Limbaugh dramatically overstated administrative costs of welfare
On his September 16 show, nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh repeated his frequent but false claim that administrative costs account for 78 cents of every dollar of welfare spending. Media Matters for America was unable to determine the origin of Limbaugh's wildly inaccurate figure, but Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports reveal that actual costs are far lower, with combined federal and state administrative expenses for most of the welfare programs studied remaining below 20 percent of total expenditures.
A June 30 GAO study reported total federal and state expenditures as well as federal and state administrative costs for several means-tested government programs for FY 2004. Dividing "administrative expenditures" by "total expenditures," Media Matters for America determined that administrative costs for Medicaid -- by far the country's largest means-tested welfare program -- were 4.9 percent of total costs. For the food stamp program, administrative costs were higher: 17.1 percent. Administrative costs were 4.5 percent for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) and 2.1 percent for the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF). The report notes that "[t]he specific types of expenditures that are considered administrative differ considerably across the programs."
In addition, the Office of Family Assistance recently reported to Congress that combined federal and state administrative costs for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program were 10.3 percent of total expenditures in fiscal year 2002.
Using FY 1998 data, a November 2001 GAO report examined federal costs for a broader collection of 11 means-tested welfare programs. The report included total federal expenditures and an "administrative cost estimate" for six programs not included in the 2005 report. Four of these programs are funded entirely with federal dollars, and Media Matters determined that none of them had administrative costs anywhere near 78 percent, the level Limbaugh claimed:
- Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC): 9.0 percent
- Housing Choice Voucher (Section 8): 5.2 percent
- The Department of Housing and Urban Development's public housing program: 22.5 percent
- Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): 9.1 percent
Two other programs included in the 2001 report, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and the School Meals Program, received a small portion of their funding (less than 10 percent) from state governments in FY 1998. The GAO report reveals that in that year, administrative costs accounted for an estimated 7.7 percent of federal SSI expenditures and 8.0 percent of federal spending on school meals. Even if the entirety of the state portion went to the administration of these programs, combined federal and state administrative costs would still be below 20 percent of total expenditures. Finally, the report estimated that the federal administrative costs amounted to $12,452,000,000 for the 11 programs studied -- 6.4 percent of total federal expenditures on these programs.*
From the September 16 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: For example, I don't think it's -- it may still be this way. I'm sure it is because we're spending more on poverty in the Bush years than we did in the Clinton years. But the administrative cost on a dollar of welfare, last I checked, which was some years ago, was 78 cents. Meaning that 22 cents of every dollar is what got to the recipient. Well, that's because it goes through layers and layers and layers of bureaucracy, and who knows how many pockets it ends up in before it gets to where it's headed or intended? So, in this case, make sure as much of this [Hurricane Katrina relief funding] gets directly to people -- the end users, the recipients -- as possible. And that would really improve the efficiency of this.
Limbaugh has made similar statements at least four other times since the beginning of 2004. On April 8, 2004, and April 16, 2004, Limbaugh claimed that administrative costs account for 72 percent of welfare spending. He revised his figure upward to 78 percent in two shows earllier this year, on January 17 and September 8.
* The 2001 GAO report provides a "10-program total" -- $194.7 billion -- for federal expenditures on the programs it studied. The GAO omits federal expenditures for SCHIP, which were apparently not available in FY 1998, the first year it was funded. In a footnote, the GAO notes that $4.3 billion was appropriated for SCHIP in FY 1998. If SCHIP appropriations are included in the federal expenditures total, the administrative cost estimate for the 11 programs actually falls to 6.2 percent.














The idea here is to convince people that it is impossible for the government to help the poorest among us. It makes his listeners feel better about supporting an ideology that sticks it to the poor.
I also don't see him making a distinction between public and private efforts. Is he for giving to the Red Cross?
The ideology of the right has two categories of legends associated with charitable giving: one type details waste by the charitable organizations, and the other details waste by unworthy recipients. If the organization is more careful about giving aid to unworthy people, they spend more on red tape. If they reduce their overhead, they don't have the resources to insure that every single recipient is worthy. If they err on either side, it's used as proof that they are corrupt or incompetent.
What you're supposed to get from these legends is that charitable giving, public or private, is futile. You might as well keep your money and buy more beer -- which is extremely convenient for those who really didn't want to give anyway.
One would think that with the 300+ passages of the bible concerning charitable giving and caring for the poor that America's religious leaders would oppose this ideology. Incorrect! If public and private charities are seen as incompetent or corrupt, church leaders can more easily admonish their parishoners to tithe only to the church. While some of those funds can be directed toward helping the needy, religious leaders can rationalize using most of it in their efforts to convert more to their own faith.
This is by far my favorite argument...I've seen bumber stickers on cars complaining about welfare. I would rather pay to welfare programs and take the chance that maybe it really is helping people(which in many cases it does)then pay billions to a missle defense system that doesnt work and billions to buy helicopters that arent practical and not used. The money isnt going to be "saved" if welfare isnt around it would just be wasted on something that people arent aware of. This class war republicams try to start in order to divert attention from what they waste your money on is an insult to anyone who thinks that they are "fiscally responsible"....open your eyes people and stop being so easily manipulated to hate your neighbor.
Contractors can afford to pay millions to lobbyists, but we're supposed to believe that they don't waste any taxpayer money? Riiiiight.
He wishes he had the smarts to be an administrator..........
Rush's mental process in making up these easily referenced statistics goes something like this:
Boy, I sure hate helping poor people, so how can I convince people NOT to help them. That's hard. People, on the whole, are good. They like to help the helpless whereas I hate them, except when they score dope for me. That's good. But not if I have to pay for those welfare queens, even indirectly. Missile defense systems...(moans) but welfare! (gags) Must scare people with outrageous waste of money. Let's see...40% goes to administrative costs. Too small. 50%? Too round, like me (chuckles while slapping belly) 72%? Can't use that. Too Islamic. Ah, 78%! Perfect! (broadcast resumes)
I wish my government was involved with welfare programs on a large scale either. It would be nice to live in a world were it was unnecessary, because we are in this all together. I am sure Rush only objects to the "welfare state" because he too wishes for a better world, same with the railing against feminism he can just see that world of equality and prosperity we can make if we just work together and not legislate. "Right, Rush? Rush, Rush where did you go?"