, Texas Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Gary Palmer, Alabama Ro Khanna, California
Clay Higgins, Louisiana Kweisi Mfume, Maryland
Pete Sessions, Texas Shontel Brown, Ohio
Andy Biggs, Arizona Melanie Stansbury, New Mexico
Nancy Mace, South Carolina Robert Garcia, California
Pat Fallon, Texas Maxwell Frost, Florida
Byron Donalds, Florida Summer Lee, Pennsylvania
Scott Perry, Pennsylvania Greg Casar, Texas
William Timmons, South Carolina Jasmine Crockett, Texas
Tim Burchett, Tennessee Emily Randall, Washington
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Georgia Suhas Subramanyam, Virginia
Lauren Boebert, Colorado Yassamin Ansari, Arizona
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Wesley Bell, Missouri
Nick Langworthy, New York Lateefah Simon, California
Eric Burlison, Missouri Dave Min, California
Eli Crane, Arizona Ayanna Pressley, Massachusetts
Brian Jack, Georgia Rashida Tlaib, Michigan
John McGuire, Virginia
Brandon Gill, Texas
------
Mark Marin, Staff Director
James Rust, Deputy Staff Director
Mitch Benzine, General Counsel
Dan Ashworth, Chief Counsel for Oversight
Peter Spectre, Professional Staff Member
Mallory Cogar, Deputy Director of Operations and Chief Clerk
Contact Number: 202-225-5074
Jamie Smith, Minority Staff Director
Contact Number: 202-225-5051
------
Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services
Glenn Grothman, Wisconsin, Chairman
Paul Gosar, Arizona Raja Krishnamoorthi, Illinois
Pete Sessions, Texas Ranking Member
Anna Paulina Luna, Florida Emily Randall, Washington
John McGuire, Virginia Wesley Bell, Missouri
Brandon Gill, Texas Lateefah Simon, California
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 11, 2025................................ 1
Witnesses
----------
Mr. Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow, Center for Health and
Welfare Policy, The Heritage Foundation
Oral Statement................................................... 5
Ms. Patrice Onwuka, Director, Center for Economic Opportunity,
Independent Women's Forum
Oral Statement................................................... 6
Mr. Michael Linden (Minority Witness), Senior Policy Fellow,
Washington Center for Equitable Growth
Oral Statement................................................... 8
Written opening statements and bios are available on the U.S.
House of Representatives Document Repository at:
docs.house.gov.
Index of Documents
----------
* Statement for the Record, National Council on Disability;
submitted by Rep. Grothman.
* Statement for the Record, Olympic Medical Center, re: SNAP;
submitted by Rep. Randall.
* Report, Foundation of Government Accountability, ``Examining
Growth of the Welfare State''; submitted by Rep. Grothman.
* Article, the World Economic Forum, ``New Research Busts
Welfare Dependency Myth''; submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
* Report, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities,
``Medicaid Work Requirements Could Put 36M People at Risk'';
submitted by Rep. Krishnamoorthi.
Documents are available at: docs.house.gov.
EXAMINING THE GROWTH OF
THE WELFARE STATE, PART I
----------
Tuesday, February 11, 2025
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Subcommittee on Health Care And Financial Services
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:30 p.m.,
Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Glenn Grothman
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Grothman, Gosar, Sessions,
McGuire, Gill, Krishnamoorthi, Randall, Bell, and Simon.
Mr. Grothman. The Committee will come to order. This is the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. It is the
Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services. I am the
Subcommittee Chairman of this Committee.
Welcome to the Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial
Services' first hearing of the 119th Congress. Today, we will
hear from expert witnesses about the enormous growth of the
welfare state. In particular, we are going to be focusing on
the effect on marriage that the current welfare state has.
Over the past 50 years, millions of Americans have received
benefits from various welfare programs. These programs allow
low-income Americans to gain access to food, health care, and
childcare.
While many welfare programs are vital to the day-to-day of
many, their design too often creates dependence on the system.
The current status also leads people away from getting married.
And the exponential growth in dependency on welfare programs
has not corresponded with a proportional reduction in poverty
at all.
Today, more than one-in-five able-bodied working-age adults
receive some form of welfare. In 2022 alone, the Federal
Government spent nearly $1.2 trillion on more than 80 welfare
programs.
And these numbers have only grown since.
Many of these programs incentivize recipients to remain in
the program rather than find employment which would enable them
to get out of the programs.
Furthermore, almost all these programs penalize married
couples for simply choosing marriage. Penalties occur when a
married couple no longer qualifies for the same benefits as
they would as individuals. There are about 70 different benefit
programs that you could lose if you are a single parent by
getting married.
Due in part to these penalties, the percentage of children
born to unmarried women has skyrocketed, and we all know many
wonderful, wonderful single parents. In 1960, around 5 percent
of children were born to unmarried women. Today, that number is
around 40 percent. To anybody who cares about the next
generation, these numbers should be deeply concerning.
Marriage is the backbone of a stable society and is a force
that encourages individuals to be responsible for their
families instead of having to rely on government assistance.
Not only is marriage associated with better financial
institutions, but it is also associated with better mental
health for married couples and their children.
While I personally know many single parents who do an
excellent job, studies have shown that children raised in
single-parent households are at heightened risk for substance
abuse, crime, bad educational outcomes, depression, and other
disorders.
Given that Federal policy should reflect the fact that
children--well, it is time that Federal policy be changed so we
stop discouraging and penalizing people for simply getting
married. To better understand why this is the case, we must go
back to the creation of many of these programs.
While some welfare programs began under President Franklin
Roosevelt, most were created or expanded under President Lyndon
Johnson's so-called ``War on Poverty.'' President Johnson's
stated goal in expanding the welfare state was to provide
Americans the chance to pull themselves up out of poverty and
reduce dependency. It was intended to enable Americans who had
stumbled on hard times to make a comeback. But that is too
often not the case in today's welfare system.
Our current welfare system is designed to ensure dependence
on the government and penalizes marriage.
Sadly, the problems do not stop there. Many of the
benefits, paid for by taxpayer dollars, are improperly going to
illegal immigrants. In 2023, the Federal Government spent $23
billion on health care for illegal immigrants and another $11.6
trillion on food stamps, child nutrition, and other welfare
programs.
Not only are we spending billions on illegal immigrants,
but often welfare programs are among the most common targets
for scammers and fraudsters.
Last year more than $100 billion in improper payments were
made in programs like Medicaid, food stamps, and the Earned
Income Tax Credit. This is bad for taxpayers, but bad for
welfare recipients, as well.
If we continue on our current path, it will become
increasingly difficult to fund welfare programs, making it hard
to justify the safety net for Americans.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and
they will help us better understand the enormous growth of the
welfare state, so we want to see what we can do to prevent
government dependency and empower Americans.
I should point out there have always been people who are
hostile, outright hostile, to the idea of marriage. I know a
lot of the radical feminists, Kate Millett and that crew, in
the 1960s, did not want to have a man in the family. Of course,
Karl Marx, for people who follow him, also felt the family was
a negative impact on society and wanted to destroy it. So, we
do not have Kate Millett or Karl Marx get their way. Hence, we
are having this hearing.
Now I yield to Ranking Member Krishnamoorthi for his
opening statement.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am looking
forward to working with you on the important issues confronting
our Nation within the jurisdiction of this Subcommittee.
Particularly, I am looking forward to addressing the continuing
failures and costs of our broken healthcare system.
I will confess that I had hoped our first hearing together
would have tackled one of those vital issues, such as PBM or
health insurance reform. Chairman Grothman, you and I have been
working with Chairman Comer and the Democrats for years to try
to rein in the abuses of pharmacy benefit managers. We have
further worked on concerns about health insurance companies
stopping payments for critical medical services, such as, for
instance, anesthesia--anesthesia rules limiting the use of
anesthesia mid-operation, that were about to be implemented
this past winter. But sadly, this Committee is focused today on
antiquated debates about welfare.
I know what I am talking about when it comes to safety net
programs because I have personal experience with SNAP's
predecessor, the Food Stamp program. I came to our country with
my family when I was 3 months old so my father could continue
his education and our family could embrace all the
opportunities that America afforded it. But despite my family's
best efforts, it was not always easy. Specifically, in the
recession of 1973, my father lost his income. But thanks to the
generosity of the people in the United States, its government,
and the existence of these safety net programs, we were allowed
to survive and flourish.
Today, my father, who turned 86 today--it is his birthday--
is an engineering professor emeritus, having retired after 40
years of teaching engineering at Bradley University in Peoria,
Illinois. My brother is a doctor at the University of Chicago,
and myself, I am honored to represent the people of Illinois'
8th Congressional District in my fifth term. That is the
American dream: the promise of a middle-class life with the
opportunity for your children to have an even better life than
you did.
That dream was possible for my family because of my
parents' hard work and the possibilities and the generosity of
this country. However, it was also because the American people
established programs like SNAP and public housing so my family
could temporarily sustain itself in times of severe need.
For families like mine, access to public housing and SNAP
served as a critical social safety net and allowed us to bounce
back from financial adversity. It remains true today for tens
of millions of struggling Americans.
House and Senate Republicans, according to recent reports,
are discussing an upwards of $2 trillion cut to Medicaid,
almost one-third of funding. This does not sound to me like
simply rooting out waste and fraud. Unfortunately, it sounds
like forcing tens of millions of children, pregnant women,
seniors, and people from programs they desperately need.
Helping our neighbors through safety net programs is good
economic policy. In 2025, the USDA found that in an economic
downturn, every dollar in additional SNAP benefits leads to a
$1.54 increase in gross domestic product. This does not
surprise me. Social safety net programs do not encourage
laziness; they empower Americans to succeed on their own.
The demonization of benefit recipients is appalling. We
will unfortunately hear shortly the untrue characterizations of
lower-income people that have been made by the Majority, which
undermine the credibility of the reforms they offer. People on
public benefits are not lazy, they are not dumb, and they are
not bad people. Often, like my own family, they have fallen on
hard times and they simply need a hand up. The help they seek,
they hope, is temporary. The difference we make in their lives
lasts a lifetime.
I am not going to silently acquiesce to this Congress
turning its back on hungry, frightened, cold children or their
families anywhere in our country who need help, in order for
the Majority to pay for tax cuts for special interests. That is
wrong. I hope that this hearing shines light on the good work
our country does every day in feeding, housing, and caring for
its people.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. OK. I do not believe I demonized any people.
I try to demonize the politicians who set up the program, not
the people who wind up doing what they are, in essence, paid to
do.
But, to our sad disappointment, to all our wonderful people
who showed up here, we now have to vote on the Floor. So, I
apologize. We are going to reconvene--what should we say? 10
minutes after they bang the gavel downstairs.
So, we will see you guys again. I wish we would have
brought you pizza or something or other. Thank you for being
here.
[Recess.]
Mr. Grothman. Thank you all. Before we hear from the
witnesses, I would like to enter a document called ``Examining
the Growth of the Welfare State,'' put together by Hayden
Dublois and Jonathan Ingram. And they work for, I assume a
think tank thing, labeled FGA.
Thank you. OK. I would like to welcome our witnesses today,
Dr. Robert Rector, Ms. Patrice Onwuka, and Dr. Michael Linden.
Mr. Rector is a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage
Foundation's Center for Health and Welfare Policy. Ms. Onwuka
is the Director of the Center for Health and Welfare [sic] at
the Independent Women's Forum. Dr. Linden is a Senior Policy
Fellow at the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. We look
forward to hearing what you all have to say on today's
important topic.
Pursuant to Committee Rule 9(g)--I hope they warned you of
this in advance--the witnesses will please stand and raise your
right hand.
Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony which
you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
[Chorus of ayes.]
Mr. Grothman. Let the record show all the witnesses
answered in the affirmative. Thank you. You may sit down again.
We appreciate you being here today and look forward to your
testimony.
I would like to remind the witnesses that we have read your
written statement already and it will appear in full in the
hearing record. If you can, please limit your oral statement to
5 minutes.
As a reminder, please press the button on the microphone in
front of you so that it is on, and the Members can hear you.
When you begin to speak, the light in front of you will turn
green. After 4 minutes, the light will turn yellow. When the
red light comes on it means 5 minutes is up, and we would like
to ask you to wrap up as quickly as you can.
I now recognize Mr. Rector for the opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT RECTOR
SENIOR RESEARCH FELLOW
CENTER FOR HEALTH AND WELFARE POLICY
THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION
Mr. Rector. Thank you for the opportunity to come here and
speak today. I have worked on the welfare system for 40 years,
going back to President Carter, so the issues are very dear to
my heart. And today, I would like to talk about one of the core
features of the welfare state, perhaps the core feature that is
largely neglected, which is the marriage penalties within the
welfare state.
Those of you that are Republicans, you know all about
marginal tax rates on labor. Everyone that is in the Republican
Party knows about marginal tax rates on labor. So, the marginal
tax rate on labor, if you go out and you earn $20, and the
government takes away half of it, that would be a marginal tax
rate of 50 percent. Everybody says, ``That is kind of bad.''
What we do not know is marginal tax rates on marriage, OK.
When Republican hear about marriage penalties, they are
thinking about marriage penalties in the income tax code, which
means basically families that pay income tax, which are those
in the top half of the population, above $110,000 a year. But
the marriage penalties are not in the income tax code. They are
in the $1.6 trillion welfare state. There are 90 means-tested
welfare programs, including 40 that go predominantly to
families with kids, meaning single-parent families, and every
one of those programs has an outrageous marginal tax rate on
marriage, a penalty on marriage.
So that we talk about marginal tax rates on labor, OK, it
would be very hard if we earn a dollar and the government took
away half of it. But the marginal tax rates on marriage are
infant, OK. At least with the marginal tax rate on labor, if
you work more you get to keep something of it. But if you are a
low-income family, a potential mother and father, you face a
net loss in income, a net negative in income, when you get
married. It is as if you went to work and you earned $20 an
hour, and the government dinged you $100 bucks. The more you
work, the more you lose. It is a confiscation rate. It is not a
marginal tax rate.
And the reality of that is, because all of the welfare for
programs, all of these 90 programs, they, for the most part,
give maximum benefits when there are no earnings in the
household, and then as earnings go up the benefits go down,
right. But earnings are all the earnings in the household, the
mother's and the father's. So, if the father is in the
household and he is married and he holds a job, your earnings
went up, your welfare benefits are confiscated, and they fall
dramatically.
Such that if you look at the testimony I put in, let us
take a family with a mother that makes $20,000 a year, a father
that makes $30,000 a year. Let us say they have two kids. If
they are not married and they cohabit, they could have a joint
income of around $80,000 from their earnings, plus about
$30,000 coming out of the welfare state. However, if they
marry, they lose $15,000 of that. It is a tax rate of about 30
percent on their original earnings beforehand.
If they are in housing, Section 8 or public housing, then
their combined benefits, if they are not married, are over
$90,000, earnings plus cash, food, housing, medical care, and
housing. But if they get married, out of that $93,000, they are
going to lose $28,000 in penalties.
The answer is, they do not get married, because we have
made marriage economically irrational for them through these
horrendous penalties. And what we need to do is rebuild
marriage, because if you look today, 1 out of 4 children in the
United States are born to an unmarried woman who is cohabiting
with the father of the child at the time of marriage. They
often remain together for 10 years later, but they do not get
married. Why do they not get married? Because this institution
will penalize them, will take their money away when they do.
We need to stop doing that. We need to take all of the
waste and fraud and abuse--there is a 30 percent waste and
fraud rate in the EITC--take some of that money, save it, and
apply it over to giving more generous benefits to these low-
income couples when they do get married and they do do the
right thing. And I think that you will have an enormous
behavioral response to that.
We also need to tighten up the work requirements on all of
these programs. I was a principal author of welfare reform in
the 1990s, and we believed that the work requirements would not
have so much of an effect on labor but an effect on family
formation, and they did. For example, the non-marital teen
pregnancy rate, when we put work requirements in, it dropped
about 70 to 80 percent immediately, and it did that also by
reducing abortions at the same time.
So, the public that we are talking about, no, they are not
evil. They, in fact, want to do the right thing. And the right
thing is to form a stable family and raise kids that way. But
they cannot do that because you are going to penalize them for
doing it. That is a terrible thing. We should do it anymore.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. Ms. Onwuka.
STATEMENT OF PATRICE ONWUKA
DIRECTOR
CENTER FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
INDEPENDENT WOMEN'S FORUM
Ms. Onwuka. Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member and Members, for inviting me to appear today. I am the
Director of the Center for Economic Opportunity at Independent
Women. And we know this is an important topic because we
represent, we speak to you about, women and their issues.
And we recognize that we have made significant strides in
this Nation in attacking poverty, but there are still a lot of
failures. And particularly as a Black woman, and the Black
family, we have seen the impact of welfare policies on Black
families.
As has been mentioned, over 80 welfare programs, spending
$1 trillion, yet we have so much duplication and opportunities
for waste, fraud, and abuse.
So, how can we overcome some of these challenges? Well, I
will just mention, today we want to close the loopholes that
Federal agencies and states exploit to grow program enrollment,
we want to target improper payments, and we want to promote
work and family.
I will just say a word on our poverty rate. Right now, we
have 36.8 million people living in poverty, according to the
U.S. Census bureau. Although when you calculate people who
receive non-cash payments--in-kind housing, other forms of
subsidies--I think the actual poverty rate is much smaller,
which is a good thing. But how do we ensure that these folks
who are still unable to enjoy the benefits of prosperity are
able to do that and be independent?
When it comes to the actual fiscal impact of welfare
programs, we are seeing that they are growing exponentially.
Thirty-four percent is expected to be the increase in welfare
spending over the next 10 years. And they are talking about
going from $1.2 trillion to $1.6 trillion.
We have many agencies tackling a lot of the same different
problems, 15 agencies dedicated to providing food aid alone, 13
hitting housing, 12 hitting health care, and 5 hitting cash
aid.
So, where can Congress focus its energy? Well, I think
reforming eligibility and participation to, I say, quote,
``right-size'' these mandatory spending welfare programs.
So, talking about some of the loopholes. We say states,
and, frankly, the Federal Government, have relaxed some
eligibility requirements or expanded the definition of who is
needy. In the latter case, states are providing benefits to
individuals earning far above the poverty rates and the poverty
line. We know very often, or I think we are familiar here, that
SNAP grants categorical eligibility to TANF enrollees, and that
means that these folks are being exempted from program income
and asset limits. That is a loophole, at an expected cost of
over $111 billion over the next decade to you, taxpayers. So,
this is one of the loopholes that we should be figuring out how
to close.
We also want to make sure that when we look at the types of
people who are participating in welfare programs, we want to
make sure that these are folks who are talking advantage of the
millions of open positions that are available in this economy.
Right? So, a lot of these folks are able-bodied Americans, both
those with children and without children. And I think that
there is a case to be made that whether you are talking about
Medicare, SNAP, or TANF, you have 60 percent rates or above of
non-disabled adults who are able to work but receiving these
benefits.
So, how can we get them to work? Well, part of it is that
states have been waiving, or they have been able to waive,
requirements that individuals are working. Or sometimes states
are using backdoor ways to dedicate Federal funded money to
other priorities that are not promoting work and family
formation, frankly.
So, I think these are the ways that we need to attack the
perverse incentives that encourage states and the Federal
Government to reduce the dependency rates, whether you are
talking about SNAP or some of the other programs.
Fraud, waste, and abuse. It is not surprising that there is
a lot of fraud and waste and abuse, and this is created because
there is not a good amount of tracking of how much there is.
The GAO estimated that taxpayers have lost probably $2.7
trillion over the past 10 years, between $200 and maybe $500
billion annually on fraudulent payments, while the GAO has
already provided to Congress a roadmap for how to attack these
things. Better reporting. We need to make sure that Federal
agencies that are providing welfare are reporting, tracking,
data collecting, providing oversight to ensure that people who
are receiving benefits are the ones that should be receiving
it.
And going forward, being prepared for the emergencies that
happen, and I think during COVID we saw a tremendous expansion
in our welfare programs, and we have not seen a recission back
down to normal levels, despite an economy that is generating
millions of jobs, as we know.
Finally, a quick point on marriage. There is a marriage
penalty, and I think that marriage is an important part of this
conversation. And we know that the success series--if you just
graduate with a high school diploma, if you get a job and get
married before having children, your likelihood of falling into
poverty drops significantly. And even if you do not, even if
you are single mom and you get married, the poverty rate falls,
as well. So, we cannot leave marriage out of the discussion.
Thank you so much.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Mr. Linden?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL LINDEN
SENIOR POLICY FELLOW
WASHINGTON CENTER FOR EQUITABLE GROWTH
Mr. Linden. Thank you. Chairman Grothman, Ranking Member
Krishnamoorthi, and Members of the Committee, I really want to
thank you for my opportunity to be here today.
Today, I am going to make three main points.
First of all, Federal investments in health, nutrition,
housing, and other work supports for low-and very low-income
people are both a moral and an economic necessity. The major
problem with our current approach is that we do not do enough
to make sure that low-income children have a real path out of
poverty, and that struggling families have a real chance at the
middle class.
Second, if you are interested in efficiency and cost
savings, you are looking in the wrong place. The Federal tax
code is rife with loopholes, special subsidies, and giveaways
that benefit the very wealthy and giant corporations with
little or no discernable public benefit.
Third, it is indefensible to scapegoat hardworking
Americans who are striving everyday just to make ends meet
while the ultra-wealthy and giant corporations have been given
trillions, literally trillions, in tax breaks, and even as we
speak, this Congress is proposing yet another round of tax
handouts.
Investments in health care, nutrition, housing, and other
work supports pay enormous dividends, not only for those
families, but for the entire U.S. economy. Children who receive
nutrition assistance have better health and lower health care
costs their whole lives. Children whose mothers receive WIC do
better in school than children whose mothers did not. Children
of families who use rental assistance earn more as adults and
are less likely to become single parents. Boosting the incomes
of very poor families, including through, for example, the EITC
or the Child Tax Credit, results in more schooling, more hours
worked, and higher earnings in adulthood for the children of
those families. Medicaid expansion has resulted in better
financial security for millions, lower eviction rates, lower
costs for hospitals, especially rural hospitals, fewer
premature deaths, and positive statewide economic impacts.
These conclusions, and the many others like them, are drawn
from literally hundreds of studies. The facts are not disputed.
But you do not have to pore over studies to find the
benefit of these investments. You just have to talk to people
who actually use them, and the Ranking Member spoke eloquently
of his own experience with this.
Take the story of Zoe, a young woman from Colorado, who
recently shared her story with The Arc of the United States.
She completed a 4-year college degree, like so many other
people of her age, and is now applying to grad schools. Zoe has
spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA, which is a genetic
neuromuscular developmental disability. She relies on the
caregiver support she receives through Medicaid in order to
live independently while she pursues her education. For Zoe and
the millions of other Americans who rely on Medicaid, one in
five, in fact, slashing these programs would have devastating
effects on their lives and their livelihoods.
We invest too little, not too much, in reducing poverty and
providing pathways into the middle class. The Federal
Government spent just 1.3 percent of gross domestic product on
``income supports'' in 2024, which is down from 1.8 percent a
decade ago, and lower than the average of 2 percent from the
past 30 years.
Roughly one in five children is in poverty today, which is
twice the rate of other developed countries.
These numbers are especially concerning given that there
are more working-age Americans in the labor force and working
today than at almost any time in modern history.
And that is why it is a grave mistake, both morally and
economically, to slash benefits and services for low-income
people. And do not be fooled. Adding bureaucratic red tape,
narrowing eligibility requirements, setting arbitrary limits,
all amount to the same thing: indefensible harm to poor
families and our economy.
But there is another place in the Federal budget that truly
is bloated with wasteful costs, and subsidies, and
counterproductive incentives, and that is the tax code. Over
the past quarter-century, Congress has repeatedly enacted
trillions of dollars in tax cuts that disproportionately
benefit the wealthy.
Consider the 40 percent reduction in the corporate tax rate
that was passed in 2017 under President Trump. That single
giveaway is estimated to have cost roughly $1 trillion to date,
and will cost trillions more over the next decade. These
corporations did not raise wages or create more jobs. They
enriched their shareholders and their executives. That is the
very definition of wasteful spending.
Those who are quick to scrutinize the choices of a poor
family receiving $6 a day in nutrition benefits never get
around to asking whether a giant corporation is doing what they
promised to do with their tax cuts, or whether they needed them
in the first place.
The truth is that far too many Americans are struggling to
make ends meet while those at the top get richer and richer.
And that is why most Americans support investing more, not
less, in aid to poor families. And that is why I find it is
surprising that Congress is considering spending another $5
trillion, or more, not on lowering health care costs or
improving public schools or expanding benefits to address
marriage penalties, but to give tax cuts, mostly to people at
the top. It is hard to take seriously claims that we spend too
much on poor families as policy-makers write a budget that
would take money out of their pockets to give it to
billionaires. That is not effective government. That is highway
robbery.
Anyone truly interested in improving efficiency and
reducing waste in the Federal Government should be appalled by
efforts to scapegoat those living in poverty, while padding the
pockets of the super wealthy.
Mr. Grothman. Well, thank you. I am going to lead off with
Mr. Rector. I think the purpose of this hearing is see whether
it is appropriate, and we are supposed to treat all Americans
equally, but whether it is appropriate to design programs such
that we are doing what we can to discourage formation of the
traditional American family.
We will start out with Mr. Rector. How many welfare
programs penalize married couples, about do you think?
Mr. Rector. Yes, there are 90 such programs. Every single
one of them has a significant marriage penalty. It is the way
to understand these programs is if you had the income tax code
where you did not have a category ``married, filing jointly,''
so that as soon as you got married you would be moved into a
higher tax bracket and you would be penalized.
Every program is designed like that. That makes no sense,
OK. It never has made any sense. I have been watching this for
40 years, and it will not make sense tomorrow. We need to stop
doing that.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Can you give me just a couple of maybe
common programs that seem as if they were designed to punish
traditional married couples?
Mr. Rector. Absolutely. Food stamps, Section 8 housing,
Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit, WIC. Every single one
of these programs operates this way, that if you get married to
an employed man, to the employed father, you lose roughly half
of those benefits. I mean, it does not make any sense, and it
is an irony that most poor people understand this. They
understand that they are going to lose benefits if they get
married, so they cohabit, right, but they do not form stable
bonds. They do not make public commitments, and so forth,
because we basically said do not do that.
You can hide the father in the home, to cohabit with him.
Just do not tell us about it, OK, and you will be doing fine.
But if you were to go out and make a public commitment, and so
forth and so on, we are going to take $25,000 away from you. It
is an absolutely nutty system, but it is the system that we
have.
Mr. Grothman. OK. Do you know about how much we spend today
on what we refer to as welfare programs?
Mr. Rector. Yes. I would say it is about $1.6 trillion. It
is about six percent of GDP. I would say that we are probably
spending about $700 billion on low-income families with
children, and about 80 percent of that goes to single moms. It
is a subsidy system for single parenthood. It has been since
the beginning of the war on poverty. And if you take that, and
you just take the total amount of money that we spend on
families with kids, which is again close, probably to, $600 to
$700 billion, and you divide it by, say, the bottom income
third of the population, you come up with something like
$60,000 per family.
So, we say we do not spend enough--we do not even know how
much money you spend. There is Federal record of total spending
on means-tested programs for children. You have to go through
the budget, line by line, and bring it out. And when you find
it, it is an enormous amount of money. And we do not know where
that money goes. If you were to go to any state in the United
States and take any given family and ask the question, ``How
much does this family get from welfare?'' no one knows the
answer to that, because they are getting benefits from six or
seven programs at the same time. It is all disparate, the
programs do not talk to each other, and there is no record on
how much they get.
So, one of the clear things we ought to have is a clear
record of what the family gets, integrated, so we know that,
OK, and we also ought to put that into our poverty measurement
system. We just were told, oh, we do not spend enough, and we
have one in five children living in poverty today. Well, you
have one in five children living in poverty because of that
$600 or $700 billion that you spend. None of that is counted as
income for purposes of poverty. It is all hidden. It is all off
the books. And therefore, all the spending on any of these
programs, by definition, has no effect on poverty, because it
is not counted as income. Food stamps is not income. Housing is
not income. The EITC is not income. It is all off the books. No
matter how much you spend on it, it has no effect on poverty,
except it makes it worse because you are going to reduce
earnings. Earnings are counted. So, you are going to have more
poverty, not less, as a result of these programs.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Whenever I hear about this topic,
I remember the stuff on Black Lives Matter, where one of their
goals was to get rid of the traditional Western prescribed
family. It did not prevent people from marching with them,
despite their goal was to get rid of the family.
Mr. Rector. Primary goal of Marx and Engels, as well.
Mr. Grothman. Right. Ms. Onwuka, is it true that many
welfare programs do not require recipients to work?
Ms. Onwuka. It is true. When we look at a number of
different programs, we see that either states have exempted
individuals in their jurisdiction from work requirements or
that there are programs that just simply do not have them. So,
those are loopholes that I think should be closed, and Congress
can work with states to ensure that states are not waiving
these requirements.
Mr. Grothman. I will give you guys just one more question,
either one of you. Since this big explosion of what we call the
welfare programs in the mid 1960s, do you know what has
happened to the birth rate in which the father stays around and
does not stay around, what effect Lyndon Johnson's programs had
on that?
Mr. Rector. Yes. When the war on poverty started, seven
percent of children were born outside of wedlock. Today it is
42 percent. It is particularly striking in the Black family,
where the non-marital birth rate, the percentage of children,
were outside of marriage. The Black family survived slavery, it
survived Jim Crow, it survived the Depression, it survived
World War II. So, when you get to the beginning of the war on
poverty, about 15, 16 percent of Black children were born out
of wedlock. In comes the war on poverty. All these different
programs, liberalization of these programs, and the Black
family literally disintegrates within a decade. And now you
have close to 70 percent of Black children being born outside
of wedlock because that is what you pay for. You get what you
pay for.
And that is not just within Blacks. It is also now
beginning to affect moderate-income Whites, Hispanics. Every
low-income family is suffering from that. You are very lucky
that you have any marriage at all in the bottom half of the
population, because they all pay penalties for the fact of
being married.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Krishnamoorthi.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon,
Mr. Rector. You have written welfare payments, quote/unquote,
``increase dependency.'' Isn't that right?
Mr. Rector. I have written that many times.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And in your opinion, dependency on
welfare benefits is a bad thing, obviously.
Mr. Rector. No, I would not say that. I would say that
having welfare benefits is necessary. I am not against the
welfare state. But I believe that the incentives of the welfare
state should help people to go upward rather than to fall apart
and go downward. And the system you have now----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let me just jump in here. I am talking
about dependency. Over-dependency on welfare benefits is a bad
thing?
Mr. Rector. Long-term dependency certainly is, yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let me bring your attention to
something that happened at the Republican National Convention
last summer. In this visual, Teamsters President Sean O'Brian
said, quote, ``The biggest recipients of welfare in this
country are corporations,'' close quote. You do not dispute he
said that, right?
Mr. Rector. I guess not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. In 2023, the CATO Institute, by no
means a liberal think tank, found that the Federal Government
spends more than $100 billion a year on what they call, quote/
unquote, ``corporate welfare.'' You do not dispute that they
found that, right?
Mr. Rector. No, I guess not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Now, Mr. Linden, according to the
Brookings Institute, oil and gas companies annually receive $20
billion in direct Federal subsidies that no other business in
this country gets. And you do not dispute that the Brookings
Institute found that either, right?
Mr. Linden. Nope. That is absolutely right.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Look, if we are going to talk about
reforming the welfare state, Mr. Chair, let us also look at
corporate welfare. In the words of Paul Ryan, the former
Speaker, quote, ``Republicans cannot make the case to the
American people that Republicans are the reform party if
Republicans will not reform the giant corporate welfare state
in Washington.''
Chairman, this is a theme I will be returning to on this
Committee as we proceed.
Let me turn to my next topic. Sir, Mr. Rector, according to
The Washington Post, you said the following, quote, ``Is
poverty harmful for childhood?'' Question. ``I think not.'' You
do not dispute that you said this, right?
Mr. Rector. No.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Let us explore if poverty is harmful.
The NIH, under President Trump, found that poverty is
consistently associated with academic achievement gaps, as
early as kindergarten, and by age 14, lower-income students
are, quote, ``a full year behind their peers.'' You do not
dispute the NIH found that, right?
Mr. Rector. I could explain what I am saying in the quote
if you want me to.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I am asking you, you do not dispute
that the NIH found that these academic----
Mr. Rector. I assume you do not want me to explain.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. Gaps exist.
Mr. Rector. No, I do not.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. I would like to bring your attention to
a Department of HHS study, which finds that childhood poverty
is associated with, quote, ``development delays, chronic
illness, and nutritional deficits.'' Mr. Linden, you do not
dispute that the HHS found that, and I presume that you agree
with them.
Mr. Linden. Yes. I mean, there are a lot of studies that
show childhood poverty has long-term negative effects for the
children and the economy as a whole.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So academic gaps, development delays,
along with chronic illness.
Now, in addition, Mr. Rector, you said, to The Heritage
Foundation in 2007, quote, ``Most poor children are super-
nourished.'' You do not dispute you said that, right?
Mr. Rector. That is exactly what the USDA data shows. Yes,
I have read the reports. Very few people have.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You are not a doctor, right? You are
not a medical doctor.
Mr. Rector. No. I am an expert in these programs.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You are not a medical doctor, are you?
Mr. Rector. I do know more about nutrition----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You know more about nutrition than a
medical doctor?
Mr. Rector. I know more about nutrition in welfare programs
than any doctor.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. You are not a nutritionist, are you?
Mr. Rector. I said exactly what I am saying. If you want to
look at the----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. It is a simple yes-or-no question. You
are not a nutritionist, are you?
Mr. Rector. No. I----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And you are not a----
Mr. Rector. I am an expert in the food stamp program----
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Sir, anybody who----
Mr. Rector [continuing]. And nutritional effects.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. Anybody who----
Mr. Rector. Do you want to talk about the food stamp
program and its nutritional effects, or do you want to
grandstand?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Anybody who thinks that childhood
poverty is not harmful to children unfortunately should not be
talking about whether these welfare programs benefit families
or not.
Let me turn your attention----
Mr. Rector. Would you like me to explain what I meant by
that?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi [continuing]. To my final topic, in my
limited time. On January 31, Politico quoted Donald Trump as
promising to, quote, ``love and cherish Medicaid.'' Mr. Linden,
you do not dispute that Politico reported that, right?
Mr. Linden. They definitely reported that.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Donald Trump also promised that, quote,
``The people will not be affected. Medicaid will only be more
effective and better.'' That is what he said, right?
Mr. Linden. That is what he is promising.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Punchbowl News reported, quote, ``The
Energy and Commerce Committee currently is eyeing up to $2
trillion in cuts to Medicaid.'' You do not dispute they
reported this, do you, Mr. Rector? This is what Punchbowl News
said.
Mr. Rector. I am not aware of that.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Michael, can you tell us briefly what
would happen if $2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid actually
occurred, in terms of the number of people who would be dropped
from Medicaid?
Mr. Linden. Yes, tens of millions would lose coverage or
benefits, or both. There is just no way around it. Those level
of cuts, there is not tweaks or efficiencies to be found that
is one-third of total Medicaid spending at the Federal level.
It is not there. Just one of the proposals that I have heard
being batted around would mean 36 million potential people
would lose coverage. So, there is a lot of harm here.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. We are at a proverbial fork in the
road. Either we keep President Trump's promise that ``the
people will not be affected,'' close quote, or we accept
trillions in cuts to our safety net programs that drop tens of
millions of people, Americans, from the Medicaid rolls. This
will not only affect them, this will devastate them.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Paul Gosar.
Mr. Gosar. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with all
your comments, Mr. Rector. I think you have come up with really
good ways.
Let me ask you something first. I want to ask you, did
AHCCCS in Arizona cut people off of the rolls?
Mr. Rector. I am not entirely familiar with the specific
program.
Mr. Gosar. OK, so we got an exemption on Medicaid, and we
did it ourselves. It did not cut.
Mr. Rector. Was this the work requirements.
Mr. Gosar. No, no, no. It was AHCCCS. It is called AHCCCS.
It is a Medicaid--we got a waiver and we tried to hit different
populations. So, just looking at the incentivization or the
growth of a product does not mean you are cutting people off,
does it?
Mr. Rector. It depends on what you are doing.
Mr. Gosar. Oh, that is all I wanted to hear, because it
came across by saying it does.
Mr. Rector. Well, Congressman----
Mr. Gosar. No, it is my time. It is my time.
Mr. Rector. If you are cutting----
Mr. Gosar. It is my time. Hold on. Hold on. It is my time.
Mr. Rector. Fair enough.
Mr. Gosar. OK. So, if we were to look at using that FMAP,
and you saying we are going to use inflation to carry it on,
and block that back to the states, tell me how that
disincentivizes opportunities. Tell me how that does.
Mr. Rector. I can do that.
Mr. Gosar. Go ahead, quickly.
Mr. Rector. So, if you are block-granting Medicaid and you
are capping the growth of Medicaid below health care costs, by
definition----
Mr. Gosar. No, I did not say that. I did not say that. I
said capping it according to inflation.
Mr. Rector. But health care costs grow faster than
inflation----
Mr. Gosar. That is----
Mr. Rector [continuing]. In the private sector. And, in
fact, the private sector grows faster than the public sector.
So, if you are capping Medicaid costs below the growth of
healthcare spending, then, by definition, you are going to be
cutting Medicaid funding for the states, and states will have
to either reduce benefits or cut people off the rolls. And the
important thing here is the savings being considered here will
be funneled into tax cuts for rich people and corporations. You
are not putting those savings back into Medicaid. You are not
saying let us make this work better. What you are saying----
Mr. Gosar. OK, so, that is gratuitous.
Mr. Rector. Let us cut taxes for rich people?
Mr. Gosar. Ms. Onwuka, I am glad you brought up COVID, you
know, because we went on this spending spree, of $4.8 to $7
trillion. Not a single receipt exists out there. And NIH, we
talk about the NIH doing this and that, this is the same NIH
that gave us COVID and an improper appropriation to how we took
care of it. You know, it is sick.
So, can you tell me a little bit more about your opinion?
Did this continuous enrollment opportunities for Medicaid, how
does it buildup waste, fraud, and abuse?
Ms. Onwuka. Sure. During COVID, obviously, and frankly
during recessions, we tend to see the enrollments in Medicare
and some of the other welfare programs increase. Now, that
said, the economies bounce back, and so as people gain
employment, they should fall off things like SNAP. They should
fall off certain programs. But we have not seen that, and COVID
supercharged that. Even with the Child Tax Credit, for example,
that was expanded, a Republican idea, the Child Tax Credit, but
it was expanded and morphed into universal basic income by
paying it out in monthly increments to every household and
removing work requirements.
So, when you remove work requirements you provide waivers
for states, and you create these loopholes where states can
certainly roll people into these different programs, regardless
of what their resources are or their income, then that is how
you see these enrollments increase. And it is a shame that we
are spending as much money that we are and our enrollment
numbers are not falling. That is telling us something.
Mr. Gosar. Well, I tell you what. I am so excited for this
event, looking at this idea coming about, of wellness. I cannot
tell you. I am a dentist, previously, so I love the fact that
we are going to hopefully look at wellness, OK.
But I want to know more about this. This Families First
Coronavirus Response Act provided advanced Federal funding or
the FMAP to states to continuously enroll Medicaid
beneficiaries. I want to get to this point. So, what did the
states do? They just kept enrolling. In fact, they never ever
followed through. There was no accountability to it, everybody
that was under this FMAP, OK. For 3 years we did this.
So, tell me how you would feel about that aspect.
Ms. Onwuka. Well, I mean, it is concerning when you have so
many able-bodied people. We are not talking about people who
have disabilities or are not able to work, but able-bodied
people who are participating in programs like Medicaid because
it has been expanded so much, we are talking about 60 percent
of able-bodied adults on Medicaid, 25 million Americans who are
reporting no earned income.
So, that is telling us that there are people who can work,
we know that there are millions of open positions, and they are
participating in the Medicaid program, but they are not
working. That is a problem that needs to be fixed, and there is
something there that is broken that needs to be rectified.
Mr. Gosar. And we are also seeing the fact that there is no
accountability. The Federal Government is not going back, the
states are not going back and saying, ``Hey, listen. You had
private insurance. Why did you take this?'' So, there is no
accountability whatsoever, so we just blanket across the board.
I do want to thank you, Mr. Linden, because I think you
were one of the people that supported my thing about McCarran-
Ferguson and developing in regard to health care. That is why I
want to see new ideas, new advantages, all that across the
board. So, from that I will say thank you. I will yield back.
Mr. Linden. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Next, we have Ms. Randall.
Ms. Randall. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. It is delightful
to get the chance to talk about health care access in this
first Subcommittee hearing, and I want to start out, being a
new Member, and I do not know if this makes me a radical
feminist or not, I am a married woman but I do not have a man
in my family.
But I do believe that we need to make sure that access to
the services that folks need is not--that we do not create
additional barriers. And I believe that because of really
personal experience. When I was 7 years old, my sister, Olivia,
was born with microcephaly, which is a complex disability. The
doctors did not know how long she would live or if she would
live. My dad had a good government civilian job, had good
Federal employee insurance, but it would not have covered all
of the equipment and specialists that Olivia needed to survive
in our family. But because the Washington State legislature, in
1993, was one of the first states in the country to expand
Medicaid, Olivia was able to survive and thrive in our family.
And because of special education funding, she was able to go to
school, be integrated in her classroom.
And that is when I learned that government can play a role
in making people's lives better, and ensuring that families
have the tools to build strong futures, ensuring that children,
like my sister and my brother and I, can be civically involved
community members and can build better for our kids and our
kids' kids.
I am also the first of my family to go to college. I
benefited from financial aid. When my parents got divorced, my
mom, after being a primary caregiver for my sister, struggled
to re-enter the workforce, and SNAP benefits made a difference
for us.
You know, I went on to break a lot of barriers in my
family, and was elected to the State Senate, where I had the
chance to chair the Higher Education and Workforce Development
Committee for 5 years, where I heard story after story after
story that was like mine and my family's, working parents who
were trying to go to school so that they could build a better
future for their kids, who were penalized, and who were not
able to dedicate the time to their schoolwork because they were
trying to hit the work requirements. Students were penalized
because they got a little bit of a raise, a tiny, tiny, tiny
bit of a raise, which meant that they lost their childcare
benefits or their housing benefits or their food assistance
benefits. Those cliffs are what keep so many families in
poverty.
And I also believe that we should tackle the marriage
penalty. I have talked to a number of particularly disabled
parents who want to get married, who want to build a strong
family unit, but who do not have the opportunity because they
know that they will be made homeless by getting married and
losing the benefits that are allowing their children to have
health care and thrive.
Mr. Linden, I do not know if you have tracked any of
Washington State's response to the Great Recession. I assume
that it is like many states, we were forced to make some cuts
to our safety net programs. Can you speak at all about any
other states that made cuts to programs, safety net programs,
under the Great Recession, and what impact that had on
families?
Mr. Linden. Yes, absolutely. I think stepping back broadly,
we know that when states and localities are forced to pull back
on aid to struggling families because of economic resources,
because the Federal Government has cut back, that the effects
are very long-term. Certainly, people get hurt right away, but
there is something in the economic literature that we call
``scarring,'' kind of a gross term, but it does capture the
real long-term effects of people getting thrown off of these
programs before they are able to pick themselves up. You see it
years and years afterwards. They have lower educational
attainment, lower earnings, less attachment to the workforce.
All the things that we want to see, you get the opposite of
that.
I am sure that happened in Washington State. It happened
all over the country. It happened in other countries.
Ms. Randall. We definitely saw that impact in Washington
State, and in fact, what we saw was a greater strain on the
budget long-term, because since we kicked folks off of programs
that were allowing them to build themselves up, then we had to
pay for housing and other safety net programs, longer term, not
only for the parents but for the children as they grew up.
Washington State, like many states in the country, also has
extensive workforce shortage, and one of the ways that we meet
that is by ensuring that folks get credential attainment after
high school. We have a goal of 75 percent credential
attainment. None of that is possible if we are ensuring that
families are not able to access education, to keep a roof over
their head, to send their kids to childcare, and to thrive. So,
I hope as we think about what is good for families and what is
good for our economy, we remember that these programs provide
support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. We will now go to the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Sessions.
Mr. Sessions. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Mr.
Rector, I would like to play a game with you. What is the
amount of money, total, that you believe a family of four, that
is married, two children, what is the amount of money that you
believe that they should have total benefits for?
By the way, I think I am looking for you to help me in this
endeavor.
Mr. Rector. Maybe you are trying to figure out how much
they currently get.
Mr. Sessions. Well, no. I think what I am trying to say is
if you go to the poverty level, line, and then you add in
whatever amount of money you would choose to add in, what is
that correct level that you believe would be something that
would be a good number to say if a person makes this much, what
is that number?
Mr. Rector. I think that you can very easily, within the
current system, ensure that any family that has work could have
enough benefits to get to, say $100----
Mr. Sessions. I am not saying that. Maybe I cut you off. I
am sorry. Go ahead.
Mr. Rector. The welfare system is designed to reinforce
work and to supplement work.
Mr. Sessions. And that is what I said. I said married----
Mr. Rector. Right.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. And then what is that amount of
money? I am trying to look at work and then amount of benefits,
because I think there ought to be a sliding scale----
Mr. Rector. Right.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Up and down, instead of you do
not qualify, or we do this, or we penalize. It ought to be, OK,
if we decided--I am just going to say it--$100,000. I am
playing the game I wanted you to play. If you just said,
``$100,000, Congressman Sessions, would be an amount of money
that I believe a family of four, husband that worked, husband
and wife that are married, they need $100,000, however you
cobble it together, to live.'' And then we looked at the amount
of money that they make, and then we looked at the amount of
money that they received benefits for. And we just said,
$100,000. That way we are not penalizing marriage.
Now I can have this wrong, but that is one way to look at
it. And then you would go and sit down with a person, whoever
it might be, maybe it is a computer, and say, I work and my
salary is this, and my wife's salary is this, and our tax level
is this. Maybe they do not pay any taxes. To get to $100,000, I
am allowed to add in benefits that look like the following
matters, and that we encouraged marriage instead of then
telling them, ``No, you do not qualify,'' or what you do, let
them package together the things that they believe they needed
the most.
What kind of game is that? Is that too much of an
articulation of maybe a philosophy?
Mr. Rector. No. I think if you look at what we currently
spend, if we are spending through the means-tested welfare
system close to $60,000 for every family that has an income in
the bottom third of the population, it is a huge amount of
money which no one knows where it is going, for the most part.
But you can very easily, within that system, ensure that any
family that has at least one working parent, has an income, oh,
say 150 percent of the poverty rate. You can easily do that.
But the current system, first of all, all the spending is
hidden. It is not on the books, OK.
Mr. Sessions. I agree with that, and we put it on the
books.
Mr. Rector. No, you do not. If you look at, like, the
measurement of poverty, 95 percent of the $1.6 trillion you
spend every year is off the books. It is not counted. It has
effect on poverty.
Mr. Sessions. I did not say you would not count it. I am
saying we would count it.
Mr. Rector. Oh, you definitely count it, and then you have
a system that has incentives that promotes people to work----
Mr. Sessions. I agree.
Mr. Rector [continuing]. And to get married. And you get
rid of all the fraud, which is in there, which is huge, and you
can definitely do that for considerably less than you are
spending today. But you have to be honest about what the
benefits are, who is getting them. You have to count that in
terms of measuring poverty. I mean, you have a $1.6 trillion
welfare system.
Mr. Sessions. Well, I have read Phil Gramm's book. I get
that.
Mr. Rector. OK.
Mr. Sessions. I am trying to reverse engineer it. I am not
trying to take the time of this important panel. I am trying to
say, is that something that might be a better----
Mr. Rector. Yes.
Mr. Sessions [continuing]. Way to look at, because I think
it is. For instance, the gentlewoman just before me talked
about her mother had to probably quit work because of her
sister. Not unusual. I have a Down syndrome son. There are
people in family emergencies, and they cut down one person
working, and all of a sudden much of their income is cut in
half.
So, I have dealt with these circumstances. I am trying to
say it seems like we could have a workbook, a paper, that would
say, OK, here is where you have got to be. You are at this. And
our job is to try and get you there. And then make it easier
for someone that is married to stay married. That way there is
less back-and-forth.
OK. I am interested in getting in touch with you. I am
interested in seeing if we could design a sheet of paper that
could be a potential model of saying if we get to this, how do
we get to this, how do we encourage that, and then seeing if we
can float that with any ideas around it.
You are very kind. Thank you for playing my game. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. Ms. Simon.
Ms. Simon. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to
our witnesses who have come here today to talk about the issues
surrounding family, and the health of our families, the health
of our children. It is the reason that I came to the U.S.
Congress.
For the folks who are listening in, there are women and
mothers who are escaping domestic violence, and families who
have small children who are trying to finish school. You know,
the farmer that called my office, out of district, so nervous,
so nervous that there is the potentiality of his family losing
benefits because our system will count his small amount of land
and his farm equipment as assets, and he has a severely
disabled child. I care so much, as you all do. I believe we
uniquely all have a deep place in our professional and personal
spaces for the American family.
I do not believe that there--I am making an assumption, so
I will ask--are there any members of the witnesses who came
here today that were a single parent?
[No response.]
Ms. Simon. Any witnesses who have ever collected SNAP or
WIC?
[No response.]
Ms. Simon. I appreciate it, because we need people on both
sides, our advocates, our organizers, our academics.
I was a teen mom, a single teen mom, and I had my daughter
while I was in college, community college. And I worked three
jobs, and I got $28 of food stamps. And because I am legally
blind and I was not able to drive, I would have to catch a bus
an hour in Martinez, Contra Costa County, in the Bay Area, to
get that $28. At one point, it just felt like it was just too
much. But I kept my WIC.
And I would go to the grocery store--every month, you only
get WIC once a month--and I would go and I was humiliated every
single time purchasing beans and rice and milk, and being asked
to put back because the milk maybe was two ounces more than the
WIC stamps cost. Being poor is hard, trying to live up to the
values in this country of working hard and raising children.
In fact, I got married later on. My husband died of
leukemia. I will tell this story every single day. My 13-year-
old is at school right now, in Washington, DC. It is a snow
day. I am a single mom and a widow. No one is there to pick her
up. I am asking her to wait on the stairs.
So, when we are going to talk about families, let us really
talk about families. We talked about so many of the stats that
are put before us.
I only have one question, but I want to give a little bit
more background. During our last work week, members, I took
members of my leadership of our party on a tour of University
of California's Benioff Children's Hospital. It is an amazing
facility, one of the state-of-the-art burn centers. It is a
sickle cell center. They provide stem cell transplants to
children. There are fears that much of this federally funded
immediate care may be denied to low-income families who are
just trying to survive.
They are also really thinking about, the leaders of this
hospital, they are thinking about what they are going to do
should our Administration attack the 340B Drug Pricing Program.
Again, as someone who spent a lot of time with my husband when
he was living and dying, trying to move through cancer, the
program is essential, not only for our adults fighting life-
critical diseases but for our children.
And I also met with our federally qualified health centers,
diabetes care, prenatal care. When I was pregnant as a
teenager, I got all of my prenatal care from Planned
Parenthood.
I have one question. Actually, the question--I have a
statement, actually, before the question, and let me get it
clear. What I heard earlier was this estimation of poor women
should immediately work when they give birth to their children,
or it is really important to have work requirements. You know,
I agree that folks should work. I have run organizations that
put young women to work. But we do not have the same
expectation for middle class and wealthy women. We are asking
them to stay at home, take care of your babies.
So, I am curious, you know, Mr. Linden, with all the
hypocrisy in this conversation we know that poor folks struggle
to just make it, and they are pathologized every step of the
way. When we are talking about the plan to cut Medi-Cal at $2
trillion, give me 7 seconds of what the effects could be on our
low-income families in this country.
Mr. Linden. Sure. Seven seconds. We would cut millions of
people from their lifesaving health care, and for what? To fund
tax cuts for billionaires. That is what the discussion is right
now in Congress. Should we or should we not take health care
away from low-and moderate-income families so that we can have
more room to give tax cuts to billionaires and corporations. I
think the American people would be pretty unhappy to find that
is what is under discussion her.
Ms. Simon. I appreciate it and I yield back. Thank you so
much.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. The gentleman from Texas, Mr.
Gill.
Mr. Gill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. The
great economist, Milton Friedman, once quipped that you can
either have a welfare state or you can have open borders, but
you should not have both, and I do not think you should have
either, for one.
You know, we have talked, and we have heard a lot over the
past 4 years about root causes of mass illegal immigration into
our country, and I would like to perhaps suggest a few of them,
and they are coming from the other side of the aisle, in that
we are creating a welfare state that incentivizes mass
migration into our country from every country on the globe that
is poorer than we are.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to say
that illegal aliens cannot get welfare. I think that that is
verifiably not true. In fact, illegal aliens and their families
can receive welfare from about over a dozen different programs.
I will list out a few of them: food stamps, child nutritional
programs, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Supplemental
Security Income, childcare and development block grants, the
Earned Income Tax Credit, the Child Tax Credit, Obamacare
premium tax credit, Obamacare cost sharing subsidies, Medicare,
Medicaid, the Children's Health Insurance Program, Pell Grants,
student loans, Head Start, public housing, and the Coronavirus
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund.
Whenever we think about how much money we are giving to
illegal aliens, the numbers really are absolutely staggering,
and I can give you just a few of them. Let me pull them up
here. We spend, on illegal aliens and their families, over $3
billion in primary and secondary education, $580 million on
limited English proficiency programs, $239 million for migrant
schooling, $2.8 billion for Head Start programs, over $8
billion in uncompensated hospital expenditures, nearly $1.6
billion for Medicaid births, almost $8 billion a year on
Medicaid fraud, $5.4 billion for Medicaid for U.S.-born
children of illegal aliens.
In terms of law enforcement costs, we spend almost $1.7
billion on Federal incarceration of illegal aliens, $4.1
billion for enforcement and removal operations, $8.6 billion
for Customs and Border Protection, $1.7 billion for other ICE
operations, $237 million for State Criminal Alien Assistance
Programs, over $8 billion for alien minors, and I am going to
keep going, $191 million for DoD National Guard deployment.
If we look just at welfare, we spend over $1.5 billion for
meals in schools for illegal aliens and their children, $5.8
billion for SNAP, just under $1 billion for WIC, $1.4 billion
for TANF programs, $991 million for Child Care and Development
Fund, $334 million for public housing, $600 million for
Supplemental Security Income--I think in the context of a
Federal debt that is at $36 trillion. I think that is utterly
absurd.
As it all comes out, according to various estimates, we are
spending right around $50 billion, on the Federal level, on
illegal aliens and their families, and about $100 billion a
year on the state level, as well.
Mr. Linden, I would like to start with you, and I know we
only have a little bit of time. But do you think it makes sense
that we provide welfare benefits for illegal aliens and their
children?
Mr. Linden. I think it does not make sense to spend
multiple times that on subsidies to corporations and rich
people.
Mr. Gill. But do you think we should be taxing working
class American families to pay for welfare for illegal aliens?
Mr. Linden. I genuinely believe we should make sure that
the welfare and health care and nutrition programs that we have
in this country are going to the people who are entitled to
them, who are in the law, what the law says who should get
them. And I also think that if we are worried about the Federal
deficit and debt, we are spending multiples times what you just
described there on tax cuts for rich people and corporations.
And I do not understand the focus----
Mr. Gill. There is a difference between providing tax cuts
for American citizens and providing handouts for illegal
aliens.
Mr. Linden. Huge beneficiaries of these tax cuts are
foreign investors. One of my----
Mr. Gill. I hope you guys continue----
Mr. Linden. One of the biggest----
Mr. Gill. I hope your side of the aisle continues defending
welfare for illegal aliens, because Republicans will win every
single election in perpetuity of that is your view.
And Mr. Chairman, I yield my time. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. Well, thank you. Have another new person we
are getting used to here.
Mr. Bell from Missouri?
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, let us level set here.
It is no secret that Republicans want to cut Federal programs
that hardworking families rely on in order to fund tax cuts for
the wealthiest among us. And Democrats will continue to fight
for programs like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security
because we cannot turn our backs on the people that need us
most.
A month ago, I was an elected DA back home, and I am going
to give you all a piece of advice that I got a long time ago.
You want to fix public safety? Fix your health systems. So,
there is a public safety component to ensuring that everyone
has access to quality healthcare
So, like my colleague on the other side, I would also like
to play a game. And we should be able to find bipartisan
consensus that waste, fraud, and abuse within Federal programs
is intolerable. We should also support Inspectors General and
law enforcement personnel that have dedicated their careers to
rooting out this fraud and recovering lost funds from bad
actors.
Instead, I have been very disappointed, and dismayed, for
that fact, that President Trump spent his first week in office
firing Inspectors General and career prosecutors, including
people who were tasked with investigating and preventing fraud
within the very programs our Republican colleagues claim are
ripe for abuse. I want to stress the importance of our
independent and nonpartisan Inspectors General. The work they
do should be commended.
So, let us also play a money or investment game. For the
relatively small investment made in Offices of Inspector
Generals, the taxpayer receives a massive return on that
investment. In Fiscal Year 2023, Inspectors General detected
and clawed back as much $93 billion in taxpayer funds. By one
measure, for every $1 invested in an Office of Inspector
Generals, $26 is saved by their oversight work.
So, Mr. Linden, President Trump fired the HHS Inspector
General in January. What impact will this have on the ability
for people to defraud Medicare and Medicaid.
Mr. Linden. It will make it a lot easier, and exactly as
you said, Congressman, if we are really interested in rooting
out waste, fraud, and abuse, I am all for that. We should be
spending every single dollar of American taxpayers with
responsibility and oversight. And when we find those savings,
let us reinvest them into the people who actually need those
benefits and who actually deserve those benefits, who will grow
our economy. Let us not give that money to the wealthy and
corporations.
Mr. Bell. And staying on that, what signal does removing a
watchdog send to bad actors intentionally seeking to defraud
the government?
Mr. Linden. It says that it is open season for fraudsters.
If these Inspectors General are not on the job, looking out for
the American taxpayer, who is doing it? Is it Elon Musk? I do
not trust him.
Mr. Bell. Our colleagues on the other side push this common
misperception that increasing access to Federal programs will
lead to rampant fraud and abuse. Why is that untrue?
Mr. Linden. It is simply not true. We can absolutely
increase access and the generosity of benefits, the
availability of benefits, at the same time making sure that
those benefits are going to the people who we intend them to go
to and stopping scammers and fraudsters from taking advantage
of the low-and moderate-income people who need those benefits.
Mr. Bell. Without independent Inspectors General at the
wheel, effective oversight diminishes, and programs that
Congress established become far more vulnerable to waste,
fraud, and abuse. If my colleagues across the aisle were truly
serious about examining how to cut down on waste or fraud, then
President Trump's purge of independent watchdogs would be a
flashing red light telling us something is wrong. We should
come together, make sure that independent Inspectors General
are nominated, confirmed, and committed to a career that is
free from political influence and games.
Thank you, and I yield my time to the Ranking Member.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Inspectors
General, you know, Mr. Rector, let me ask you this question.
What is your opinion about the utility of having Inspectors
General at the agencies where they are supposed to be rooting
out waste, fraud, and abuse?
Mr. Rector. Well, that is fine, but you actually have to
work and do something about the reports they give you. For
example, the Inspector General at the IRS has told us for
decades that there is about a 37 percent fraud rate in the
EITC. Now, I have read all those reports. I have done all that
analysis.
So, I could sit down here this afternoon and tell you
exactly how to prevent all that fraud, prevent the money from
going out the door in the first place, because it does not do
any good to have an audit of 10,000 people when you have a
caseload of 22 million. You say over and over again there is
fraud, fraud, fraud. Nothing is done. I can tell you right now
I could stop every single bit of that fraud in the EITC. I have
already written out how to do it, OK.
So, the question is whether you want to act on that fraud
and act on those reports or whether you want to continue the
fraud to flow out that door. The EITC is noted for having a
high fraud rate. The reason for that is it is the only program
that the government, correctly, audits. There are no meaningful
audits in food stamps. There are none in Section 8. And if you
had a good audit on them, you would find equal fraud rates
there, as well, OK. But then when you know what the fraud is,
you know how it is done, you have to stop it. We have known how
the fraud is done in the EITC and the ACTC for decades, but
there is nothing that is done to stop it. I could stop it
tomorrow afternoon.
Mr. Grothman. We will give my good buddy here, Mr.
Krishnamoorthi, a follow-up.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, I am with you on this, which is
what I hear you saying is, do the audit, but then act on it.
Mr. Rector. Yes.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. So, the utility of Inspectors General
is high, but you have to act on their advice.
Mr. Rector. Absolutely.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Grothman. OK. The new gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
McGuire.
Mr. McGuire. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, it is
immoral and indefensible to use taxpayer dollars to support a
border invasion. Illegal aliens, the criminals, are robbing,
raping, and killing the American people. It is also
indefensible and immoral to put boys in girls' sports and boys
in girls' bathrooms, and to allow this fentanyl being produced
in China to come across the southern border and poison the
American people. More people die every year from fentanyl
overdose than died in the Vietnam War. They say age 18 to 45,
it is the No. 1 cause of death in the country.
I think it is also immoral and indefensible to spend $1.6
trillion on these programs with no record of where that went. I
think I heard testimony--is that correct, Mr. Rector, $1.6
trillion, and we have no idea where it is going and how it is
measured.
Mr. Rector. That is correct. And to the extent that you
have any measures, they hide it.
Mr. McGuire. That is why President Trump got a mandate.
There are two things missing in our country right now--trust,
President Trump is bringing back trust because he is doing what
he campaigned on. He got the popular vote, and he got the
electoral college.
But he is also bringing back fairness. Eighty percent of
Americans, regardless of race, religion, creed, or party,
believe that it is wrong to have boys in girls' sports. Yet for
some reason our colleagues on the other side think that is OK.
I think it is immoral and indefensible.
I also think it is indefensible that there is no clear
record of how much money each family gets. Is it $100,000? Is
it $50,000? We have no idea.
Ms.--I hope I do not pronounce it wrong--Onwuka?
Ms. Onwuka. Onwuka.
Mr. McGuire. Onwuka?
Ms. Onwuka. Yes.
Mr. McGuire. I really, really appreciate your comments on
the family, the breakdown of the nuclear family. You know, I
heard Mr. Rector say it does not make any sense why every
single safety net program is against the family. Is that how
you said that, Mr. Rector?
Mr. Rector. That is correct.
Mr. McGuire. That is just indefensible, and it makes no
sense. And, I heard you say it makes no sense, but it makes
sense to me why they are doing this, because the strength of
our country is that our religious values, our Judeo-Christian
values, this country was founded in the church, but it is also
the strength of the nuclear family. And you remember, on the
Black Lives Matter website, it used to say their purpose was to
break down the nuclear family.
So, when you say you do not know why they are doing it, I
think they are telling us. And when someone is telling you why
they are doing something, you should believe that.
I would say that our social safety net should focus on
supporting the truly poor and vulnerable, for able-bodied
individuals that need assistance. And I would say work
requirements for welfare programs are essential because they
encourage self-sufficiency, reduce long-term dependency, and
help individuals gain the skills and experience needed to
achieve financial independence.
Ms. Onwuka, in your testimony you stated that an estimated
24.6 million able-bodied adults on Medicaid reported no earned
income, and no one ever drops off the program. So, are they
always poor forever? And during the pandemic that picked up.
What factors contribute to this large number of non-working
recipients?
Ms. Onwuka. Well, in part it has to do with how people are
enrolled and whether they qualify. And whether you are talking
about Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, some of these other programs, there
are lots of loopholes that can easily either roll people into
some of these programs or waive the eligibility requirements.
So, I think that is where the concern is.
And if I may just make a quick point. I appreciated hearing
some of the personal stories. I am an immigrant. I am a
naturalized citizen. So, I came to this country, and I grew up
in a very poor neighborhood. And a lot of people on programs
that we are talking about today are my classmates. And I
recognize that the ones who did well were the ones who had
parents who were working and managed to move from dependency
programs into independence. They saved and bought a house, like
my family did, and moved out of the poor neighborhoods and away
from the negative influences there.
So, I think that my colleagues who want to see welfare
reform are not doing it from an uncompassionate place but
actually from a compassionate place, to say, you know what, we
want you to be able to be a master of your own destiny, and
that is by making sure you are moving from dependency into
independence and fruitfulness.
Mr. McGuire. I agree with that.
Ms. Onwuka. And that comes with some of these tougher
things that need to be done.
Mr. McGuire. So, I was abandoned as a child, at 5 years
old. I had been in the foster care system, nine different
elementary schools. And we had some of those programs, as well.
But we, by the strength of a family and working hard, we got
our way out of that.
Mr. Linden, do you believe there is dignity in work?
Mr. Linden. Absolutely.
Mr. McGuire. You know, one of the things I hear all around
my district is we cannot find workers at our restaurant and at
our other business. So, it is irresponsible to not know how
much money is being spent and where it is being spent. And that
is why I am so glad that President Trump got a mandate, and I
trust Elon Musk. In just 2 weeks he has identified millions and
millions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse that American
people suspected, but we could not get a clear answer. And he
is just getting started.
And with that I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. We will--Mr.
Krishnamoorthi has a couple of things he wants to take care of.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes. I just wanted to do a little bit
of housekeeping here. First, I want unanimous consent to enter
this article by the World Economic Forum titled, quote, ``New
research busts the myth of welfare dependency,'' which
summarizes economic research showing the belief that social
safety net programs cause dependency is not based on reality
and nothing more than a misleading myth. I would like to enter
that into the record.
Mr. Grothman. OK. We will do that.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. And then I would like unanimous consent
to enter into the record a report by the Center on Budget and
Policy Priorities titled, ``Medicaid work requirements could
put 36 million people at risk of losing health coverage.'' This
report estimates 36 million people could lose Medicaid coverage
if Republicans conditioned health coverage on a variety of
requirements that are currently under consideration by the
Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you. We will enter that into the
record.
Mr. Grothman. Now I will ask you if you want to do a
closing statement.
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for devoting your
time, and thank you to the audience for your attention, as
well.
First of all, I was moved by the different stories,
personal stories, your own, Ms. Onwuka, as well as Mr. McGuire
and Mr. Bell and Ms. Simon.
I think that where social safety net programs work, they
are transformative, and they enable people who are in real need
to overcome that need and do great things, and to live the
American dream.
However, I will be the first to concede that there could be
improvements. But can we do these improvements, can we work on
these improvements in a thoughtful, bipartisan manner? I think
the answer is yes.
And so, for instance, with regard to work requirements,
which Ms. Onwuka talks about, I think that more Democrats would
be interested in working on this issue if they also heard about
potential supports with regard to career technical vocational
education that enables people to get the skills to acquire and
keep the jobs that are out there in the workforce, that we need
them to fill.
I think more Democrats would also be very interested in
working on this issue if we could talk about the issue of
childcare, which is dramatically scarce, not only for poor
people but for all people. I think everyone in this room who
had ever had to pay for childcare knows how prohibitively
expensive it is and how, we talk about a marriage penalty,
there is a child penalty in this country right now that is
operating to, in my opinion, really discourage family
formation, and discourage all the things that we want good to
happen in this country.
So, I would just respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that if
we could also talk about these issues in the context of the
ones that you are talking about, I think we could really have a
thoughtful discussion.
Finally, I respectfully submit cuts of the magnitude being
contemplated in the Energy and Commerce Committee or the Ways
and Means Committee, cuts to the tune of $2 trillion to
Medicaid, would absolutely be devastating to the tens of
millions of families, especially on Medicaid expansion, who are
benefiting from those supports today. In my home state of
Illinois, about 700,000 to 800,000 Illinois residents are on
Medicaid expansion. Are many of them able-bodied adults?
Absolutely? Are many of them working? Yes. Are many of them
incapable of affording private health insurance without these
supports? The answer is absolutely, positively yes. That is why
they crucially depend on Obamacare. They crucially depend on
it.
So, if we are going to take those supports away from them,
they will not have access to healthcare, plain and simple, even
as they continue to work, even as they struggle, even as they
raise their children.
So, that is the question on the table for my good friends
on the other side, which is I understand you are looking for
places to find money. I respectfully submit, do not find money
on the backs of people--poor, working people who cannot get
access to health care in any other way than through Medicaid
and these crucial safety net programs.
With that I want to say thank you, Mr. Chair, for your
indulgence, and I yield back.
Mr. Grothman. Thank you very much. I would like to make my
closing statement and kind of go over where I, by the way, Ms.
Onwuka, I wish we heard more from you. You are just tremendous,
and I wish we did not have just 5 minutes per person here. We
will have to bring you back for another panel on some other
topic.
OK. First of all, when I put together this hearing it was
not my intent that we wind up talking about tax policy at all
or even money that can be saved through these programs. We can
save money, but the problem with these programs--but the
biggest problem to me is not that they cost too much. It is
that our current programs, as Mr.--oh, and by the way, the only
example that I heard today in which somebody threw out we can
do something with the money we save is Mr. Rector, who
suggested taking some of the money we save on the abuse and
putting it into changing the Earned Income Tax Credit, so it
was not so hating of married couples like it is today.
OK. The purpose of this Committee is saying that, well,
while we expanded the welfare state overwhelmingly, what we did
is we created a huge disincentive to raise children with a
mother and father at home. That is incontrovertible. And there
are all sorts of hypotheticals you can come up with, but Mr.
Rector mentioned today a hypothetical in which you would
penalize somebody $28,000 for marrying the father of her
children. I would hope we would think that that was bad public
policy.
We did not get into, though it would be interesting to look
at, the fact that there are some very scary progressive-type
people who dislike marriage and dislike men in the home. I am
thinking, of course, Marx himself; the radical feminist, Kate
Millett; and that crowd, who were hanging around in the 1960s,
and really just wanted to get the man out of the home. And
while I can say they were extremists that did not appeal to a
lot of people, my good friends in the Democratic Party sometime
have a hard time saying no to their extremist friends.
OK. I realize there are many great single parents. I know
them. We all know them. Nevertheless, it is an uphill climb.
And in my opinion, we pass bills in here dealing with crime
problem, drug problem, even the education problem. I talk to
school superintendents about this. All these things are made
worse by the obvious incentive the Federal Government has right
now in discouraging the old-fashioned nuclear family. And this
is not something that just happened in a vacuum. Depending on
the year you pick out, in the 1960s, in the 1950s, 4 to 7
percent of the American families, when there was a new birth,
it was out of wedlock. We are, right now, at 40 percent. That
is a huge difference, and, in my opinion, it happened largely
because of this huge welfare system, with 90 programs, or
whatever Mr. Rector said, all with a marriage penalty in them.
And I think as a result, people have understandably changed
their behavior. That might not be the only way they have
changed their behavior, but when you are going from 4 to 40
percent, I think it is pretty obvious.
I was disappointed that, upon looking at the $28,000
penalty that Mr. Rector laid out, that Mr. Linden came back and
said our problem we have got to put more money in these
programs. Twenty-eight thousand is enough. We do not need a
$38,000 or $48,000 penalty for getting married.
So, in any event, otherwise I thought it was a good
program. I think you all added something to the mix. And like I
said, I hope people in Congress, both in the bill coming up in
the near future and for a period longer than that, spend some
time when they pass legislation and wonder, or spend some time
analyzing whether their new program or old programs or the 90
programs Mr. Rector brought up, whether those programs are
overly favoring the option of not being married or otherwise.
And I will say one other thing. When I get around my
district there are two things I hear frequently, people who
have relatives who are not getting married to get the
benefits--it is so common--or friends not getting married to
get the benefits, and, in something that was brought up by, I
think, was it?
Mr. Krishnamoorthi. Ms. Randall?
Mr. Grothman. Could have been. One of them brought up the
idea that they, in their life, had to stop working because of,
you could say, the generosity of these programs. But if you
talk to your employers, particularly employers who hire people,
say, in that $14 to $20 dollar range, you would again and again
find examples of employees who will not work extra hours
because it penalizes them, and they would begin to lose their
benefits.
So, I was glad that she pointed that out, that that is a
problem with these systems. I think the biggest problem is it
discourages marriage, but the secondary problem is no question
it discourages work and improving yourself along those lines.
So, in any event, I have to say something here. I have got
to take care of my business too. With that, and without
objection, all Members have 5 legislative days within which to
submit materials and additional written questions for the
witnesses, which will be forwarded to the witnesses.
If there is no further business, without objection, this
Subcommittee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[all]