I'm joined today by phyllis schlafly she is an American constitutional lawyer a
conservative activist and author
and also founder above the eagle forum is schlafly a pleasure to have you as
always I want to talk today
about welfare and about the minimum wage and I think maybe a good place to start
is
to get your assessment of how big you feel
the wealth the amount to welfare benefits in this country
is how big a thing is that where are you sitting down
I'm sitting on a trillion dollars a year a trillion
area and there are there are 79
different federal problems handing out cash or benefits and they're going to
know we have to the american people
and I I think one other purposes why I'm bringing this up
I is for people to understand what we talk about it as our
hidden welfare problem people isn't it nobody knows their 75
when they talk about welfare most people just need the one another 79 which is
called pan out you probably know what those witnesses stand for camp
temporary relief for whatever but that's only 1 I'm 17 I may get
food stamps they get housing benefits they get child care
they get here I TC which we now know was written with fraud
and there are all sorts of benefits cash benefits I'll
which and family are not taxed they're not powered
a in the in whether you repaired poverty level
or whether you pay income tax or not and I think it's very important to get these
issues out on the table
so people understand where their money is going I think it is important and
you know I didn't expected necessarily kind of get bogged down in the numbers
but I think I would be
be doing a disservice to the audience if I if I didn't a kind of counter
the idea that a trillion dollars is the right number
and and respectfully miss schlafly I've research this in detail
and it seems to me that the trillion number has been one that has become a
favorite distortion
over those who are against these programs and I'll explain and give you
an opportunity to tell me if you disagree
if we really look at actual welfare programs
I think that in that we really include as you mentioned the earned income tax
credit
we look at temporary assistance to needy families
SSI food stamps housing vouchers and attach I'll tax credit that's 212
billion
a lot of the things that individuals on the right
are including in that trillion-dollar number are not
really welfare for example the cost the VOD option services that it's not fair
to say that that is
welfare title one grant headstart
that number has been drastically over exaggerated
well i would do it our do what head start
because now even the government report has shown that it's a failure
because all other so-called alleged got a fax
are gone by the end extended driving bob but that's a different issue whether or
not it's an effective program
is separate from whether we call it welfare or not and widely speaking we
can't really call headstart welfare
a different conversation is whether we think it's a good programmer not
well we can call it a our trash are benefiting handouts
to a large percentage of our population are based on
their I estimated poverty level as a
which is a level set by the government know certainly we can kinda wordsmith
that but I think
at before as we move forward all at least make it clear to my audience that
I completely disagree with the trillion-dollar characterization
and I've got into it in detail however this is the really interesting thing
miss schlafly
even though you've not been over over the last
many years and advocated increasing the minimum wage
from what I've read you're not totally opposed to it because you think that it
may actually allow us to reduce the amount
over welfare benefits that are paid out my characterizing that properly
are well I think I would say i'm following this is an idea
okay our baby 'cause are people
I think people do not realize the
stand and the amount are oblique cash and benefits
third floor tax-free to so such a large percentage of population
that's why some people refer to our Terms robert rector who has the
authority on the subject
for she was a kid welfare what yeah so that's one thing that needs to get out
on the table
are the i'm saying is the immense amount of fraud and particularly
in the ER TC which is a problem that's been supported by both Republicans and
Democrats
know you mentioned that but it's specifically my question was
it seems like you're taking what is actually a pretty progressive and
liberal position which is
if we do increase the minimum wage and elevate the wage that those who earn the
least
are taking in on a monthly or yearly basis
it will actually be fiscally conservative in the sense that
by pulling people out a poverty we will reduce the amount of government benefits
paid
it sounds like you coming very close to that assessment
well iraq through IIIi can I
have project our chances are they may move the minimum wage
line are they may find ways to hand out the money anyway
I but it ought to if you're if your income increases
you should be entitled to fewer cares for a benefit
absolutely so in other words you're agreeing that it would be
a a favorable result to the conservatives that typically
oppose increases to the minimum wage because
if you do increase it the government would reduce the amount of so-called
welfare benefits paid
I'm surprised you've come to this realization
but so many of your cohorts on the right don't seem to understand this
fundamental principle
for us why I wrote a column well good head
and II I cannot predict that the Obama administration is trying to
allow reduction over any benefits I am NOT a projector
however the arithmetic shows that
that if you raise 3 their legitimate income
right you should be reducing the government handout
absolutely absolutely would be a they should be in a report a problem but of
course it will become
a very political what we're getting I mean we're agreeing for certain quite a
bit here miss schlafly let me follow up and see if we can even further our
agreement
do you agree that when we look at this stimulative affective different
government spending so
we compare for example tax cuts for the richest americans verses government
spending on food stamps
do you agree with all of the research that shows
that food stamps have a far higher multiplier effect
in the economy then for example the same amount of money going to a tax cut
for wealthy Americans most of which is just saved
and doesn't stimulate the economy do we agree on that
I'm are not sure I understand your question in other words let me rephrase
it
if the government spends ten million dollars on food stamps
that ten million dollars is absolutely going to be put back into the economy
the grocery stores will get some of that money
the food growers who supply the grocery stores get Sam
summer get my picture it's very stimulative however if we compare that
with a ten million dollar tax cut for the wealthiest Americans
two-thirds or more love that ten million dollars gets socked away in bank
accounts not stimulating the economy I'm sure that's true
so you agree that food stamp spending is far more stimulative
then tax cuts for the rich
well for people who are counter are
are are Gokarna maybe
by the amount of money that people spend that would be true
why I have to tell you miss schlafly this is so different than the last time
you were on our program talking about immigration
we're finding so many agreements I feel like you're your economic
points if you are becoming more and more progressive these days
Park I don't know about that well i I call it like I see okay well we've been
speaking with phyllis schlafly she is an American constitutional lawyer
conservative activist although
she sounding very progressive to me and also founder above the
eagle forum miss schlafly always a pleasure to have you on
well thank you you have a good day on my website is real farm .org
okay we will visit thank you