Mapping The United States Of Welfare

Via HowMuch.net,

When was the last time you stopped to think about how much the government spends on welfare?

Most people probably don’t think about it too much, but we bet even for those who do, they don’t know how much their government spends, much less what the money actually pays for.

That’s why we created a new map showing you how much each state spends on the public dole.



Source: HowMuch.net

Our viz takes U.S. Census Bureau data from GoBankingRates to create a map for the entire country. Each bubble represents a state, and the size of the bubble corresponds to the size of the public expenditure on public welfare. We then color-coded each circle according to the size of the expense. Shades of blue mean that the state spends relatively little money, but pink and red indicate a higher-than-average amount. There’s a lot that you can quickly learn by breaking mapping public welfare expenses in this war.

First off, what is public welfare? This can be a controversial topic with a lot of stereotypes, so let’s get our definitions straight. If you rely on public welfare, then you turn to the government for help with paying your basic necessities, like food, housing and healthcare. The federal government runs programs that provide these types of things, and to varying degrees, so do some states. As you can clearly see, some places are more generous than others.

California is the obvious standout on the West Coast, dropping north of $100 billion on public assistance. Texas is the only other Western state with over $30 billion of expenditures, followed by Washington at under $12 billion.

There’s a significant cluster of high-spending states across the Northeast, including New York ($61.4B) and Pennsylvania ($26.8B). Florida stands out in the South at over $27B, thanks in large part to its retirement communities. There’s also a cluster of states in the Upper Midwest in light pink, where there a lot of old manufacturing cities.

We should also point out the states with much smaller expenditures, stretching across the Midwest and into the deep South. The simplest explanation for the lack of huge welfare budgets in these states has to do with geography: there just aren’t a lot of big cities in places like Iowa and Alabama compared to other states. This helps explain why California and New York spend so much on welfare. They rank first and fourth as the most populous states.

Here’s a straightforward list of the top ten states with the highest expenditures on public welfare. Note the enormous difference between California and New York and the rest of the country.

1. California - $103 Billion

2. New York - $61.4 Billion

3. Texas - $35.4 Billion

4. Florida - $27.2 Billion

5. Pennsylvania - $26.7 Billion

6. Illinois - $21 Billion

7. Ohio - $20 Billion

8. Massachusetts - $18.6 Billion

9. New Jersey - $17.3 Billion

10. Michigan - $16.3 Billion

Here’s an interesting fact for you. The top ten states listed above spend more on public welfare ($346.9B) than all of the bottom forty states (plus the District of Columbia) combined ($262.7B).

Regardless of how populated any particular state is, you want to pay attention to these numbers because they foreshadow future budget problems.

When you consider the fact that many states run operating deficits and have enormous debt problems, you begin to wonder if some of these numbers are sustainable for the long term...

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...nited-states-welfare

$ spent per resident of each state would be a little more revealing. Based on my calculation, CA spends $2687 per resident. KY spends $2457 per resident.

This is meaningless. A per capita comparison would not be.

quote:

Originally posted by italia:
$ spent per resident of each state would be a little more revealing....

It would also be useful to know what percent of the total state and local gov't spending was for welfare.

I think in CA the more they spend on welfare, the more bureaucrats they hire to administer the welfare. And both the welfare recipients and the bureaucrats like the gravy-train.

Maybe somewhat related, seems the top 50% fed income tax payers pay about 98% of the fed income taxes, meaning the lower 50% pay 2% of such taxes.

How much of our tax money goes to non-citizens? I.e. illegals. When did wetbacks become eligible for "assistance"?

RMD

This message has been edited. Last edited by: rduckwor,

Total $ per Total number of residents would be better.

As would, % of residents on welfare and $ per welfare recipient.

quote:

Originally posted by italia:
$ spent per resident of each state would be a little more revealing. Based on my calculation, CA spends $2687 per resident. KY spends $2457 per resident.

I would be more interested in how much is spent per recipient instead of resident in CA.

If that amount was also broken out by the source of the funds (Federal vs. CA), the rest of the National might just kick CA out of the Union.

Note, the real source is the taxpayer not the government but I think it's important to know at what level of government it was paid out from.

.

California still leads...

California Leads The Nation – In Poverty

California is a leader. In this case, it’s not a good way.

They’ve led the nation in welcoming illegal immigrants, sanctuary cities, the minimum wage, welfare programs, and stupid Hollywood celebrities who just need to shut their friggin’ pieholes.

Despite all that (especially the leftist brain trust in Tinseltown), the state also leads the nation in poverty.

And not just because it’s the largest state by population, but by percentage.

More than one in five Californians now live in poverty, new data released by the Census Bureau indicates.

At 20.4 percent, that poverty rate is higher than in any other state (only Washington DC has a higher rate at 21 percent). The national poverty rate stands at 14.7 percent.

Amazingly, The Orange County Register reports, while the state with the largest economy in the country has 12 percent of the national population, they account for a full one-third of all families in the nation receiving money from the Clinton-era “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,” which sucks almost $20 billion from the federal budget.

Why are so many Californians in poverty? There are many reasons. One of the first is the high cost of housing.

According to a draft report on the housing crisis by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, “production averaged less than 80,000 new homes annually over the last 10 years, and ongoing production continues to fall far below the projected need of 180,000 additional homes annually.”

As a result, homeownership rates are at the lowest they’ve been since the 1940s, as increasing proportions of renters find themselves rent-burdened. According to the California Budget & Policy Center, more than half of renter households pay more than 30 percent of their incomes for housing, and one-third pay more than half of their incomes for housing.

So while only 12 percent of the population, 22 percent of the country’s homeless are in California.

But there are other factors, as the OC Register points out: They have some of the highest tax rates in the country and some of the least business-friendly policies as well.

http://thefederalistpapers.org...ds-nation-in-poverty

quote:

Originally posted by rduckwor:
How much of our tax money goes to non-citizens? I.e. illegals. When did wetbacks become eligible of "assistance"?

RMD

At a neighborhood party a couple of years ago I commented re foreigners in the US bilking the system to get taxpayer monies, cited a recent Federal report. They responded that my data was faulty. I printed out the official US gov't report and provided it to my neighbors, they didn't take it well. (I have been a bit shunned since then.) Seems one of my neighbors is quite pleased at how well his family lives on US taxpayer largess.

15 Welfare Statistics by Race, State and Payment
LINK

Chellim1:

Another CA tidbit re CA housing. A friend (multi-millionaire from stock options) wanted to build a vacation home in Santa Cruz county, seems it would take ~2 years go get building permits given all the regulations/ordinances/bureaucracy involved. He ended up doing a vacation home in a resort area in Idaho, took less than a month to get approved.

quote:

Originally posted by italia:
15 Welfare Statistics by Race, State and Payment
LINK

This was the most egregious:

quote:

8 states pay more in welfare than the average salary of a US teacher.

Scoutmaster,
I am somewhat familiar... I have a cousin in Santa Cruz. She and her husband added a second floor to their ranch style home which they have owned for over 20 years... it wasn't easy!

I wonder how much of the Florida budget I spent on Floridians who are not imports?

quote:

Originally posted by CaptainMike:
This is meaningless. A per capita comparison would not be.

I agree.

----------------------------------------

Is California the welfare capital?

Welfare in California

34% Of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California but only …12% of the U.S. population resides here.

http://www.sandiegouniontribun...jul28-htmlstory.html


Immigrant and Welfare Use..

https://cis.org/Report/Welfare...nd-Native-Households

Not only would a per capita number be more interesting, but a source. Many of these states spend this money with a major part coming through federal sources as opposed to state funds. That means if you live in Wyoming, you’re probably footing some of what gets spent in California.

Look at this article for the average welfare payments per state. any wonder so many refuse to work. Why bother?

https://www.usatoday.com/story...nt-benefits/4899375/

Funding?? - overall budget.

Federal Funds Comprise Over One-Third of California’s State Budget, Supporting a Broad Range of Public Services and Systems

http://calbudgetcenter.org/res...ic-services-systems/

quote:

Originally posted by rscalzo:
Look at this article for the average welfare payments per state. any wonder so many refuse to work. Why bother?

I worked with a Black woman back in 1990. One day, she was complaining about the job and said, "You know, I would get almost the same amount if I just stayed home everyday." I asked her, "Why do you work, then?" And, she replied, "I just need to get away from all my kids!"

She was 22 years old, never married, with 4 kids by 4 different fathers. I tend to think with welfare, EBT cards, Section 8 housing, and AFDC she would probably have had more money than coming to work everyday.

The term "Welfare" is Orwellian.

It's not about charity, as "welfare" implies it is.

It's about buying votes. 100% about buying votes, zero percent about "welfare"/charity.

No government office or agency has any business being involved in any charity effort. Government cannot effectively or efficiently administer any charity effort, because no matter how well-intentioned it may initially be, it will soon devolve into vote buying.

So the GDCs steal from you and me to buy votes.