In my home town of Wichita, a television news story tonight went like this:
Television news anchor: “Some may think that using food stamps is a drain on the economy, but the truth is that’s really not right. Local organizers say using food assistance can help boost the economy during these tough times. One dollar of food assistance relief equals about three dollars. Kansas is only using about half of the money assigned to it by the federal government. Using this money helps to pay everyone: from truckers and farmers, to workers in the grocery stores.”
Dr. Anita Raghavan, Campaign to End Childhood Hunger: “It’s kind of saying ‘Hey, do your American duty. Apply for food stamps.’”
Can someone help me expose the errors and fallacies in this story? I know this is a basic question, but I’m drawing a blank right now.
Thanks,
Bob Weeks
Blatant misinformation without an ounce of reason deserves to be ignored.
what about all the other uses of that state money? The opportunity costs of action are unknown to gov. which has none of the incentives to really try and allocate efficiently. It may just be true that the town will benefit -but again at what cost? Just think of all the things that could have been done with saving that money or in funding investment! So in general: broken window fallacy.
food stamps do help the local economy. if the state is going to pay federal taxes you should at least get some back.
unfortunately how much you get back is going down.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/22685.html
and of course the frictional costs are unnecessary waste. what is the point of the state paying mone and then getting entitlement programs in return? Oh right, so the federal government decides how it gets spent.
It isn’t about helping people. It’s about power.
Hey a fellow poster from Wichita!
I didn’t see this news story, but this doesn’t suprise me they would report on something like this.
If welfare was such a great boost to ‘the economy’, then inner cities should be the richest places in the world