WIN Failed, But Government Cheese Won

Losing WIN, and Feeding the Poor:
Ford, Carter & Reagan have important lessons to teach us.

Remember Gerald Ford, and his WIN — “Whip Inflation Now” — campaign?

 

It was a failure.

The two premises of that effort — encouraging increased individual savings, and reducing personal spending — were not merely ineffectual, they were also justifiably ridiculed because they did absolutely nothing to lower prices.

 

In a TRULY free market economy, not only is government allowed to compete, but prices, as others and I have continually said, are controlled by the seller, NOT the buyer. The SELLER is the one setting prices. 

 

For example, if Exxon Mobil, British Petroleum, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Marathon, Valero, and Phillips 66 (in the TOP 10 largest oil companies globally by revenue) were to reduce by 25% their consumer prices of gasoline & diesel fuel (and, they could), that would significantly change, at least on some level, the volume of sales/consumption. 

 

Yet the study of economics also tells us that merely lowering prices will not always increase consumption to a certain price level. Consider bananas; if more folks ate more bananas, their prices ~might~ decline, but only modestly, and certainly not by 25%.

 

Though agricultural production has some similarities to industrial production, it fundamentally relies upon a renewable resource to satisfy demand (including an often-fickle, and increasingly angry and uncooperative Mother Nature), where as oil does not, because petroleum is a finite resource.

 

And THAT is PRECISELY WHY others and I maintain that establishing a windfall profits tax (WPT) could be used to help consumers -and- companies that rely upon petroleum for their existence, because it would return TO THE PEOPLE a ~fraction~ of the excessive portion of the rapacious profit made by Big Oil companies which are paid to their executives, overlords, and Wall Street wheeler-dealer shareholders.

 

• Congress first enacted a WPT in 1917 which ranged from

Is It TRUE -or- Is It FALSE?

True -or- False?

1.) Approximately 70% of adult wage earners in households that received SNAP (Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, formerly known as “Food Stamps”) and/or Medicaid worked full time hours (defined as 35+ hours weekly), and about 50% worked full time hours yearly.

2.) 90% of wage-earning adults participating in either SNAP or Medicaid worked in the Private Sector, compared to 81% of non-participants.

3.) When compared to adult wage earners not participating in SNAP or Medicaid, wage-earning adults in either or both programs were more likely to work in the Leisure and Hospitality industry, and in Food Service occupations.

4.) The single largest majority of adult wage earners who participated in SNAP and/or Medicaid worked for employers with

We Can Do Better

Dorothea Lange. “Nipomo, Calif. March 1936. Migrant agricultural worker’s family.
Seven hungry children and their mother, aged 32. The father is a native Californian.” Gelatin silver print, 7 3/8 × 9 5/16″ (18.8 × 23.6cm). Farm Security Administration–Office of War Information Photograph Collection, Library of Congress

Hourly Wages
Dollar General: $8
Kroger: $10
Walmart: $11
CVS: $11
Home Depot: $11
Lowe’s: $12

2020 Profits
Dollar General: $1.4 billion
Kroger: $2 billion
Walmart: $15.6 billion
CVS: $6.2 billion
Home Depot: $10 billion
Lowe’s: $4.9 billion

U.S. workers need at least $15/hr and a union.

Per capita health care spending:
Norway: $6,647
United States: $11,072

Number of uninsured/under-insured:
Norway: 0
United States: 92 million

COVID-19 deaths:
Norway (population 5.3 million): 306
Louisiana (population 4.6 million): 6,260

Yes. It is time for Medicare for All.

---

https://www.WashingtonPost.com/business/2020/11/18/food-stamps-medicaid-mcdonalds-walmart-bernie-sanders/

Federal Study: Millions of Full-Time Workers Rely on Federal Health Care and Food Assistance Programs – Walmart’s and McDonald’s Employees Lead the Way

by Eli Rosenberg
November 18, 2020 at 5:02 p.m. CST

Some of the biggest and most profitable companies in the United States, including Walmart and McDonald’s, pay their employees such low wages that significant numbers of them must turn to Federal food and medical assistance.

According to a new report from the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan Congressional watchdog agency, made at the behest of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) there is a direct relationship between employers paying low wages and employees receiving the Federal assistance. The report examined February data from agencies in 11 states that administer the Federal programs Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

Walmart was one of the top four employers of SNAP and Medicaid beneficiaries in every state. McDonald’s was in the top 5 of employers with employees receiving federal benefits in at least 9 states.

The GAO research found that in the 9 states that responded about SNAP benefits — Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, North Carolina, Tennessee and Washington — Walmart was found to have employed about 14,500 people who were receiving benefits, followed by McDonald’s with 8,780. In six states that reported Medicaid enrollees, Walmart again topped the list, with 10,350 employees, followed by McDonald’s with 4,600.

In Georgia, for example, Walmart employed an estimated 3,959 workers who were on Medicaid — comprising an estimated 2.1% of the total of non-elderly, non-disabled people in the state who were receiving the benefit. McDonald’s was next on the list, employing 1,480 who received Medicaid, or 0.8% of the total of non-elderly, non-disabled people on the program.

In Oklahoma, 1,059 Walmart workers on Medicaid made up 2.8% of the state’s total, and McDonald’s was next, with 536 workers, or 1.4%.

In Arkansas, where Walmart was founded and maintains its global headquarters, 1,318 employees were receiving SNAP benefits — comprising 3.1% of the state’s total. McDonald’s was next on the list with 865 workers, which made for 2% of the state’s total.  And in Georgia, another 3% of SNAP recipients worked for Walmart.

The GAO report found that the next companies with large numbers of workers receiving federal benefits included Dollar Tree, Dollar General, Amazon, Burger King and FedEx. (Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

In a statement by McDonald’s spokeswoman Morgan O’Marra, the company claimed

What are taxes for? Who should pay them? Should you pay more, or less?

Kroger Tools for Schools Drive sign

It infuriates me to see signs & posters like these, because THAT is what taxes are for!

And, if there aren’t enough taxes collected from the wealthy (and obviously, there aren’t), then we see “drives” and other collection points like this.

Just this evening, in conversation with my neighbor, she shared with me about how her co-worker – a young, single mother – recently confided in her, and said that she didn’t earn enough money to make ends meet – to pay the rent, keep the lights turned on, and feed her family and that she regularly has to go to a local food pantry (which itself often runs out of food because the need is so great) to augment her meager ability to purchase food – and that she, herself, didn’t have supper because she chose to feed her children, instead.

My neighbor remarked,

Sodomy: A prime example of what’s wrong with #ALpolitics

A dear friend who is a long-time retiree, aged 78 years, entire subsistence is from a meager pension (earned from a lifetime of work in a unionized organization), supplemented with a paltry Social Security check.

She’s lived through breast cancer surgery (mastectomy) & reconstruction, other major surgeries (knee replacements) and procedures, and lives in a trailer which she owns, situated upon a lot which she rents. She has resided there many, many years.

To save money, she recently

Perspective – By the Numbers: How has Job Loss under Governor Bentley & the GOP affected Alabama?

It’s easy to talk about “the jobs situation” in Alabama. It’s especially easier to talk about it when it doesn’t affect you… directly. It’s like armchair quarterbacking.

There’s probably much truth to the statement that Alabama’s legislators aren’t directly affected by job loss in the state. They have jobs. As musician Steve Miller sang in his song “Take the Money and Run,” they make their “living off other people’s taxes.” That goes for Republicans AND Democrats. Such an observation, of course, is not to demean those who do “make their living off other people’s taxes,” because our military, public safety and others vital to our local, state and national well-being are among them. It is however, an acknowledgment of, and call to responsibility – not merely accountability – because accountability is the only remnant once responsibility has departed. And that is how the “Blame Game” is played.

In the previous entry entitled “Analysis – Examining the Record: Is Alabama Governor Bentley a “Jobs Creator” or a Drag on the State Economy?,” we looked at facts & figures about job loss & job creation during Governor Bentley’s administration.

In this entry, we examine some details on the extent of the damage done to families & individuals under his administration.

And so, let’s again refer to some previously-mentioned facts & figures, and introduce some new ones so that we can better understand the nature, scope and and extent of the situation, and corresponding problems

It’$ all about the money: Who want$ your$, and who lobby$ to get your taxe$?

If you want to know the political news, read the business pages.

It’s all about the money.

Sure, this is a subsidy, and for those who need it – which, increasingly are many (50/311 Million, or 16% of the American population) – it is a life saver. Eventually however, it is an indirect subsidy upon private enterprise. Again, not that it is bad, per se, but that without regulation to prevent abuse of smaller businesses by large, powerful multi-national corporations and their denizen hordes of attorneys, regulations must be enacted.

Part of the greater problem is – according to the CIA World Factbook – that

“Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households. Since 1996, dividends and capital gains have grown faster than wages or any other category of after-tax income. Long-term problems include inadequate investment in deteriorating infrastructure, rapidly rising medical and pension costs of an aging population, sizable current account and budget deficits – including significant budget shortages for state governments – energy shortages, and stagnation of wages for lower-income families.”

As Robert Reich and others observed,

“Corporate profits are up. Most companies don’t even know what to do with the profits they’re already making. Not incidentally, much of those profits have come from replacing jobs with computer software or outsourcing them abroad.

“Meanwhile, the wealthy don’t create jobs, and giving them additional tax cuts won’t bring unemployment down. America’s rich are already garnering a bigger share of American income than they have in eighty years. They’re using much of it to speculate in the stock market. All this has done is drive stock prices higher.”

So it seems that the bottom-line question is, and remains: How do we correct & rectify the problem of gross income inequity?

—

Kraft warns on US food stamp cut plans

September 9, 2012 10:06 pm
By Alan Rappeport in Washington

Proposals to impose deep cuts on the $75bn US food stamp programme could eat into profits

Is SNAP (formerly “Food Stamps”) an Economic Boost?

You betcha’!

Research performed by the United States Department of Agriculture at the request of then-President George W. Bush shows that for every $1.00 spent on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, $1.84 is put into the economy. In fact the report says that, “every $5 in new SNAP benefits generates as much as $9 of economic activity.”

You want jobs?

The research shows that the “jobs impact estimates from the FANIOM model range from 9,000 to 18,000 FTE-jobs plus self-employed per $1 billion of SNAP benefits.”

It should be borne in mind that the median household income in 2006 was slightly over $50,000/year.

Read on for more “shocking” economic good news!

The report in it’s entirety may be downloaded here.
8/27/20 NOTE: The official USDA report site has ceased, and the report may be downloaded from this site – WSB. The Food Assistance Nation Input-Output Multiplier (FANIOM) Model & Stimulus Effects of SNAP

—

The Economic Case for Food Stamps

By Michel Nischan

Jul 18 2012, 3:09 PM ET

Congress is planning to cut up to $16 billion from low-income food aid over the next five years. But research shows that every dollar spent on assistance pays for itself and grows the economy.

In its current form, the House Agriculture Committee‘s version of the farm bill proposes draconian cuts to food stamps, also known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The ill-thought-out proposal would deny food assistance to millions of people, many of them children. Speaking as a chef and CEO of a national nonprofit that supports small and mid-sized farmers who make fresh fruits and vegetables available to everyone regardless of income, I’m obviously alarmed.

Grace Blackburn, Susan Noyce and Mary Claire Geyer (L-R) set out fruit for sale at the Westmoreland Berry Farm stand at the Arlington Farmers’ Market in Arlington, Virginia in this picture taken June 28, 2008. While price hikes are rippling through farmers’ markets across the United States, they are doing little to deter shoppers looking for local produce. Cherries and berries for sale at the Westmoreland Berry Farm stand at the Arlington Farmers’ Market in Arlington, Virginia (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)

The Senate’s version of the farm bill would reduce overall funding by $23 billion, with a reduction in food stamps of $4.5 billion over five years. The House Agriculture Committee is proposing to cut funding by $35 billion — with nearly half the overall cut coming from reductions in food stamps by $16 billion over five years.

Those who believe in cutting SNAP funding as a cost-saving measure should know that food stamps boost the economy — not put a strain on it. Supporters of federal food benefits programs including President George W. Bush understood this, and proved the economic value of SNAP by sanctioning a USDA study that found that $1 in SNAP benefits generates $1.84 in gross domestic product (GDP). Mark Zandi, of Moody’s Economy.com, confirmed the economic boost in an independent study that found that every SNAP dollar spent generates $1.73 in real GDP increase. “Expanding food stamps,” the study read, “is the most effective way to prime the economy’s pump.”

It is important to point out that SNAP benefits go to those who need them most. USDA’s Amber Waves recently wrote that

Congressional Budget Office: Food Assistance Rate to Grow

While not totally bright, the CBO report is not totally grim, either.

Here’s why.

The method by which unemployment figures are calculated does NOT take into account people whom have STOPPED looking for work. Many – if not most – of those people would accept work, were suitable work offered to them. They have stopped looking for work for many reasons, not the least of which is that they have become despondent from their unfruitful job search.

Now, when the unemployment rate begins to rise again, we will actually see an INCREASE in the rate.

Why?

Because many of the people whom had previously stopped looking for work, will again resume their job search. Thus, they will be counted among the unemployed, whereas previously, they were not counted among the unemployed.

How does the methodology of counting the unemployed relate to this report about rising participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program?

In many cases, the rates of unemployment, in conjunction with the expiration of unemployment compensation benefits, correlates strongly with want and poverty.

Thus, if the CBO says the rates will grow, we can make a reasonable estimate that the strength of economic recovery will have taken hold, and be in full swing.

As an observation aside, examine the larger infographic, and look at the states with the highest rates of SNAP utilization. Most of them are in the Southeast: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia. Those states were formerly Democratic strongholds, and have now swung strongly toward Republican politics. Three other states – Maine, Michigan, and Oregon – also have SNAP utilization rates above 18% of their population.

What would happen politically if Republicans were allowed to eliminate the SNAP program?

—

Food Stamp Rolls to Grow Through 2014, CBO Says

• April 19, 2012, 1:58 PM ET

The Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that 45 million people in 2011 received Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, a 70% increase from 2007. It  said the number of people receiving the benefits, commonly known as food stamps, would continue growing until 2014.

Click for larger CBO infographic.

SNAP infographic - Click for much LARGER image.

Spending for the program, not including administrative costs, rose to