Welfare
Price of Paradise · Hawaii Public Radio · aired 1996-01-07
Guests: Richard Port (Chair, Democratic Party of Hawaii); Cliff Slater (businessman)
Duration: 1:08:58

[00:00:00] Randall Roth: It's Randy Roth, host of Pop Radio. And Jeff, we can't hear anything through our earphones in here. We're broadcast live each Sunday morning at 8:00 on KHPR 88.1 FM, and KKUA 90.7 FM, and then rebroadcast Sunday evenings at 8:00 on KIFO 1380 AM. Oh, keep going. Okay. This radio program grew out of a two volume series of best-selling books called The Price of Paradise. We shortened the name to Pop, an acronym for Price of Paradise. Everyone who works to bring Pop Radio to you is a volunteer. We do what we do because we enjoy it, and because we believe in the importance of lively and informed public dialogue.
[00:00:40] Randall Roth: Our airtime is paid for by the Hawaii Community Foundation, an organization that supports grassroots efforts to improve our sense of community, and that manages charitable funds with efficiency and compassion. Well, I'm going to assume that our earphones are going to be functioning in just a moment and we'll continue. Our topic today is government's role in helping people in need. And if you've had an opportunity to take a look at this morning's Honolulu Advertiser, the focus section page B3, you'll see that our guests in the studio this morning have each written an article.
[00:01:12] Randall Roth: Richard Port is the chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, and his article is over on the right side of the page. Richard, it should have been on the left, shouldn't it? And Cliff Slater, a Honolulu businessman, he has the the other article, and again, it's talking about government's role in helping people in need. Richard, I know from having read the newspaper that there are a number of things on which the two of you disagree. Is there anything on which you agree?
[00:01:39] Richard Port: Ah, yes. First of all, I think that both of us would agree that everyone who should who is capable of working should be working.
[00:01:48] Cliff Slater: Yes.
[00:01:49] Randall Roth: Okay. Cliff, anything that you can see in the way of agreement between you and Richard?
[00:01:54] Cliff Slater: Yes. I think as far as as far as Richard's comments on corporate welfare, totally agree with him on that. And of course we did we always agreed on the rail transit issue, so.
[00:02:07] Randall Roth: That's true. Okay, and by corporate welfare, different breaks for the wealthy that government going in and somehow supporting the wealthy, that you would agree that's not a good thing.
[00:02:16] Cliff Slater: Yes.
[00:02:17] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, we've got out of the way a couple of things on which you agree. Let's start talking about where there is disagreement. The word counterproductive came up in at least one of the pieces, I think both pieces. Cliff, as I understand it, you think the current welfare system is counterproductive, that it's it's not just a matter of not having done a good job of lifting the situation of those people that it's trying to help, but somehow it's it's pushed them down. Is that right?
[00:02:48] Cliff Slater: Yes, and and I first off on the first point where where we disagree, I think just to put things in context, Richard has said that that the welfare is only 1.7%, but I think you're only referring to AFDC.
[00:03:01] Richard Port: That's correct.
[00:03:02] Cliff Slater: And and if you look at the full range of benefits, that's 20% of the budget and
[00:03:08] Richard Port: Well, I might disagree with that. I have 6% for the total when you talk about things like food stamps and rental subsidies and as well as AFDC.
[00:03:19] Randall Roth: Well, you know, let me let me ask a question because that that really brings up an aspect of that that struck me this morning. Cliff, in your piece, you talk about how a single parent with two children in Hawaii could qualify for benefits that are the equivalent on a pretax basis of something like $35,000 and how that's the highest in the nation. Tell us a little bit about what that number means, where it came from, and then I want to get Richard's thoughts on it.
[00:03:51] Cliff Slater: Well, I I I first read about as I think most people did in in in the local papers and it it came from a study by the Cato Institute. And very interesting study. They talk actually about 36,400. And what I did because I heard a lot of criticism about that. I looked at the the I went into the detail. I talked to the various people and and it turns out that what you get If if you have a if you're a welfare mother with two children with no parental support and you're not working, then you get $712 a month on AFDC. You get typically $471 in food stamps.
[00:04:42] Cliff Slater: You get medical is very interesting. It cost the state, if for a mother and two children, it costs the state for medical and dental $547 a month. And actually what Cato did in in in looking at the medical plans, they capped it, they said, you know, the state is paying more well then we'll take the lower of of medical independent medical plan cost versus what the state's paying.
[00:05:11] Randall Roth: And let me ask you, is your list a long list of the various programs that are available?
[00:05:17] Cliff Slater: No. Well, I have the major ones. There's one other and that's section eight housing assistance.
[00:05:24] Randall Roth: Okay. And and I guess my question is, how how realistic is it that a welfare parent would actually be benefiting from from all of these programs?
[00:05:34] Cliff Slater: Well, typically the three that I've mentioned they all get that, okay? Then that there's section eight housing funding for for mother and two children is $850. But there's a cap on that, so some if you go if you're a new welfare recipient at the moment you won't get that.
[00:05:53] Randall Roth: Okay, and and quickly adding that up, it's it's less than 35,000 a year, but the 35,000 is saying that's how much you'd have to earn so that after you paid taxes on that 35,000, you would be able to afford these various things that are being provided either directly in the form of housing assistance or food stamps or in the form of cash as.
[00:06:14] Cliff Slater: If for example, if you if you're earning $3,000 a month in a job, then you could afford all of this.
[00:06:23] Randall Roth: Is that what you're saying you
[00:06:24] Cliff Slater: No, no not quite. You finish up with $2,231 after the various deductions for federal and state tax. I was amazed how much state tax you pay on $3,000 a month. It's it's over $250.
[00:06:40] Randall Roth: So you're saying you're actually worse off earning 3,000 a month than what these numbers add up to.
[00:06:45] Cliff Slater: No, no. You're about the same looking at the major four programs but then there's a lot of other things you know you're getting free school lunches and breakfasts.
[00:06:54] Randall Roth: Oh, and car insurance, that's our topic next week. Now let me stop you there. Richard, are you basically in agreement with the numbers that you've been hearing or in disagreement? And and then over and above that, what's your reaction to it?
[00:07:07] Richard Port: Well, first and I'll make this very quick. But first, anything coming back to Cato Institute, anything that I would see from Cato Institute would be immediately suspect because it's basically a radical right think tank that comes up with stuff that nobody ever believes. But with regard to as you pointed out, the 35,000 figure, you know, if somebody reads picks up their morning paper today and reads that, they're going to say, gee, that's outrageous. But as you already pointed out, it's pretax annual income or and there's a lot that, as you pointed out, they may not be eligible for all of these benefits, and, so I would have to study.
[00:07:49] Richard Port: The bottom line is I'm not going to try to hear to analyze and to go through if somebody is getting more than they should, or if people are benefiting. The problem with the the the whole analysis is that there's a current attempt nationally, to pit the very poor against the working poor.
[00:08:13] Richard Port: The full-time worker who is below the poverty line or barely above the poverty line, and there's a national effort to make those two groups think that one is the enemy of the other, when in point of fact, as I've stated elsewhere in my article in this morning's paper, it's basically we have an increasingly small number of people at the top who are who control a major portion of the wealth of the nation.
[00:08:38] Randall Roth: Okay. And and I think one of the lines in your article is that the problem in this country isn't the laziness of the poor, it's the greed of the wealthy and you're suggesting, I think, that the taxes need to be raised, that we need more funding in order to have a stronger support network.
[00:08:57] Richard Port: Right, that is correct. And by the way, that is one area where Richard and I would would agree on. It's not inherent. These people are not inherently lazy, they've just got they got the wrong incentives, okay? If the if the incentives are to not get married, and be have more kids, okay? then then that's what you'll do.
[00:09:14] Randall Roth: And that's at the heart of of your piece, as I understand it, is that the current system you think is counterproductive because it gives the wrong incentives. It pushes people down. It pushes them away from having a a two-parent family and and away from going out and trying hard to get a job. Is that would you characterize that as the core of your argument?
[00:09:35] Cliff Slater: Yes, no, that I disagree with that I agree with. Um, I ran into a a if I can find it here.
[00:09:44] Randall Roth: Tell you what, while you're looking, let me get Richard's reaction to what we've described as the core of your article and then we'll come right back to you, Richard.
[00:09:51] Richard Port: Well, I rather than do that, I just like to say that that basically the problem really is that people who are working today and trying to make a go of it are struggling because what has happened is uh, uh, there's the, there's a tremendous, as jobs have been created, they've been low paying jobs, as jobs have been lost, they've been higher paying jobs. And so there's been a, uh, uh, a real, um, um, as as I indicated earlier, a tremendous, um, polarization between the wealthy and the working poor.
[00:10:29] Randall Roth: And I think if if I were to characterize the core of your article would be that we really have a dysfunctional economic system in the sense that it's it's pushing the richer getting richer, the poor getting poor, and that's the real problem as opposed to anything with the the safety net itself.
[00:10:43] Cliff Slater: But Richard, let me just disagree on that one, because if you take our community, the only new jobs that have been created in this community are government jobs. In the private sector net where where I believe we're down. We but we've increased, uh, government jobs by about 6 or 8,000 people since, uh, since 1990, I think.
[00:11:04] Richard Port: Well I don't know how much we want to focus on government jobs, but a lot of the jobs that were created during the years of the administration were primarily educational jobs at the lower elementary and the university and those were caused by an increase in population of children in the school system. And it's it's clear, I've done that analysis personally, and I can vouch for the fact that during the previous administration the administration, the school system was dropping in terms of the enrollment and it increased dramatically during the years.
[00:11:37] Randall Roth: Can I throw one other thought out and and that is in in reading your two pieces, something that that I think is is a very important point of disagreement has to do with this word entitlement. Richard, as I understand your piece, you feel that that a person who qualifies as being poor based upon a look at the numbers is entitled to certain things from the government, regardless of that person's behavior. And I know I'm oversimplifying it, but but the word entitlement is, I think, key to um uh, how you think the system should be structured.
[00:12:10] Randall Roth: While I think Cliff is saying entitlement is is a real problem, because if someone is not deserving of help, they shouldn't be helped. By helping them, you're somehow encouraging whatever that behavior is that that got them where they are. Now I've probably mischaracterized both your positions. Richard, let me start with you and see if if you want to quibble with it a bit and then we'll go to Cliff.
[00:12:30] Richard Port: Why, I don't like the word entitlement actually. Uh, I basically uh, I I think that that the the issue really is do we want people out on the street homeless? Do we want children who don't have adequate food? And I don't think anybody wants that. So whether they're entitled to it or not, we as a country don't want people in that situation, so we give them money so that they can get out of that situation.
[00:12:54] Cliff Slater: Okay. Cliff. I like entitlement because the word, because I think it sums up the whole thing, is that people feel they are entitled to the average taxpayer's money. I mean, let's, we got to always remember that government doesn't have any money of its own, it only has the taxpayer's. And the average Joe taxpayer is the person who's footing the bill.
[00:13:17] Randall Roth: And you're saying that their behavior is is something that needs to be looked at in determining whether help should be given?
[00:13:23] Cliff Slater: Well, I don't think I don't think that the average taxpayer, the average voter thinks that people who are badly off, while while the average American is generous to a fault, I don't believe that they they believe that welfare is an entitlement.
[00:13:40] Randall Roth: Okay. Well, I've got on the phone, uh, Mike McCartney, who is uh, the Vice President of the Senate this year. I happened to be talking to Mike on the phone the other day about a different topic, I mentioned this program coming up, and he said that he had some thoughts on the issue that he thinks probably differ from those of of both Richard and Cliff. So let's go to Mike and see what he has to add to this conversation.
[00:14:02] Speaker 1: Good morning. Randy, good morning Richard and Cliff.
[00:14:05] Randall Roth: Good morning Mike.
[00:14:06] Speaker 1: Without starting and say I have thoughts that are different, I'd like to say that um, it's been interesting to hear what both of you are saying and I think um, yesterday we had a caucus of um, the Democrats and we had Earl and Zai come in and many of the things that went on in caucus about the welfare issues are being echoed today by Richard and Cliff and I think in that and interesting enough, it was the Democratic caucus that that was talking about um, many of the things that were even in Cliff's article.
[00:14:35] Speaker 1: And um, what really stood out in that whole discussion yesterday was when we looked at pie charts, we spent more money on public welfare than we do on higher education in the state and everybody just sat back in their chairs and uh, when we talked about incentives, we also talked about um, there really aren't a lot of incentives in the welfare system to get people back to work or to get them uh to be productive members of society.
[00:15:01] Speaker 1: And I think um Senator Matsura uh spoke real passionately about how he's going to attempt to try and make some reforms and Senator Ikeda said, I don't envy your your job and and I think that um, we need to do something there. And um, so it's it is a a system that I think has gone astray and that people need to take a look and we need to ask some fundamental questions again as what is the purpose of an entitlement system or a welfare system and and um, what are our goals and objectives in that in that and I think um, you're going to hear a lot of good debate this year on that.
[00:15:34] Randall Roth: Mike, I want to ask you a question. Um, Cliff has suggested that the benefits in Hawaii are substantially higher than benefits that are available in other states. Is that the consensus in the legislature or are there people who believe that that we aren't at the the top of the list of um of states in terms of dollar amounts.
[00:15:53] Speaker 1: I don't know the Cliff's numbers or the or any real numbers, but in yesterday's discussion, that was clearly the consensus in the caucus room, including um that you know, people do get probably the one of the better benefits package. Of course, I can hear people countering on the other side and saying, well, we have the highest cost of living and whose fault is that. But yes, we do have a very rich benefit package and that was a topic that um was brought up by Senator Matsura yesterday.
[00:16:22] Randall Roth: Okay. What sounds like the legislature has some some tough decisions to make in this area and uh and at least you're you're hearing um uh both sides.
[00:16:31] Speaker 1: Yes, and I think it's it's not going to be uh a black or white solution, but I think any any change that we make, we have to realize that we're changing behavior out there and anytime you change public behavior, it takes a little time also, but we need to start doing it at the policy level.
[00:16:53] Randall Roth: Okay. Mike, thanks a lot. I really appreciate you being available this morning.
[00:16:56] Speaker 1: And thank you um to guests for bringing up this topic because I think it's good to have this public discussion and um I think there's a thread of the needle between both of you and Richard uh Cliff and Richard, so thank you very much for letting me be a part of it.
[00:17:10] Randall Roth: Okay, thanks again Mike. You're listening to Pop Radio. It's the Price of Paradise Radio show. If you'd like to ask a question or make a brief comment, our number is 955-8821. The topic is government's role in helping people who are in need. Our guests in the studio are Richard Port, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, and Cliff Slater, who is a Honolulu businessman. They each have written an article that appears in this morning's advertiser in the focus section on page B3. I encourage you to take a look at it if you haven't already. Again, if you'd like to ask a question or make a brief comment, our number is 955-8821.
[00:17:48] Randall Roth: Well, let's go right to the callers. We have Renee from Honolulu. Good morning, Renee.
[00:17:52] Speaker 2: Good morning. Um, is it okay if I ask, make a comment and ask a question?
[00:17:58] Randall Roth: You bet.
[00:17:58] Speaker 2: Good. Okay. Uh, the comment about what's been said so far about the polarization, which can return, for keeping the poor. Um, last night, or was it two nights before Joe Suki on dialogue said that of the possible benefits that were given to Hawaii welfare recipients, for the most part, only one-third to one they got only one-third of one-fourth to all the possible benefits. They don't get the whole range of benefits. So that to say that a person gets seven what's amounts to $17 an hour worth of benefits is really misleading. It should be more one.
[00:18:34] Randall Roth: Renee, did he say that's because they don't qualify for them or because they don't know about them.
[00:18:38] Speaker 2: No, because they don't, they don't need them. They only need a portion of them. So they don't need the whole range.
[00:18:45] Randall Roth: But but do they qualify for them?
[00:18:48] Speaker 2: I would assume if they I I can't read his mind, but I would assume that if they are that badly off, that they would qualify the qualify for well then we qualify.
[00:18:57] Randall Roth: Renee, hit hold on. I'm going to come back to you, but Cliff has a thought.
[00:19:00] Speaker 1: on what you've just said and then I'll come back to you.
[00:19:02] Speaker 2: What, um as I say in my article, it's up to um 36 35,000, okay? So it's not I don't you can't call that misleading. The what really happens is that if um if you do qualify, okay, and if you have been on welfare for some time, then you will get uh actually, in excess of of the 35,000 um because there's a number of benefits that weren't included in the calculation such as things as uh free auto insurance and free school meals and free A+ care, et cetera, et cetera.
[00:19:36] Speaker 1: Okay. Renee, why don't you go ahead and and finish your thoughts.
[00:19:40] Caller: Okay. Well, I I was also thinking that part of the disenchantment with paying welfare and part of the disenchantment with paying taxes is because aside from the right wing of course attack on welfare is because we don't get the benefit that other people get. For instance, in Europe, in France there was an article that they of course get free health care. Everyone gets free health care, including long-term care out of their taxes. They get free university education, up to university education, free school meals. They get a large percentage of subsidized housing, rent control. Their minimum wage is something like $8 an hour. Their national average wage is something total average wage of everybody is something like 20 something an hour versus 16 on our part. They get everyone gets 80% retirement. 5 weeks vacation. So so your your point is along the That's part of the disenchantment that people have.
[00:20:32] Speaker 1: Let me make sure I understand. I think the point you're making is along the lines and Richard I'm asking you, along the lines Richard of what you were suggesting in your article.
[00:20:40] Richard Port: Yes.
[00:20:41] Speaker 1: Okay.
[00:20:43] Caller: Can can I ask a question? Uh if it's a quick one.
[00:20:46] Speaker 1: Yes, very quick. What percentage of the budget goes to corporate welfare?
[00:20:50] Speaker 2: Of which of which budget?
[00:20:52] Caller: Uh state or federal, both. Try both.
[00:20:55] Speaker 2: Um I don't know, but I'm I'm in Richard and I are in agreement on that, okay? I uh you know, I run a business in Honolulu. I don't get any corporate welfare.
[00:21:04] Speaker 1: So sugar, price supports sugar, price supports, for example, Cliff, you would be opposed to that? Yeah.
[00:21:12] Richard Port: Absolutely, uh, uh, uh, let me say, let me say that, uh, uh, according to the, uh, news at 4:00 AM this morning, the new Clinton budget, Well, this is up to the minute. Yeah, this is up to the minute. Uh, the the Clinton seven-year budget will call for a removal of a lot of this corporate welfare, uh, and that apparently is going to be some of the disagreement that comes, uh, from between the two between between the two parties.
[00:21:38] Speaker 1: Okay. Renee, thank you very much. Our our our lines are full and so we're going to try and start moving uh a little bit more quickly. We appreciate your call.
[00:21:46] Speaker 4: Good morning, Bob.
[00:21:49] Speaker 1: What do you have for our guest this morning?
[00:21:51] Speaker 4: Well, uh uh what we're talking about is putting a uh bandaid on a hemorrhage here. Uh, I want to hear Richard Part talk about incentives to invest into sacrifice because if we have a booming economy, a lot of these problems disappear. What we're talking about is divvying up a smaller pie.
[00:22:08] Speaker 2: Well, so far we're talking really primarily about the 14 million people that are welfare recipients that Phil Graham suggests should get out of the wagon and pull the wagon. But nine million of those are children. Uh, we going to have the children or the uh very elderly or the disabled uh What what are we talking about uh uh if we cannot take care of that group of people, what kind of country do we live in?
[00:22:35] Speaker 4: We we live in a country that is killed incentive for people to sacrifice and invest. That's the problem.
[00:22:41] Speaker 2: How can you say that when when the uh the the the top 5% controls 21% of the wealth while the body bottom 40% control only 12.5% of the wealth? And those figures have been dramatically changed in the last 30 years, increasing the amount of capital and wealth that is uh uh that the wealthy control.
[00:23:06] Speaker 4: I say it's your socialist socialist policies that have created this problem. And not only that, the figures are phony and you know it.
[00:23:13] Speaker 1: We we've got healthy disagreement here. Um, Bob you've you've made your point uh and we need to move on, but I appreciate your call.
[00:23:21] Richard Port: Yes, I I I do have to disagree with with with Richard. There are other studies that show, uh, that that it's it's practically the same. That nothing really has changed in the last 30, 40 years.
[00:23:33] Speaker 2: Well, the figures I'm looking at here are from 74 to 94 show that the uh uh bottom uh five uh bottom 10% contained uh had 4.3% of the wealth in 74 and 3.6% in 94.
[00:23:47] Richard Port: Where is the study from?
[00:23:48] Speaker 2: This is uh uh from the US Bureau of the Census income
[00:23:52] Richard Port: No, no, no. I mean, who wrote the study?
[00:23:54] Speaker 2: No, no. The figures are from the US Bureau of the Census, income, poverty, and valuation of non-cash benefits, 1994.
[00:24:01] Richard Port: Yeah, but I'm sure I'm sure your 1.7% is out of the US budget too, but but where where did that piece of writing come from?
[00:24:08] Speaker 2: From the you from This is from cross currents
[00:24:11] Speaker 1: Can I can I blow my whistle at this point? That I it's it's kind of like on the other side from the Kato and I think what you're saying is that we consumers need to take a look at where these studies come from. Not that they're wrong, but that sometimes there can be a spin that is angled to the left or angled to the right or whatever.
[00:24:27] Richard Port: Which really brings me to a to a point that that first I really grasped with in in the in the rail transit issue is that, you know, A says something and B says something else, and and our newspapers report on this ping-pong game that's going on. He said that, he said that, okay, and they never resolve it. And I wish for example that that that uh somebody in the press would take, you know, Richard data and my data and and really look hard at it and resolve it. Hold hold your feet to the fire. Well, we've got our lines just packed and so we're going to start moving. Anton from Waikiki, good morning, Anton.
[00:25:01] Speaker 5: Yeah, good morning. Um, I just want to wanted to make a couple of comments. Um, I'm in the medical field uh and um I've been watching what the legislators have been doing um with the medical industry here and and also with the education. We're spending um a lot less money on the uh on medicine. Uh, things like the poison control line, um we're almost lost completely lost their funding and only have only been kept open by um by uh luckily by some private funding. Um, library hours were cut down and um various services are being cut down. The cost of education is going up. And as a professional in the medical field, I was worried about my job because I figured, well, um they're they're cutting down on the on the um, you know, the medical facilities and and personnel, and we're laying we're laying off people uh in my facility. But then I noticed also that the theme seems to be to keep the people sick and keep them stupid. So I figure that almost ensures my uh my my job, so I'm not really too worried about it. I think matter of fact, from my standpoint, I think we owe the legislature uh both statewide and and uh federally a vote of thanks because uh that's a great theme. Keep the people um sick, keep them stupid and they'll probably get into office again. And incidentally too, that the fellow who says he's a businessman and he doesn't get any uh corporate welfare. Anytime a businessman gets a a tax break that the normal working person doesn't get, I consider that corporate welfare. And there's a whole heck of a lot of a lot of um tax break that businessmen get, and I'm not saying that they don't deserve.
[00:26:35] Speaker 1: Wait, wait, wait, we're getting off to a different topic. Not a bad topic, but a different topic, Anton. That's really all my two cents.
[00:26:41] Speaker 5: Okay. Anton, thank you for your call. I appreciate.
[00:26:44] Speaker 1: Cliff, I know you'd like to debate him on that one, but I want to get to some more callers. Let's go to Shell and Moli. Good morning, Shell.
[00:26:50] Speaker 6: Shell, are you there?
[00:26:51] Speaker 1: Yes, I'm here. Good morning.
[00:26:52] Speaker 6: Um a question perhaps for Mr. Slatter. Uh was Mr. Slatter out of the country during the Reagan years, when the national debt tripled and this great disproportionate uh relationship between the the very wealthy and the poor in this country, really manifested itself which uh uh certainly to my mind uh brings us to the mess that we're in right now with so many people needing welfare.
[00:27:21] Speaker 1: Shell, let me give him a a few seconds to respond, but I don't want to get back into that argument that I stopped a couple of minutes ago. Cliff, why don't you respond to Shell's comment?
[00:27:30] Speaker 2: Well, you know, that's that that that's frankly, the the the rather like the the the the rhetoric that you hear that the the Reagan cut the taxes uh the but the spending went on as normal and therefore we got in the hole. The fact of the matter is is that the the is that tax tax collections tax collections, not tax rates, tax collections increased more under Reagan uh in real dollars uh than under anybody else. And what happened was that the the the the Democratic Congress just spent even fu even faster. Well I I do have to I do have to contest that because budget deal with me. Sure. Okay, uh the Reagan budgets for the eight years that he was president, if we relate the uh what was actually appropriated by Congress, it was in seven of those eight years. It was less than uh the Congress appropriated less than Reagan had asked for. So, uh clearly, uh what we had was a three-bit $300 billion deficit uh that uh Clinton took on when he became president, he has it down to 160 going to in the next few months to 150 billion uh and was already on target to come uh to a balanced budget. So.
[00:28:50] Speaker 1: Okay. And I I know this isn't irrelevant, but it is a little bit off uh our topic. So I'm going to pull it back to uh the government's role in in helping people in need. Um, Shell, I appreciate your call.
[00:29:01] Speaker 6: Thank you.
[00:29:02] Speaker 1: Uh, we have Bryce from Makiki. Good morning, Bryce.
[00:29:04] Speaker 7: Hey, um I have two things to comment. The benefits from a welfare society benefits doors in poor areas, it benefits the job people because taking a whole segment of people off of the job market helps people who can work at jobs. Another thing, do you folks know how much a disabled individual makes on welfare?
[00:29:30] Speaker 1: Well, let's take them one at a time. Let's start. Cliff, you had a a reaction to Bryce's first comment.
[00:34:28] Speaker 2: that's what you were saying is that we what I'm saying is that it benefits the communities, like the stores in poor areas where there is a lack of jobs and it also benefits places where people cannot find work.
[00:34:44] Speaker 1: That's right. No, I mean, any anytime you you put money out, uh, you somebody's going to benefit.
[00:34:49] Speaker 7: Yes, but the thing is you talk as though um like a a person on welfare makes a lot of money. Um a disabled individual makes about $400 on welfare. $400 to live on. Well, that's general assistance, right?
[00:35:05] Speaker 2: Yes. But what Cliff was doing earlier was starting with general assistance and moving on to food stamps and medical. Well that's a very very that's a very very um uh deceptive way of um making it like it's there is more benefits for those people who are disabled. I mean I mean $400 to live on for disabled people and they can't find housing. Can you find a place for $400?
[00:35:39] Speaker 1: Cliff, no, I I I I I I just I think it's very I think the whole thing is skewed. Um the fact of the matter though Bryce is is that the there are um some welfare recipients. Um I think some the wants to make a lot of money. Bryce Bryce let him finish. Let let Bryce Bryce let him finish.
[00:36:01] Speaker 2: Um there there are people making the kinds of money that I'm talking about. Okay, now if we took now Where? Uh Where exactly. I've never seen a welfare person make 35,000. Well, if you look at the uh the uh the the data that I collect If you look at the reality No, I talk about reality. I talk to the I talk to the various state officials, okay, who are handing this money out on a daily basis. And what they tell me is that you get in case you weren't here earlier, just let me give you the major numbers. Uh Cliff, we we just don't have time. Bryce, um just I these are numbers that Cliff is saying, he's got from from the local app. Bryce, your point has has been very well made and and I simply have to move on. We've got a bunch of people who have been waiting. I really appreciate your call, but I I do have to move on.
[00:36:52] Speaker 8: Hi Randy, it's Lila. Oh, sorry. Uh-huh. Well, you know, I'm kind of in the middle. I think those who need help definitely should be helped by the government. However, there's a lot of fat. I thoroughly resent uh people on welfare getting car insurance. It is very expensive, ridiculously expensive. Um, but it shouldn't be a part of the package. We have a a fairly good uh bus system. You know, why can't they ride the bus like other people do, um or save up money to use a taxi, you know, for emergencies. But um one of the problems that the welfare system has created and I focus in Hawaii is that um there's no self-esteem. And when that's gone, then you simply live from day-to-day. Now, I don't know if Andy Chang started it or we know who Rubin is or the current uh director, but back I
[00:38:00] Speaker 1: in 1980, I gave, and the the work uh fair project that San Diego had, um, every person on welfare should work. There are not enough jobs in the community uh to handle welfare people, but jobs can be created so that they can get used to that pattern, and ultimately, let's hope that they would go into uh the job market.
[00:38:27] Speaker 2: Okay. And I think Richard would say something similar, that there need to be jobs, high paying jobs, and I think Cliff would say, there are jobs out there, but they don't pay as well as what a lot of people can get right now under our current welfare program.
[00:38:42] Speaker 1: Absolutely, and so they stay there.
[00:38:44] Speaker 2: Yeah. But I think both Richard and I would agree whatever system that you set up, okay, that it must be such that however menial a job you get, it still results in you getting more benefit.
[00:38:57] Speaker 1: When a person on welfare is offered a job and they lose medical benefits, then I can understand why they remain on welfare.
[00:39:07] Speaker 2: Right. And and Cliff and Richard are in total agreement. Leela, I really appreciate your call. Again, I I I'm sorry to rush off, but our lines are just packed.
[00:39:15] Speaker 1: Thank you, Leela. I really appreciate it.
[00:39:18] Richard Port: Just one quick comment. Uh, it should always be there should always be an incentive to work that you get more benefits from working than from not working, and I think that's part of the agreement that Cliff and I would have. And so where you where the problem is at the people who cannot work, uh, must have sufficient food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education in order to be able to to live, to exist.
[00:39:43] Speaker 2: And and I think the dilemma that we have is that if if that is handed to them, then Cliff would say, they no longer have an incentive to work unless they can make more than that. Because as you have said, they're going to do what's in their own best interest and our economy isn't providing the opportunity for them to make more than what and we're disagreeing on numbers but more than what.
[00:40:05] Richard Port: Well, I'm not saying a little for them, that I'm saying that that people the minimum wage for example, of people who work, has to have be more than the amount of money that you get from non not working.
[00:40:17] Speaker 2: Right, and I think and and that's part of the problem and I think that we would have a disc I think Cliff and I would have a disagreement on minimum wage, for example. Well let's like Cliff, say what that disagreement is, and then we'll move on to our callers.
[00:40:28] Richard Port: Um, I I like to quote Walter Williams, who's head of the economics department at George Mason and and Thomas Sowell at Hoover Institution. Both of them um out out of the Philadelphia slums in the and and and and Harlem. And and those guys have written extensively uh on the destruction that minimum wage has caused amongst black teenagers. Uh destru absolutely destroyed jobs.
[00:40:51] Speaker 2: Because jobs that would be there aren't there since the employer can't afford to pay the minimum wage. Is that what you're saying?
[00:40:57] Richard Port: Right. And frankly some people, I mean as an employer and from a strict looking strictly from an economic standpoint, okay, you in some some jobs, people who are not educated have no language skills, okay, and have no work experience, okay, these people you you can if you pay them minimum wage, you you cannot break even on it.
[00:41:20] Speaker 2: Well, let's move on to our callers and and I'll just Oh, you're not going to let me respond to that. Oh, I'm sorry. Of course I'm going to let you respond. Quickly.
[00:41:27] Richard Port: Well, yes. Okay. Um, my I believe that if a parent works full-time year-round, the parent and his or her children should not have to live in poverty. That uh this can be accomplished by increasing the minimum wage so it can support a family of three and peg to the consumer price index and by expanding the earned income tax credit to adjust for the number of children in the family. You know, this is this is an unfunded employer mandate, okay? If you want to do that, do it in the by general taxation, but don't don't destroy business and jobs by doing it that way.
[00:42:00] Richard Port: I never want to destroy business. Uh by the way, I feel I'm very pro business. Uh so it's not a question of wanting to destroy business. Uh I I think that there's possibility that if minimum wages are increased that uh certain tax benefits have to accrue to the businesses. You know, there are certain people, Richard, that you really can't afford to employ for free. People who have almost no skills, okay? Any any job of any kind for for for people without those skills is the first step up the ladder by which they can develop communication skills, education.
[00:42:40] Speaker 2: And and your piece was saying that people who are receiving welfare should have to work even if it's something that that's not very productive in terms of the compensation that can be generated. You're saying everybody should have to work.
[00:42:53] Richard Port: Sure, you get you got to get in the habit, you know, for example, if you have higher teenagers, okay, there there is a training experience. I mean, teenagers don't get it initially. You have to train them into to work skills. They have to know they have to get out of bed every morning. No experience for that. Well, I think that uh, as it relates to Hawaii's minimum wage, uh you know, Burger King and McDonald's, the kind of places that you're talking about that do training that uh take untrained people and do training. As we do. Uh start at $6 an hour and the minimum wage right now is 5 and a quarter.
[00:43:25] Richard Port: Right. We pay more, but the thing of it is our, Good. I think all should, everyone should But it's still less than that $15 an hour that Cliff was alluding to earlier, which I guess both of you would say, that's the problem. Yeah, well, yes, but I think you've got to get the teenagers going up the rungs of the ladder because the schools, you know, the schools are turning out illiterate people. I mean, we businesses training these people today.
[00:43:51] Speaker 2: I think we're getting onto another topic again. We sure are. All right. Well, that was interesting, but we've got some people who've been waiting very patiently. Let's go to Jim and Honolulu. Good morning, Jim.
[00:44:01] Speaker 3: Uh, hello.
[00:44:02] Speaker 2: Thank you for waiting so patiently. We're We're finally with you.
[00:44:05] Speaker 3: Sure, my name is Jim Brewer and I have been a community organizer organizer amongst the homeless and uh, and with single parents, I've been a vista worker and a community action worker and whatnot. And the thing is that uh one of the things that I run into over the years is the thing that I began to call the musical chairs of poverty. And that is that if you spend time with some groups say, single parents and whatnot, and you give them help with jobs and whatnot. Sure enough, they they get training and they get off of uh welfare and they get jobs and move on.
[00:44:37] Speaker 3: But the thing is that there's a vacuum created and another group falls into that. And now now while this actually works, and this is the thing that everybody avoids. They never talk about it. And that is that the and but Richard does in his article today. The Federal Reserve system, banking system maintains an official 4 to 6% unemployment at any given time, actually 5 to 6%. And it goes as high as sometimes as 10%. But the truth is that this official unemployment rate for instance, in December the official.
[00:45:13] Speaker 2: Jim, you're going to have to uh bring it to a point.
[00:45:15] Speaker 3: Okay, let me say this. At 5.5%, the actual unemployment in the country is 10.7%. And so the thing is that um uh you can't fight statistics. If you if.
[00:45:27] Speaker 2: Well, we were doing that earlier. What I'm saying what I'm saying that this is really serious because this goes to the heart of the problem. If you want to solve this problem, I can tell you that Mike McCartney's comments were very uh relevant to this.
[00:45:43] Speaker 3: And that is that if the uh Federal Reserve system always maintains 10% basically 10% unemployment. That means that if you even if we had compulsory college education, that 10% of the people after they graduated uh there will be 10% unemployment regardless of the level of education.
[00:46:05] Speaker 2: As you put it, a a vacuum down there that have to be Okay.
[00:46:08] Speaker 3: And so and so the thing is the thing is that uh what this means is that there's a quasi public policy made by the Federal Reserve.
[00:46:15] Speaker 2: I've I've got to move on. You've made your point. Um, we'll give Cliff a a few seconds to respond.
[00:46:20] Speaker 3: Could I could I ask a question? No, wait wait. Could I ask a question, though? Not yet.
[00:46:25] Speaker 2: Uh, Milton Friedman has made made a proposal that that we increased that the the Federal Reserve get out of manipulating the economy and and they increase the money supply by approximately the the the the the growth rate of the economy and keep it standard. If you I think he talks about 2.2% uh growth uh in money and and and don't Okay. don't um mess around with it.
[00:46:48] Richard Port: Jim is correct that the Federal Reserve Board essentially, when unemployment goes down, they raise interest rates. And so basically, you can never you can't win for losing or lose for winning. It's it's a terrible uh situation where we will never have total employment. Uh, we'll never have enough uh jobs and enough uh work uh being done because the Federal Reserve manipulates the figures.
[00:47:12] Speaker 2: Okay, Jim you had a question. Let's keep it short.
[00:47:14] Speaker 3: Yeah, the question is um in 1989, I wrote an article for a a magazine.
[00:47:20] Speaker 2: It's got to be a short question, Jim.
[00:47:21] Speaker 3: Okay, well the thing is that um in that I found out that 52% of housing subsidies go to the top wealthiest 17% of the people. That means that people making six figure incomes and whatnot, get uh help to buy their home and whatnot. Second home.
[00:47:39] Speaker 2: Jim, this doesn't sound like a question.
[00:47:41] Speaker 3: Okay, but the thing is though, is this not? I mean it amounts to 100 What is the question? 100 or more billion dollars a year in welfare to the rich. Now, the thing is, my question is, is this not welfare to the rich? 100 Billion.
[00:47:56] Speaker 2: Is this a are this mortgage deductions?
[00:47:58] Speaker 3: Yes. And and the thing is though is that the people making six figure in the 17 top 17%
[00:48:04] Speaker 2: Jim you you raise an an interesting area, but it's it's getting a little bit off the the specific topic this morning, so I'm I'm going to have to move on. Again, It's government. It's the role of government. I understand. I understand it's not irrelevant, but but one of my jobs is to I've got to kind of keep us as close to the topic as I can.
[00:48:20] Speaker 3: Well, the thing is if you if you go off the Federal Reserve system, all this other stuff, you're blaming the victims of the Federal Reserve system anytime you say Jim, thank you for your call. I've got I've got to move on. Thank you, Jim.
[00:48:31] Speaker 2: Let's go to Rose on the Big Island. Rose, you've been waiting a real long time and I appreciate it. Good morning. Good morning.
[00:48:37] Speaker 4: Good morning. Thank you. Um I'm calling from the Big Island obviously here, and I don't have any answers to this. There certainly are some people who really do need help. One one group of people I think very importantly need help is people who have small children. If we keep farming our small children out to other daycare centers, we're just going to keep having problems in our society. Another point entirely.
[00:48:57] Speaker 4: But my what I wanted to say this morning is that in our community that probably has about 10,000 people overall in it, primarily agricultural but a whole lot of other just mishmash stuff going on too. The least desirable people in my, perhaps biased opinion, are the people who are on welfare. They have houses that are paid by the state for $700 a month. They have roosters upon roosters upon roosters in a neighborhood that's all older people mostly and families who don't like it, but the people don't care.
[00:49:26] Speaker 4: There's rampant drugs, major drinking, lots of noise. None of these guys work. They're all working age. There's teenagers. Welfare is clearly not working for these people and I don't think that unless somebody can really prove that they have a need, that we, who make less than $10 an hour, my husband and I and our two for our two children, should have to subsidize these people who are causing chaos.
[00:49:51] Speaker 2: Rose, let me get a reaction to that uh from Richard and then Cliff. Just quick reaction.
[00:49:56] Richard Port: Well, uh you know, I I actually have very empathy, empathy with what uh Rose is saying. Uh the problem is that in many of these cases, they're very disturbed individuals who had themselves disturbed childhoods, uh and I'm not excusing by any means, uh you know, every person has to make what they can of their life. I agree with that. But in many cases they do have they've gotten into drugs or they've gotten into alcohol and the and our society really has not found a way to uh deal very well with that.
[00:50:27] Richard Port: By the way, I don't think any society in our world has has been able to really resolve that problem. I I've been noting the gruesome pictures in the Soviet Union of alcoholics on the street and so forth, but we do have to deal with that. And I think uh basically what I say is uh we have to uh uh pray for these people and try to find ways to help them help them.
[00:50:49] Speaker 2: Yeah, I uh um I I think that brings us to another very important point in this whole discussion on reform at the moment when we we are many people are recommending that we get the uh charitable efforts rather than entitlements and get it very much closer to the communities.
[00:51:08] Speaker 2: Okay, so that the communities are judging whether the people uh are are are deserving of See, so you're saying the the government isn't equipped to decide who's deserving and who isn't. But a a local organization, a church, for example, or Salvation Army, I think the point in your article was, they're close enough to where they can give an incentive to somebody to to change self-destructive or anti-social behavior is Is that right?
[00:51:34] Richard Port: Well, the you know, going from A to Z, I mean first off, uh the the the state is in a better position to to to solve Rose's problem than is the federal government. And Hawaii County is in a better position than the state government. to get it closer and closer and closer to the problem. Richard, would you agree with that? Absolutely not. Um uh basically look at the history. Uh look at uh you know, when we had states rights, we had slavery.
[00:52:02] Richard Port: If you that's what the civil war was all about. When we we wouldn't no, when we wouldn't give women the right to vote. Individual states were giving them the right to vote, but they couldn't vote in federal elections. That was regarded as a state right issue. Now we have again, people saying, oh well, if we leave it to the community, you know, even the even uh good groups, salvation Army or uh Catholic charities or whatever. In one community, they will end up, you know, there'd be some somebody who's very compassionate and will help, and in another community, uh an individual for that same organization will not be helping uh the people who need help.
[00:52:38] Richard Port: So I I I don't agree with that. I I do agree that we have to keep these groups. They do, for the dollar for each dollar, they tend to do a better job than government on its own. And that's why we want them to participate. I like the churches to participate uh uh in in that kind of outreach to people who need help.
[00:52:57] Speaker 2: Now, as I understand it Cliff, you're saying though that when government is there with the net, it undercuts the efforts of the church because there's an entitlement now and the church has lost its leverage to change behavior. Is is that right? Well, when when the time of these changes were going on, the the the the the the the charitable organizations used to say that bad charities drive out good ones. In other words, the the the good All in the government is is a bad charity. Yes, because it doesn't demand anything. You're entitled.
[00:53:25] Richard Port: Okay, Richard, you've got to respond to that. Well, the uh, you know, that's what that's what this all started with, the Tragedy of American Compassion, Marvin Olasky's book that both of us have read, and and basically, that's the pitch that's made in the book. By the way, the book is recommended by Newt Gingrich. Need I say more. It's small rural areas. It's not there's house cleaning and daycare and stitching and sewing and all kinds of people who have need this. People who really want to find work. I've never had trouble finding work, and I don't care if I make $5 an hour.
[00:54:28] Speaker 2: Rose, can I ask you a question? Sure. Yeah do you live like Hamakua or somewhere like that? Yes, Hamakua area. Okay. Do you do you think that these decisions about what these families should be getting should be made in Washington or in Hamakua? I think that the community certainly should have a little more control because these people are we have to call I mean it's about probably 12 or 14 families.
[00:55:01] Speaker 4: 911 is called regularly for child and spousal abuse. They have parties into the wee hours.
[00:55:09] Speaker 2: Rose, I've got I've got to move on. I really appreciate your your input. I I really do.
[00:55:11] Speaker 4: I'd like to make one quick comment before you move on. Um I have a cousin who was a heroin addict for 10 years. Nothing worked. He would go to jail, his mother would bail him out, his father would bail him out, they'd pay for dry up. Whatever they are, they'd pay for him to dry up. The only thing that worked with him was tough love. When nobody said, hey, we're here for you buddy. He finally, after a couple of years, got on his own two feet and got out of it.
[00:55:49] Richard Port: Well, I think on uh Rose is from Hamakua and and she would know that in Hamakua there have been a lot of programs to help the transition. Uh, I'm involved in one uh from the campaign for human development of the Roman Catholic diocese of Honolulu, and uh we have been uh trying to pro provide job counseling over there for workers who are trying to transition from sugar to other areas. I had a little bit of money, not a lot from GI bill. Uh that was a tremendous program. Uh where would we have gone after World War II without the GI bill, which professionalized our our workforce?
[00:56:37] Speaker 2: Richard, who's making the claim that that you that you don't benefit from it? The the the only claim generally made, okay, is that if we if we as taxpayers kept the money rather than giving it all to government, that we would spend it more wisely on our own behalf than the than the government spends it on our behalf.
[00:57:00] Speaker 1: terribly important and it has to be addressed before our our our is up and that is the kids and I know Richard in your article, you commented that the bulk of beneficiaries under AFDC are are are the kids. If the parents are the parent typically now, is not a good parent, is on drugs or is is um physically violent or for some reason is just not a good parent, then society can relatively easily take the child away.
[00:57:29] Speaker 1: But the tougher one I think is when you've got the parent who's just playing irresponsible, society doesn't want to take that child away and yet, how does this system work if you don't provide incentives and if somebody doesn't take that incentive then are you actually going to, and you mentioned Newt a little bit ago, all hell, you know, came down on him when he mentioned Boystown a year or so ago and and Cliff I I I'm just I'm curious as to each of your thoughts on what happens to the kids when we give the parents some incentive to improve and they don't take the bait, they don't grab for that incentive.
[00:58:07] Speaker 2: Well, first off, if if if um if they are exhibiting irresponsible behavior, okay, then we just don't continue to fund them.
[00:58:17] Speaker 1: What happens to the kids?
[00:58:18] Speaker 2: There's a variety of mechanisms. Let's take Boystown. I subsequently saw the movie a a a movie of the Boystown as it is today and uh you could not imagine anything finer.
[00:58:31] Speaker 1: I think we have another wholesome. I think we have another area of disagreement, Richard Port.
[00:58:36] Speaker 2: Well, let me say this, I'm sure that Boystown does do good work for the children who end up there and all of these, you know, I I I'm very grateful that there are uh places like Boystown. But really the solution, the problem, you know, we're seeing on TV, uh, uh, fairly frequently, uh women who leave their children at home and then there's a fire or there's some or they finally they they're left in their own swill. Uh, we we see that.
[00:59:01] Speaker 1: And and we hear people like Rose.
[00:59:02] Speaker 2: But the answer to me to me seems to be that one, we we help these parents by uh training them for jobs that they can work and we provide child care so that when they're working, that they're they're able uh not to be worried about their children. I I used to before the A+ program came along, I used to see uh clerks, secretaries calling from their offices to make sure that their children had gotten home at 2:30 or 2:45, because it's scary when they have to be between then and 5 or 6:00 when their parents get home, that they have to be alone.
[00:59:36] Speaker 1: You know, I I grew up in a single parent home with and I was a latchkey kid. So I was too. I had the key around my neck just like the regular latchkey kid. Okay, well, we've got just four minutes left, and I want to give each of you an opportunity to say things that perhaps haven't yet been said, but we've got a couple of people waiting a long time. Sid, if you promise to keep it super short, we can we can take a question or brief comment. Sid from Waikiki.
[00:59:58] Speaker 3: How can people find work when low paying jobs are continually being exported overseas. American business is driven by the bottom line. No sense of patriotism. Okay, and I think you got a a large company. Sid, Announces plans for layoff of 6,000 people employees, downsizing it is called. Ironically, the next day the stock hits a new high. Sid, you've got a kindred spirit here, Richard Port. It is not an increase in productivity. It is largely a shifting of jobs overseas.
[01:00:26] Speaker 1: Okay, and that's that's it it's an important topic and it isn't irrelevant, but it's it's a little bit off of our our specific topic. So I I I need to move on. Keith from Kahului, real briefly, a question or or a brief comment.
[01:00:38] Speaker 4: Yeah, I got a question for uh Cliff. I I want to know uh how does he justify saying there are no incentives for people to get off of welfare when the average length uh of women for aid to dependent children is two and a half to three and a half years.
[01:00:54] Speaker 2: Um uh we have some disagreement on that uh on that. I um the the data that I have shows that the average is more like currently six and a half.
[01:01:04] Speaker 4: And where's your statistics from?
[01:01:07] Speaker 2: Um.
[01:01:08] Speaker 1: I tell you what. We we've got that's obviously an important statistic. We don't have it here. Keith, we're out of time. I I appreciate your call and obviously that's something that that we'd want to take a look at if if we had the time. One minute real quickly. Richard, I know there's some things you haven't had a chance to voice that you want to.
[01:01:27] Speaker 2: Well, in my article, you know, I said basically it's not the laziness of the poor, but in some cases it's the greed of the wealthy, and I I'd just like to say that when I look at the chief executive officers of uh corporations, uh what we now find is whereas in 1960 it took 41 factory workers to make what one CEO uh made, uh it now takes 157 factory workers salaries to pay for one chief executive officer.
[01:07:00] Speaker 1: Okay, and I know you've got more to to add, but we're we're out of time. Cliff, 10 seconds for you.
[01:07:06] Speaker 2: It's very simple, the war on poverty has failed. Uh Johnson looked upon this as a temporary plan, it's failed.
[01:07:12] Speaker 1: Okay. Well, that brings us down to the last 30 seconds. Just enough time to thank my guest Richard Port, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Hawaii, and Cliff Slater, a Honolulu businessman. Take a look at the advertiser this morning if you haven't yet. Also tonight on KIFO 1380 AM, you'll hear the replay. That's 1380 AM. Want to thank Susie Roth, Jeff Iraldi, Cassie Roth, Alia Yap, and John Roth, all for helping out with the program this morning. You've been listening to Pop Radio. I'm Randy Roth. Aloha.