Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index
by Dan MitchellThe Center for Immigration Studies recently put out a study arguing that immigration has had negative effects on California. One of their measures was a comparison of how many people in the state were receiving some form of welfare compared to other states. I found that data (see Table 3 of the report) very interesting, but not because of the immigration debate (I’ll leave others to debate that topic). Instead, I wanted to get a better understanding of the variations in government dependency. Is there a greater willingness to sign up for income redistribution programs, all other things being equal, from one state to another? The “all other things being equal” caveat is very important, of course, since the comparison produced by CIS may simply be an indirect measure of the factors that determine welfare eligibility. One obvious (albeit crude) way of addressing this problem is to subtract each state’s poverty rate to get a measure of how many non-poor people are signed up for income-redistribution programs. Let’s call this the Moocher Index.
A few quick observations. Why is Vermont (by far) the state with the largest proportion of non-poor people signed up for welfare programs? I have no idea, but maybe this explains why they elect people like Bernie Sanders. But it’s not just Vermont. Four of the top five states on the Moocher Index are from the Northeast, as are six of the top nine. Mississippi also scores poorly, coming in second, but many other southern states do well. Indeed, if we reversed the ranking and did a Self-Reliance Index, Virginia, Florida, and Georgia would score in the top 10. Nevada, arguably the nation’s most libertarian state, is the state with the lowest number of non-poor people signed up for welfare.
Let’s now emphasize several caveats.
I’m not an expert on the mechanics of social welfare programs, but even I know that eligibility is not governed solely by the poverty rate. Indeed, some welfare programs are open to people with much higher levels of income. This means that a more thorough analysis at the very least would have to include some measure of income distribution by state. Moreover, states use different formulas for Medicaid eligibility, so this index ideally also would be adjusted for state-specific policies that make it easier or harder for people to become dependent. There also are some states (and even colleges) that actually try to lure people into signing up for welfare, which also might affect the results. And I’m sure there are many other factors that are important, including perhaps immigration. If anybody knows of most substantive research in this area, please don’t hesitate to share material.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
75 Comments
Very interesting high-level analysis. Bernie Sanders and other congressmen near that end of the spectrum would no doubt brag about how this proves the wonderful number of people government "helps" in their states… and therein lies the problem!
Dan, can I get a table of this analysis? The distribution and standard deviations would help shed light on the extremes. host@IsThisTheChangeWeNeed.com
IsThisTheChangeWeNeed.com
I would like to see this list defined by red state vs. blue states. I would think the distribution would be much more obvious as to the root of the problem.
I am proud to be an Arizonan and in the bottom of this list.
VIVA SB 1070
"When the people find they can vote themselves money,
that will herald the end of the republic." – Ben Franklin
Bernie Sanders an admitted socialist who backs every single big government grab that comes down the pike. Vermonters need their heads examined.
Herein lies the problem,when the money runs out,the printing press keeps printing eventually we end up like Zimbabwe
Highest Monthly Inflation Rates in History Country Month with highest inflation rate Highest monthly inflation rate Equivalent daily inflation rate Time required for prices to double
Hungary July 1946 1.30 x 1016% 195% 15.6 hours
Zimbabwe Mid-November 2008 (latest measurable) 79,600,000,000% 98.0% 24.7 hours
Yugoslavia January 1994 313,000,000% 64.6% 1.4 days
Germany October 1923 29,500% 20.9% 3.7 days
Greece November 1944 11,300% 17.1% 4.5 days
China May 1949 4,210% 13.4% 5.6 days
Source: Prof. Steve H. Hanke, February 5, 2009
Some Work. Some mooch. Your either a giver or a taker.
Oh and I'll betcha if anyone cared to do some checking all of those top moocher states would probably show up as having been or are run by democrats.
1070 should be the law of the land.
Moocher Index?
I like that.
Perhaps some of the more liberal colleges could teach that as a prescribed course of study. Get Pell Grants and Student Loans for their attendees, and teach them at a college level how to become professional liberal moochers, and make a career out of riding the public dole.
Oh, thats right, they allready do that.
The course just isn't named or defined, but the apparatus is in place.
I'll second that!
I thought it was just being reiterated by 1070.
I'm from AZ also Story and I'm also a story keeper. 
And just think, this chart only covers 50 States, don't forget there's 7 more! : )
Moochers are in Atlas Shrugged, that's what the socialist/welfare backers/recipients were called.
You're right on….Years ago I heard that saying…There are givers in this
world and takers, and the takers always find the givers….Boy, is that ever
the truth!
Of course, that's where all the community organizing, and thug groups hang out counting all the many ways to spend that obama money!
To Kit and Storykeeper, we support you, regardless what the criminals on the hill say. : )
See reply below!
That which you support you get more of. Look we keep extending unemployment benefits and unemployment is artificially high.
If SB1070 mirrors federal law, isn't it already the law of the land?? Yep…it's just not enforced as the dear departed teddy boy promised us it would be…eh??
If I were Emperor there'd be no welfare. Work for your food or die of starvation.
If a person wants to work they'll find a job,even if it's low pay to start,pride says I won't work this job or that job,hey,work a job until something better comes along,worked for me all my life,you can find work even in places like Detroit if you have the want to,GOTTA HAVE THE WANT TO. As long as there is a way to mooch there will be moochers,until the well runs dry,then violence takes over because now you owe the mooch,the mooch deserves it and will now go to war to take it.
[...] Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index [...]
Thanks GHUA!
Hi Kit, thanks for being a StoryKeeper, we need a whole lot of us to preserve the wisdom and values of our ancestors so that one day we will have a repository that future generations can learn from and understand that the country does not have to be run the way it presently is.
I'm surprised California isn't higher…
I would love to see the Moocher Index show the political leanings of the State by red, blue and purple….that would be an interesting addition to the chart…..
Government judges the success of welfare programs based upon how many leverage it. The more using it, the more successful it is viewed as. Conversely, logic tells you that the goal would be to reduce the dependency on programs like this, because it means "the people" are more well off and being self-sufficient. And there, folks, is the problem with government.
Yep, and that's why I love the moniker "Moocher Index".
To moooooch… or Not to mooooch. That IS the question.
My sister was once on welfare and Medicaid. After the welfare folks treated her like dirt, and Medicaid insisted she give birth by drive-through delivery, she hauled a$$ to get off the dole. I'm amazed that so many people prefer this kind of horrid treatment to working for a living.
I'm surprised about CA too, though we do have a few workers.
Washingon is 16th out of 50, Gregoire&Co. need to double down.
Gregoire is gonna bail and go to work for the Moocher in Chief….as soon as it's safe for her to do so. She will not survive another election in this state!
I made a color chart of Red, Blue and Swing states and it heavy on the blue at top and red on the bottom….who would have guessed!
Too true CL,
They have though named the apparatus. It is just that true to progressive doctrine they give names that are at best mis-leading and at worst down right lies. You find most of the classes in the sociaology departments and hide under the inocuous title of 'cultural studies'
We in Arizona have taken issue with the divisive and racist cultural studies course that seek little more than to more clearly define and promote the cultural and racial divide.
I only hope the rest of the country follows our lead and takes similar measures.
Social Justice is racist
Equal Justice is colorblind
pay people to NOT WORK and you get what you pay for.
Whereas with UNIONS you get the exact opposite: we pay them and give them raises and concessions and not only do we not get more work,,,,they demand yet more benefits for less work.
I did make that chart and found it heavier in blue at the top and red on the bottom. PA, MN, DE, MI, NM, and NJ, were the anomalies….NM is basically CA transplants…so I understand that….the others I am not sure why they are not higher on the chart.
Without being privvy to the factors making up he chart,,,approximation is the best anyone can do. Suffice it to say that your and my intuition is pretty much 'on the money', so to speak.
Some how the chart above isn't really jiving with me. I wonder what his factors were in making it…I would have thought that MI, CA, OR, WA, a lot higher up than they were. Let's face it, if they are not at this point they will be really soon for they broke as states……
I would also like to see the distribution on a smaller scale,,,,say urban vs rural,,,,in which case the disparity would be glaring. You will also find that the disparity results from progressive local govt. influence
Dan,
I live in Mississippi, my home state. Your chart is measuring middle and upper income households; around here, there is a large group of people who may not qualify as being "poor" by your chart's standards, but who are just above that line. So, even our middle class is poor, and thus more likely to use government welfare programs. Perhaps in other states there is a much greater disparity between the middle income and low income folks.
By the way, my husband and I are going to visit your state this coming winter if all is still well with this beautiful country. We support your states rights on Immigration! I haven't been there since I was fourteen…almost forty years….so its time to venture back. My husband has never been there so it should be a glorious adventure for him.
My guess is you are right on the money. I live in a prog state that is ruled by one county…King County, Seattle, WA….nuff said….I understand that many states are ruled by those that are heavily prog in the large metropolises.
You get over the mountains in my state and you are in Red Country! They just hate us over here!
Thank you for your support. You will find the population of Arizona is very welcoming despite also being very well armed. There is an incredible amount of natural beauty in AZ and in the winter, you will find no better weather anywhere else. It is our only reward for suffring our brutal summers.
"One obvious (albeit crude) way of addressing this problem is to subtract each state’s poverty rate to get a measure of how many non-poor people are signed up for income-redistribution programs."
Is there truly a different poverty rate for each state? Does this poverty rate take into account the Cost of Living index? If the poverty rates don't take COL into account that could explain why those working with incomes over the poverty level may still be struggling and require assistance.
[...] from: » Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big … By admin | category: VERMONT | tags: bernie, elect-people, explains, largest, [...]
I too am from AZ. One reason is our total population is about 6 million. Another is the laws passed in recent years within the state to better control runaway misuse of the social service system. Illegals are restricted to federal assistance programs only. A third is the federal responsibility for the Indian reservations within Arizona. However, the most important is that AZ is a right to Work state. Unions drive up costs without contributing back to the state and the citizenry within. The dues wind up in the hands of the union bosses to be used to influence elections. The union states might want to rethink their laws.
I'm surprised that CA is not in the top three. They have an estimated illegal population of over two million, and they are well known as a freebie welfare state. Possibly the disparity is due to the ratio of population to government declared poverty line statistics, and that illegals are not included in the count.
BTW, has anyone taken note that many colleges are advising students to apply for food stamps just cause its available? Just asking.
Not to sound like a broken record here. The time for the beginning of the end of this is November 2010. Either we do, or we don't. Some very easy choices can begin to be made, such as the defunding, de-construction and elimination of multiple federal level departments. If these are needed so badly, then why does each and every state have a mirror image of the fed level?
There are 9 departments that can be completely eliminated and the people who support them (WE the Taxpaying People) would be ecstatic.
The cost savings at $1.5 trillion per year are enormous. The 500K public union employees can suck on the unemployment wind for a while until the economic engine takes back over. Can you imagine a $4800 pay raise for every man, woman and child (US citizens ONLY) each and every year? Talk about deficit reduction AND kick-starting an economy!
Vote November!!!!
Totally agree, If it is so obvious to us ,,,,why can't the libs figure it out,,,,,never mind,,,rhetorical question
I've got it covered in more ways then one Story.
I agree Story except I like the summers.
Ditto Rick! The unions have tried to get a foot in the door but the most they've been able to do is rally the illegal mexicans to march.
The way I heard it explained this morning was that the moocher index focused on the number of people who were on welfare programs who actually earned enough money to take provide for their own needs – not the over all number of people on welfare.
I think there might be more than that; I can't decide if it's 59 or 60.
Over the last fifteen months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states, I think — one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to … my staff could not justify it."
Due to a long illness by my grandfather my grandmother ended up on Medicaid/welfare. She got a whopping 22 dollars a month, but it helped her get the drops she needed to treat her eyes for macular degeneration. She was embarrassed to be on it.
You are so right, I live in washington state and it's a dem state.
Funny how that graph looks almost identical to the geographic borders of Vermont.
…Lee
And I bet she got off the welfare wagon as soon as she was able. Your grandma and my sister were the kind of folks for whom the welfare system was meant–people who need temporary help to get through a rough spot.
[...] Vermont and Northeastern State Dominate the Moocher index [...]
Not surprised by these findings. I was born and raised in NY and you would not believe how the corrupt liberal welfare policies of that state essentially crippled those of us who worked for a living. Even the most ardent independent individual cannot help at some point to ponder why the hell they are working so hard to support and remedy the consequences of other people's poor choices and lack of personal responsibility. So I had a choice – stay, continue to have my hard-earned income stolen from me and given to others and get really bitter about it, stay and give up my morals and ethics to stand in line with my hand out like the rest of them or move. I moved to CO in the mid 90s and now live in AZ and have never regretted it for one moment. Notice CO & AZ are among the lowest on the Moocher Index. Also notice, via a different recent article, that they are right to work states. Hmmm.
We should just ban all humanities. No one benefits from these subjects right? You people make me laugh.
no, only those courses within the humanities which seek to promote divisiveness among the races. Like in Los Angeles whee they are teaching a course on why the AZ law is unconstitutional when they have a 50% drop out rate and their students cannot perform basic reading, writting and math skills.
When you come up with a REALISTIC plan for changing education I can't wait to hear it.
it's not just about working though… many people that work for the government would fall under the "moocher" category in my eyes.
[...] » Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big … [...]
[...] » Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big Government [...]
[...] » Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big Government [...]
[...] » Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big Government [...]
[...] » Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big Government [...]
[...] » Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big Government [...]
[...] » Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big … [...]
[...] » Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big … [...]
ok i admit it we are rather extreme in our social programs up here. with that said i have to tell all of you this. if you exclude the 3 or 4 major cities( major for us,lol) the average income in this state is like $25,000/year. most people i know dont make much over 20,000. add those excluded areas and the income jumps up to 64,000. this state bends itself over a pork barrel for the tourism and agriculture industries and drives all others out with opressive taxes. Some of us ARE waking up though. most vermonters in my region( NE) are hard working people who would much rather work for what we have than take handouts but our government has really tied our hands. please have some mercy we are not all like them rat-b*stards in the capital. most of our federal politicians come from the liberal areas of burlington and montpeiler not the rural areas that make up most of the state. btw please excuse the typos, i think faster than i type.
[...] Vermont and Northeastern States Dominate the Moocher Index – Big …Jun 17, 2010 … But it’s not just Vermont. Four of the top five states on the Moocher Index are from the Northeast, as are six of the top nine. Mississippi also … [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.