American Enterprise Institute: Welfare Reform- Why? (1976)

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Paul MacAvoy: member of President Gerald Ford's Council of Economic Advisers. 

Source:The New Democrat

"May 20, 1976: This AEI Round Table brings together four experts to discuss whether major modifications are needed in the American public welfare system. Why have welfare costs skyrocketed in recent years? Do these rising costs prove that our welfare machinery is defective? Are there more efficient and more equitable ways to provide for the nation's poor? Can our present programs be improved by minor changes or is a sweeping overhaul required? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the negative income tax? And can proposals to reform our welfare system win political acceptance?

Panelists:

Wilbur J. Cohen — dean of the School of Education at the University of Michigan

Barber Conable, Jr. — Representative (R-New York)

Paul MacAvoy — a member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers

Abraham Ribicoff — Senator (D-Connecticut)

Moderator:

Robert Bork — solicitor general of the United States

Host:

Peter Hackes"

From American Enterprise Institute

This is the perfect debate that we should be having now today especially when we now have Socialists and socialism on the rise in America in and outside of the Democratic Party, who believe that people shouldn't be forced to work and not just that, but that we should even pay people ( meaning taxpayers ) to not work and pay them well if they choose not to work. Even if they simply don't want to work and would refer to stay home and collect a public assistance check. When what we should be doing instead is not just encouraging low-income and low-skilled Americans to not just work, but get a good education so they can get themselves a good job and not need any type of public assistance at all to pay their bills.

I'll give you just one example of why Progressive is different from Socialist and why Progressives are different from Socialists, and why progressivism is different from socialism, even though there are many of examples of why these two ideological factions are different. And they're not the same political faction with just two different labels. That Conservative is actually different from Libertarian, Theocrat, and Nationalist. And that Progressive is different from Socialist and Communist.

Welfare and poverty in general are the perfect issues to talk about when you're talking about what it means to be a Progressive, because if you're actually a Progressive you believe not just in progress, but creating progress through government action. So if you have a large population of poor people in your country and have a lot of poverty and you're a Progressive, you want to see some progress there. You want poverty to go down dramatically assuming you can't actually eliminate it altogether. Instead of having people in poverty with a public assistance check and other public assistance checks which was the system before the 1996 Welfare To Work Law, you want to actually move people out of poverty and no longer be eligible of public assistance, simply because they make too much money and no longer live in poverty.

I'm not saying that solving the poverty issue in America is easy because if it were it would've solved in the 1960s and we no longer have 1-5 Americans who are eligible for public assistance whether they're working or not. But if we empower not just encourage, but empower low-income Americans to not just work, but to go to school and finish or further their education and even help them get themselves a good job after they now have the skills to get themselves a good job, you'll see poverty go down in America, because you'll now have a well-skilled workforce in your country and there would be no reasons for people to live in poverty, other than that they're lazy or perhaps just irresponsible and simply don't want a good education and a good job. But those people we shouldn't be subsidizing as taxpayers anyway and instead subsidize Americans who don't have what they need right now to live a quality, independent life, but want to be able to do that for themselves.

For people who view themselves as fiscal Conservatives, ( which seems to be a dying breed in Washington right now: fiscal Conservatives ) who are concern about the budget deficit and national debt, you should  be interested in not just welfare reform and welfare to work, because with a lower and low poverty rate in America, you would not just have more people working in America, but more people paying income and payroll taxes and fewer people collecting public assistance. And a lesser need for people to not just work to take care of themselves and their families, but to also subsidize people who either don't work, or work but don't earn enough money to take care of themselves and their families.

Today, we have a budget deficit and national debt that are too big, but we have an economic deficit as well that's part of the income gap in the country where we have too many people who are simply too poor to be able to support themselves in this country and as a result are dependent on both private and  public charity, and being able to work multiple jobs ( if they're working at all ) in order to support themselves.

These are all reasons why we should not only encouraging people who are physically capable of working at all, but going back to school and getting themselves a good jobs. These are all things that we can do with the current public assistance system in this country. Which would be great for our economy have 50-60 million more Americans with good skills and good jobs in this country. But long-term would also be much better for our fiscal outlook. But the best thing of all would be to have all of these people who now have good skills and good jobs.

Arthur Brooks: A Conservative Vision For Social Justice

Source:The New Democrat

I'm trying to think of a conservative vision for social justice and it's hard. Because it almost sounds like creating an Oxymoron. And what I mean by that is that social justice or economic justice tend to be socialist terms. It's Social Democrats running for office in this country and in other countries who say "I'm fighting for social justice"! Which is something that frankly makes Conservatives or people who are supposed to pass as today's Conservatives (which is different) want to puke. Because when they hear social justice people in the Tea Party and Libertarians talk about social justice they automatically think that is wealth redistribution.

But just to take the conservative vision of social justice seriously for a minute for the purpose of this blog (if nothing else) I guess Newt Gingrich would be the best spokesperson for it because it was something that he was truly interested in at least when he was Speaker of the House and throughout his congressional career. And something he talked a lot about post-Congress and when he ran for President in 20011-12. The 1996 Welfare to Work Act was an example of that where they took the best of liberal and conservative ideas to empower people on Welfare to get off of Welfare into the workforce.

Speaker Gingrich when he ran for President was constantly talking about what government of all things could do to empower people on Welfare and Unemployment Insurance to get themselves the skills so they can get themselves a good job. He was constantly talking about the amount of time that someone on Unemployment Insurance spends that they could use that time to get degree at a community college or a bachelors degree. Instead of trying to look for a job with the current skills that they have.

I mean if you are truly Conservative who believes in social justice that is empowering people at the bottom so they are no longer on the bottom and trapped in poverty, (and I'm trying to say this without laughing at least based on the Tea Party and libertarian-right) then you believe government has some role here unless you are simply only interested in wrecking the safety net in America. And that role from a conservative perspective is about using market values in government to empower people to be able to make it on their own. Getting good skills to pay the bills to use a pop culture analogy.

That instead of saying that "the problem is the rich are too rich, or just rich period and what government should do is take most of their money to take care of everyone else". Which is basically the socialist, or social democratic vision of social justice that "we as Conservatives should instead say wealth and work is a good thing in America and good thing about our system. And that these things should be encouraged not discouraged and that the problem is not that we have rich people or too many. But not enough and what we need to do as a country with government playing a role, but not the only role is to empower people at the bottom and near-bottom to become successful and even rich on their own."

American Enterprise: Arthur Brooks: 'Why Conservatives Should Care About Social Justice'

Source:The New Democrat

Arthur Brooks talking about creating a positive agenda instead of Republicans just saying what they are against. He’s arguing and has argued that Republicans need to offer what they are in favor of. His argument is and has been that Republicans and Democrats Conservatives and Liberals tend to want similar things when it comes to the economy. That both sides both want economic opportunity, freedom, economic mobility, self-reliance and self-sufficiency. But that both sides have different plans in how to accomplish those things. And what the Right needs is to have a plan that attempts to at least move low-skilled and low-income workers as well as the low-skilled unemployed into the middle class where they can live in economic freedom. And they don’t seem united in how to accomplish that yet. Lets say the New Gingrich/Paul Ryan wing of the Right seems to believe that empowering low-income adults whether they are working or not with educational and job training opportunities is a good way to close the income gap in America. But the GOP as a whole is not united behind that.

American Enterprise Institute: Dean Clancy: 'Three Steps to Patient-Centered Care'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Dean Clancy talking about health care reform at AEI.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:American Enterprise Institute." 

From AEI  

Dean Clancy is talking about 3 ways he would reform health care in America, but he didn't really anything on the table. He was really talking about the health care system in America pre-2010 when the Affordable Care Act was passed. 

Mr. Clancy talked about controlling health care costs, without putting anything on the table. 

He talked about expanding individual liberty in the health care market, but without putting anything on the table. 

And then he talked about what he called health care status, which I guess is the right-wing talking point for pre-existing conditions. And said that someone's health status, which could a pre-existing condition that someone was born with, or a woman whose had kids in her life, should be used against them in either denying them health insurance or charging them more for health insurance. 

What Mr. Clancy seems to be talking about but doing it more openly and honestly (unlike the House Republicans and the Tea Party populist wing of the Republican Party) is saying that we should go back to the health care system of 2009 and before that. I would love to see Mitt Romney run for President out in the open on that, as well as House Republicans in swing districts and Senate Republicans in swing states. 

American Enterprise Institute: Alan Viard- 'Income Tax's Penalty on Savings'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Alan Viard speaking to AEI in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials."

Source:American Enterprise Institute 

"Alan Viard talked about proposals from Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) that called for changes on several tax fronts. The proposals were part of a larger effort on tax reform by both Senate Finance Committee Chair Baucus and House Ways and Means Committee Chair Dave Camp (R-MI). He responded to telephone calls and electronic communications." 

Source:CSPAN- Alan Viard speaking to CSPAN in Washington.

From CSPAN

In the United Sates, you can get taxed for basically anything that you do, including not spending money from one jurisdiction or another. You get taxed more making money, unless you live in Florida, where they don't have a state income tax, but you have to pay the Federal income tax. Plus whatever local income taxes you may have to pay, city or county. You get taxed for spending money, sales taxes across the country. 

Uncle Sam taxes tobacco as well, you get taxed for inheriting money, you get taxed for making money through investments, called capital gains, or selling property, business's get taxed for making money. It's not just Income Taxes that people have to pay, but we also have to pay taxes, incase in the future we are unemployed, don't have an adequate pension, can't afford health insurance as seniors. We get taxed just for being alive and living in a home. 

Yes, America's tax rates are low compared, basically with the rest of the developed world. Which I believe is one reason why we didn't get hit as hard by the global recession, even though we did get very hard, but we pay taxes on basically everything we do.

One of the reasons why I believe we have so many tax loopholes, including a lot of them just pure Welfare, for people who don't need it is because we have so many taxes. Fewer taxes than perhaps Britain, which isn't really saying anything.  We eliminate some of these taxes or at least lower the rates, we can eliminate a lot of the tax loopholes, expect  people to do more on their own, take less from them and not expect a big check from Uncle Sam every year. 

I'm not going to say we need tax reform in America, because that would be like saying we need air to breathe, but what I am going to do, is to lay out a plan, that would reform our tax code. That's based on not what people make or produce for society, but instead tax people or better yet bill them for what they take from society. Which would encourage people to be productive and smarter with their money, instead of penalizing them for it.

I'm for what I call a Progressive Consumption Tax. It's progressive and doesn't hit low-income people as hard because it would have lower rates on basic goods that people need in life to survive: groceries, clothing, non-luxury housing, non-luxury transportation. (To use as examples) And tax luxury items higher: luxury cars, yachts, fancy meals, parties, sporting events, alcohol and tobacco. (To use as examples) 

We should also eliminate the savings tax up to your first 10% of income so people are still encouraged to spend to drive economic growth. And even match lower-income people's savings up to a certain income level. So we can approve on our very low savings rate, instead of taxing people for producing, we would tax them for what they consume. Replace the income tax with a Progressive Consumption Tax, but not scrap the other taxes, at least not with this plan.

American Enterprise Institute: 'Ashton B. Carter: Pivoting U.S. Defense to Future Challenges & Opportunities'

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From AEI

Arthur Brooks: 'Does Free Enterprise Hurt The Poor?'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- from Arthur Brooks piece about free enterprise and the poor.

"Arthur Brooks, author of the new book "The Road to Freedom," takes on the top myths about free enterprise. Part 3: "Free enterprise hurts the poor."

Free enterprise is the only system that truly helps the poor around the world.  It helps the poor more than anyone, as a matter of fact. Since 1970, 80 percent of the world's worst poverty's been eradicated. Eighty percent. The reason for that is globalization, open trade, entrepreneurship, and free enterprise. A lot of people don't know that trade from China to the United States has increased by 1,000 percent since 1980.  That's lifted 600 million Chinese out of the worst poverty. Free enterprise is the reason that people around the world aren't starving to death. If we're good Samaritans, if we really love the poor, we have to fight for free enterprise for everyone." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

I'm all in favor of a private enterprise system (what others, especially on the Right call free enterprise) and capitalism. But even with the most unregulated economic system in the world (and no developed country has a completely unregulated private enterprise system) we're still going to have poor people. Because we're still going to have people who lack the skills to be successful in life, either by making mistakes early as young adults, like leaving school or having kids early, or simply not having enough of an opportunity to be successful, like not having the access needed to get themselves a good education. 

So you want to encourage people to be successful in life and having taxes and regulations fairly low and are easy to enough to understand and to work with, are ways of achieving economic freedom for the most people possible in any society. But you need an education system, as well as safety net, that encourage people and empowers people to be as successful as they possibly can then allow them to enjoy the fruits of the success, but only taxing them based on the services that they receive from government.

Arthur Brooks: 'The Occupy Movement is Right!'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Arthur Brooks speaking to AEI in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

I agree with Arthur Brooks that corporate America has too much influence in Washington, at least with the Federal Government and has too much power with them. Corporate America, including their banks run their companies into the ground in late 2008 and then they bailed out at taxpayer expense by the Bush Administration and that Democratic Congress. While millions of hard-working Americans, including well-educated and white-collar American workers are getting laid off and haven't recovered from that experience since and even worked for some of those bankrupted companies that got taxpayer bailouts.  

So then you have this left-wing Occupy Wall Street movement emerging in the summer and fall of 2011, when the economy is barley growing, when the U.S. Government is at risk of default, saying where are their taxpayer bailouts and why can't corporate America bail out the people who lost their jobs and went bankrupt themselves thanks to the housing crash of 2008 and being laid off because of the Great Recession. 

So I agree with Arthur Brooks that OWS has a real issue to be protesting about, but I disagree with them on how they would handle these issues. We don't need more taxes and bigger government. We need more freedom for more Americans, especially Americans who are currently struggling. Government should be empowering these folks to get back on their feet. Not raising taxes on successful people simply because they have a lot of money.

Arthur Brooks: 'True Fairness'

Source:American Enterprise Institute- Arthur Brooks speaking to AEI in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

I agree and perhaps because I'm one of them, that Americans tend to believe in earned success. That if you have a good job and you are really good at it and as a result you make a lot of money, that you are entitled to the wealth and benefits that come from being a businessperson, investor, doctor, lawyer, entertainer, whatever it might be that gives you. along with your success the ability to live very comfortably in America. 

Where I believe Arthur Brooks and I disagree is on the concept of society and even a free society, the idea of a nation state, that we're all members of this gigantic, national club, known as the United States of America and therefor all have responsibilities, including financial, to make sure this club runs as smoothly as possible and is safe for Americans to be able to live in freedom. As well as having the ability to get around the country and for businesses to move their products to market, and to protect the innocent from predators. 

For America to work as well as possible, yes, we need the freedom to be economically successful in America, but also have to pay our fair share of what it takes to make America work and keep it as safe and free as possible for as many people to be able to live freely in America. And that's what taxes are for, even for people who make a lot of money in this country and live very freely.

AEI: 'Is Competitiveness Worth Defending: Health Care Competition'

Source:AEI- some guy giving a speech at the American Enterprise Institute, in Washington.

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees." 

From AEI

If you were to design a Healthcare System from scratch, no one in their right minds would design a new health care system based on the American health care system. And perhaps some people in their wrong minds, wouldn't design a health care system based on the American health care System. Everyone in their right mind across the political spectrum from Libertarians to Socialists and perhaps some people in their wrong minds, would design a different health care system from what we have now. 

We spend too much money compared with other developed nations (As far as percentage of GDP) Around 17% and with this weak economy and those health care Costs are only going to climb. We leave out about 50M people from having access to health insurance, some decide to be left out. But the overwhelmingly majority can't afford health insurance. They make too much money to be eligible for Medicaid, which in some ways is a good thing, but not enough money to afford their own health insurance. Or they can't afford to buy their employers health insurance plan. 

We spend too much money on health care we don't need and are elective procedures. And we can't afford health care that people need to live healthy and stay alive. And we have a lot of people overcrowding our emergency rooms, getting health care that isn't an emergency, because they don't want make an appointment with a doctor and pay for health insurance or can't afford health insurance. 

What we need in America is a health care system that we can afford, obviously, but one where everyone has access to health insurance and health care. Which of course is easier said than done but is something that we can do and need to do before our health care system eats away at most of our economy. 

To create an affordable, quality health care system in America, gets to things like personal responsibility. Once we set up this system, people get themselves insured that are currently uninsured, but we do a better job of taking care of ourselves, stop smoking, drink less alcohol, eat better, exercise more and better, so we won't need to use as much health care in the future because we are healthier. And we would be able to bring down the costs of our own health care and health insurance. 

The 2010 Affordable Care Act which I supported and still do, was a positive first step in this direction, but just a first step. And even if it had a public option in it, it would've been just a bigger first step. The biggest contribution that the AFA made in my opinion is the Patient Bill of Rights in it, so people can't get dumped because they need health insurance and ending lifetime caps and other things like that. 

What we need in our health care system is more personal responsibility as I just explained. But more choice and competition, not less of it, which is one reason why I'm against single payer health insurance. And this is the reason why I'm in favor of a public option, but I'm not in favor of a public option, but fifty public options or more than that to cover the territory's as well as the states. And let's see what works across the country and what doesn't work. Expand what does work and eliminate what doesn't work. 

Fifty-plus non-profit, independent of government public options, that would be fully paid for that wouldn't have to come out of government tax revenue, because they would be financed by their consumers, that would compete with private non-profit health insurers, subjected to the same rules and regulations. And let's see who does the better jobs and attracts the most consumers. 

Freedom of choice works very well in the rest of our economy and is a big reason why we are the richest country in the World. And is something we should be applying to health care and education as well. And let the best and brightest the people who deliver the best service be rewarded for that. And breakup our monopolies. 

AEI: 'U.S. Demand for Drugs Fuels Cartels'

Source:AEI- event on the War on Drugs.

"The Drug War's New Front Line: Combating Narco-Criminality in Central America

Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:AEI." 

From the American Enterprise Institute

If you look at the reasons why America still has a so-called War on Drugs and why narcotics are still a problem in America forty years after President Nixon officially launched the so-called War on Drugs in America, I believe its pretty simple and two reasons: the way we fight the so-called War on Drugs and how ineffectively we've been at it. As well as Mexico and the large demand in America as Mexico two huge countries, two of the largest countries in the world physically and in population. 

The combine population of both America and Mexico is roughly 430M people. And you are also talking about two of the largest economy's in the world. America still being the largest economy. And these two economy's put together total 16T$ with 430M people. And of course America and Mexico share a two- thousand mile border with each other. Easily one of the largest borders in the world. So there are a lot of resources and demand on both sides of the border to buy heroin, cocaine and meth, and marijuana. 

Marijuana, I and a lot of people would argue not being very dangerous compared with the big  three (cocaine, heroin, meth) for example it can't kill you right away. And again I and a lot of other people would argue that marijuana is as dangerous or as helpful as alcohol and tobacco and should be treated as such. 

America and Mexico, two huge country's that are trying to forcefully eliminate narcotics are actually feeding the problem and keeping narcotics dealers and growers in business by locking up drug addicts and treating them the same drug dealers. And locking these addicts up who have a medical condition in prison where they get no help for their problems and get more drugs while in prison. And if anything get back on the streets with a bigger addiction. 

Mexico has the same issues but they also have a lot of corruption in their Federal Government especially in the law enforcement. And this corruption is a problem not only for Mexico to deal with its so-called drug war, where their officers get paid off by narcotics dealers and gangsters. The good news is the answers to reforming the so-called War on Drugs are fairly simple. 

First of all you stop fighting a fake, so-called War on Drugs and admit that it was a failure and use those resources where we've spent over a trillion-dollars to fight and use them for better things. By decriminalizing marijuana and regulating it like alcohol and tobacco. 

And with heroin, cocaine and meth, separate the addicts from the dealers. Treat addicts like the patients that they are and get them in drug rehab and halfway houses where they would pay for their treatment and stay as well. 

And treat those dealers like the criminals that they are and put them away in prison. 

As I said before, part of the problem with the so-called War on Drugs is about demand: if people want something enough and are addicted to it they'll do whatever they can to get what they want and to hell with the consequences. So if you teach these people that these drugs are horrible for them, they are not going to want them and their dealers will have less customers to deal their dope to.

American Enterprise Institute: 'Why Crop Insurance Costs Too Much'

Source:AEI- Could be a scene from the great Alfred Hitchcock movie North by Northwest. I guess you would have to be a classic movie fan, or at least an Alfred Hitchcock fan to get that reference. LOL

"Third-party photos, graphics, and video clips in this video may have been cropped or reframed. Music in this video may have been recut from its original arrangement and timing.

In the event this video uses Creative Commons assets: If not noted in the description, titles for Creative Commons assets used in this video can be found at the link provided after each asset. 

The use of third-party photos, graphics, video clips, and/or music in this video does not constitute an endorsement from the artists and producers licensing those materials. 

AEI operates independently of any political party and does not take institutional positions on any issues. AEI scholars, fellows, and their guests frequently take positions on policy and other issues. When they do, they speak for themselves and not for AEI or its trustees or other scholars or employees.

More information on AEI research integrity can be found here:AEI ." 

From AEI

If you want to know what Federal Government waste looks like and is, just look at any of the Federal farm bills that are passed where wealthy and corporate farmers get subsidized essentially just for doing their jobs, producing food. This is another form of welfare, but instead of helping low-income and low-skilled people, what Welfare Insurance has traditionally been for. 

This is corporate welfare subsidizing business's for making a lot of money. I don't have a problem with Welfare Insurance for low-skilled and low-income people who need assistance to become self-sufficient in life, including temporary financial assistance. But these are the people it should be for, not for people who are already doing very well which is great. But they don't need assistance especially assistance thats funded by taxpayers. Especially since we have a Federal budget deficit of 1.6T$ and debt of 14T$ in an economy of 14T$. And Federal Agriculture Insurance represents around 40B$ a year in pork barrel Spending. (Pun intended) 

If we are going to fund Agriculture Insurance in the Federal Government, then it should be self-financed and a self-sufficient program. That doesn't have to be funded out of general revenue that the Federal Government would even have to manage. That would be non-profit or run by the states that farmers would have the option to pay into or not but wouldn't be eligible for agriculture assistance from the Federal Government unless they pay for it. 

This would save the Federal Government 40B$ a year, as well as the operating costs of running the program. Savings that could be used to help pay down the Federal deficit and debt. It wouldn't get our deficit and debt under control on its own but would represent a big piece of a deficit reduction package on its own. 

Again Welfare Insurance should be for the people who need it: low-skilled and low-income people can't survive without it. To help them get on their feet and become self-sufficient. Welfare Insurance should not be for people who are already doing very well and survive very comfortably on their own.