Westword Covers Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet

Westword's Joel Warner razzes me a bit for writing about food stamps when there are obviously bigger issues at play. In addition to the bailout, I noted to Warner that Social Security is a pending financial crisis.

If I could think of a week-long project to protest the bailouts, or Social Security, or the rapid expansion of federal power, a protest that the media would cover, I would do it. But there was an obvious way for me to disprove the claims that a food-stamp budget can only buy unhealthy food, so that's what I did.

Anybody who wants to read my voluminous writings against the bailout or Social security need merely search my page.

There is a broader point here: the bank bailouts operate on the same principle as food stamps: the needs of some impose a claim on the resources of others. I oppose the bank bailouts for the same reason I oppose food stamps: they violate individual rights. So there is a unity in my various campaigns.

Warner is a fun writer; here I'll merely highly a few of his comments.

He mentions my "dismally green turkey-stock soup;" ordinarily I add carrots, potatoes, brown rice, and beans to my soups. However, because of the artificial constraint of the seven-day timeline, I had to limit the number of products I could buy. However, even without the extras, the soup was pretty good.

What about the time it takes to prepare meals? I pointed two things out to Warner. First, I suspect that food-stamp recipients, on average, watch at least their share of television, so I don't feel too bad about asking them to divert a bit of that time to food-prep. Second, my usual routine is to cook a huge batch of something, which my wife and I eat over several days. So the per-meal food-prep time is minimal. I know busy people who cook on one day every week or two, then freeze portions to reheat later.

Are critics of food stamps a**holes? (I've committed myself to avoiding profanity on this page, though Westword's use of it obviously doesn't bother me.) Warner recorded my answer:

"I oppose the welfare state across the board. With a position like that, people are going to call me an a**hole in general. This will give them one more excuse to do that," he replies. "But what I think being an a**hole is, is locking someone in a cage if they don't want to give to the charity you think is acceptable. That is the root of the welfare state."

Does this need clarification? Let's say that you wanted to divert all your food-stamp spending to the local food bank. Can you do that? No; it's illegal. If you write a letter to the IRS saying, "This year I've reduced my tax payments to account for my diversion of resources to the local food bank," the IRS won't let you get away with that, and the ultimate penalty is that you go to jail.

I was unfortunately unclear in the online comments I left about payroll taxes. I wrote, "I wish Joel would have included a point that I mentioned to him: the payroll taxes, which lop off a combined 15.3 percent of one's pay check, create a terrible hardship for the poor and middle class. I favor repealing all payroll taxes (at least) for the poor." However, Warner did note my complaint about "the government's policy of lopping off a huge percentage of working-class paychecks to pay for unreasonable programs, many of which only benefit the wealthy."

I'm glad that Westword is around. It publishes some great investigative journalism. I do wish the paper would expand its scope a bit; it tends to cover sex, drugs, and rock and roll at the expense of other important issues. The paper does a fantastic job covering regional media. Given that it is largely an entertainment paper, perhaps we should consider ourselves fortunate that it devotes as much space as it does to important news.

Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet a Success

MEDIA RELEASE

LOW-CARB FOOD STAMP DIET A SUCCESS
Week's Diet Proves Good Nutrition Possible on Low Budget

Ari Armstrong ate nutritious food February 4-10 for less than food stamps provide. For the week, he ate only meat, dairy, eggs, olive oil, vegetables, fruit, walnuts, chocolate, tea, and spices. He did not eat any grains, vegetable oils, hydrogenated fat, potatoes, or processed sugar.

For compete details about the diet, including receipts and photographs of select meals, see http://tinyurl.com/a9l7z3.

Armstrong spent $33.07 for the week, or $4.72 per day. (He added 78 cents of bananas to preliminary figures.) However, he had around $5.30 worth of food left at the end of the week, bringing the daily total to around $4. Food stamps provide $5.68 per day to a single individual -- see http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm.

Armstrong said, "With this diet, I wanted to prove again that eating well on a low budget is possible. I also wanted to protest increases in the food-stamp budget. People should not be forced to fund the unhealthy food-stamp program. Instead, I favor voluntarily funded food banks, which are better able to offer nutritious food to those in need."

Ari and his wife Jennifer spend a month in 2007 eating a higher-carb -- but still nutritious -- diet for $2.57 per day each.

* * *

My meals for the week obviously consisted of various combinations of the ingredients I purchased at the outset. It would be a little tedious, I think, to reproduce my meal-by-meal log here. A typical breakfast consisted of half a grapefruit, a cup of milk, and scrambled eggs with onion, garlic, tomato, and turkey. A typical lunch was soup. A typical dinner was a salad with red leaf lettuce, cabbage, olive oil, turkey, and a dash of pepper. My desserts were bananas with chocolate and cream.

My appetite was a little bigger on Saturday, as Jennifer and I sawed up and moved some large tree logs to the back yard.



On Saturday we also went into King Soopers to pick up stuff for Jennifer; the store was offering free samples of various foods, which I couldn't accept due to my self-imposed restrictions. Obviously, those on a true emergency budget would accept free food.

Last night I had a conversation with Diana Hsieh about carbs. She has researched diets a lot more than I have, and she largely inspired the low-carb approach for my week's diet. She claims that sprouted wheat is better for you than regular wheat flour. It's obvious to me that there's a huge difference between whole grains and, say, corn chips. But, within the category of whole grains, it's not at all obvious to me whether some carbs are better than others. Anyway, my approach will continue to be to eat a nutritious diet fairly low in carbs but still with some grains and a bit of cane sugar. I'll refine this as I learn more details.

At the end of the week, I had around $5.30 worth of food left.



Here are my estimates of the left-over values, in cents:

* Garlic: 30
* Salt: 45
* Pepper: 90
* 2 Eggs: 25
* 2 Pints Soup: 50
* Chocolate: 20
* Tea: 45
* Olive Oil: 180
* Cabbage: 10
* Onion: 20
* Lettuce: 25

I consumed almost an entire turkey during the week. So I think I'll lay off the turkey for a while. Today I'm going to make spaghetti squash with tomato sauce, hamburger, and various vegetables and spices. The squash cost me 49 cents per pound; the tomato sauce was on sale for 29 cents for 15 ounces. The hamburger is "all natural" beef on mark-down (I don't recall the exact price), so it was more expensive than regular hamburger but considerably less than the usual cost for "all natural" meat.

The upshot is that the diet was a complete success. I imagine it will be, oh, five or six minutes before somebody else is whining that it's just not possible to eat nutritiously on a food-stamp budget. My readers, at least, will know better.

Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet: $4.61 Per Day

Today is the first day of my "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet," and this morning I purchased groceries for the entire week. The total cost was $32.29, or $4.61 per day. Following is the media release, then documentation of my shopping trips.

[February 6 Update: I purchased another 78 cents worth of bananas, bringing my daily total up to $4.72. Read the details.]

MEDIA RELEASE: February 4, 2009

LOW-CARB FOOD STAMP DIET COSTS $4.61 PER DAY
Diet Proves Great Nutrition Possible on Small Budget

Today Ari Armstrong purchased a week's worth of highly nutritious groceries for $32.29, or $4.61 per day. That's 19 percent less than the $5.68 that food stamps allow for a single individual -- see http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm.

Armstrong will eat his "Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet" from February 4-10, and he will document his receipts, purchases, and meals online -- see http://tinyurl.com/a9l7z3.

"My grocery purchases today explode the myth that food-stamp recipients can only afford unhealthy foods," Armstrong said.

A recent CNN report -- see http://tinyurl.com/d2lb5g -- quotes several individuals who falsely claim a low budget means a bad diet.

Armstrong purchased meat, dairy, eggs, olive oil, vegetables, fruit, walnuts, chocolate, tea, and spices. He did not purchase any products with grains, vegetable oils, hydrogenated fat, potatoes, or processed sugar. The diet roughly follows the advice of such writers as Gary Taubes and is similar to "paleo" or "cave-man" diets.

Receipts and Photos











Narrative

The key to eating well on a budget is simply to eat what's on sale.

A week's budget isn't a true test of this, as true budget shopping looks ahead several weeks. For example, a couple months ago I bought a dozen or so assorted squash for 49 cents per pound. Some of this squash is now in my freezer, pureed, awaiting its place in some dish or other, ala Jessica Seinfeld. Squash hold up very well over time, so I still have three spaghetti squash awaiting the oven. To take another example, last week King Soopers sold strawberries for a dollar per pound, so I bough extra and froze some.

Today I shopped at three grocery stores, Sprouts, Target, and King Soopers. I chose Sprouts by reading store ads online; that store is having particularly good vegetable sales this week. (Last week King Soopers had a sale for red-leaf lettuce, but that didn't help me today; grocery sales run from Wednesday through Tuesday.)

I had never been into Sprouts before, and I like it. It has on open, light feel, and it has some great prices. The speculate, I think the business model is something like, "Lure in the yuppies with loss-leaders and a hip environment, then the yuppies will spend all the money they saved on higher-priced specialty goods." This is great for people shopping on a budget. As the photos illustrate, I cleaned up on produce for a mere $6.80. I got a large eggplant for 50 cents. Cabbage, tomatoes, and onions for 33 cents per pound. Grapefruit three for a dollar -- each weighs over a pound. Red-leaf lettuce for 69 cents each; I bought two head. And I got some Walnuts to give me some Omega 3. (Normally I take fish oil for the DHA Omega 3, but I'll skip those for the week. I buy a large, inexpensive bottle of capsules at Costco, so they can definitely be part of a low-budget diet.) I'll definitely be going back to Sprouts.

Next up was Target. The produce at Target sucks. The quality isn't too bad, but the quality-cost combo isn't great. But the store has great deals on things like chocolate, tomato sauce (which I skipped this week), and, as you can see, turkey. Milk costs the same at Target and King Soopers, so I grabbed a gallon at Target. I was surprised to find that Newman's olive oil was the least expensive of any I saw.

Finally I swung by King Soopers, a.k.a. the Store of Markdowns. I left a $2 gallon of milk sitting in the cooler; the short dates of dairy mark-downs don't allow for a week's keep. I did buy a bunch of marked-down bananas for 35 cents per pound. I plan to eat these for desert with chocolate sauce and cream -- yum. As you can tell, I got hundreds of times as much salt as I need for the week, as, believe it or not, that was the cheapest way I found to buy it. Tea wasn't on my list, but I knew I was under budget, so I splurged and spent 89 cents on a box of 16 bags. Two cloves of garlic -- 49 cents. A cup of cream. Pepper. And that completed my week's purchases.

The two most expensive purchases on my list were the turkey, at $7.77 for an 11.26 pound bird, and the olive oil, at $4.48.

Oh, the final picture is my breakfast: two eggs and a diced tomato scrambled in olive oil, a cup of milk, and a mug of black tea.

The main thing I learned from my 2007 diet was the importance of fat. At the time, I was eating from a "fat is bad" mentality. Now I understand that good fat is a cornerstone of a healthy diet. Of course there's a big difference between monounsaturated fats and Omega 3 oils versus "partially hydrogenated soybean and/or cottonseed oil." My usual diet includes butter and coconut oil in addition to olive oil, but I couldn't get all three for a single week.

Recently I read in a book about thrift -- I forget the title -- claiming that you should never buy off-list at a grocery store. That's terrible advice for saving money. All the time I find fantastic sales that I wasn't expecting. To take another example, recently I purchased around 20 peppers for 20 cents each. I ate some and pureed and froze the rest to add to dishes. I would have been nuts to skip the peppers just because they weren't on my list.

So, to summarize my advice:

1. Buy real food, not processed junk. That means you're really only shopping about 20 percent of the typical grocery store.

2. Buy food at the lowest prices you can find.

3. When you come across great deals, buy as much as you can reasonably eat or fit in your freezer.

This is pretty much common sense. So nobody better tell me the only thing they can afford is junk macaroni and cheese with hydrogenated fat. As I've said before, what is lacking is not access to good, modestly priced food, but the will to eat it.

Low-Carb Diet, Food Stamp Budget

See links to updates below.

MEDIA RELEASE

ACTIVIST PLANS LOW-CARB DIET ON FOOD STAMP BUDGET
New Diet Protests Food Stamp Increases

A healthy diet is achievable on a food stamp budget, and Ari Armstrong plans to prove it, again. Armstrong, who previously spent a month eating for $2.57 per day -- see http://tinyurl.com/c35e8q -- will spend February 4-10 eating a highly nutritious, low-carb diet for less than food stamps provide.

Armstrong said, "Not only has Congress increased the food stamp budget since my $2.57 per day diet, but the so-called 'stimulus' package calls for additional food-stamp funds. Enough is enough. I oppose any increases to the food stamp budget, and call for the program to be replaced with voluntarily funded food banks, which offer more nutritious food at lower cost."

Armstrong's new diet, unlike his previous one, will be low-carb, roughly following the advice of such writers as Gary Taubes and similar to "paleo" or "cave-man" diets. The diet will consist of meat, dairy, eggs, vegetables, fruit, nuts, olive oil, chocolate, and spices. It will not contain any grains, vegetable oils, hydrogenated fat, potatoes, or processed sugar.

Armstrong will limit his daily budget to $4.74 per day, less than food stamps provide to a single individual. The Department of Agriculture -- see http://www.fns.usda.gov/FSP/faqs.htm -- offers a family of four $588 per month, or $4.74 per person per day. (The food stamp allotment is reduced for those deemed able to fund some of their own food.) Armstrong will not accept any free food, and he will shop only at nearby regular grocery stores. He will track all his purchases and receipts at FreeColorado.com.

"With the previous diet, my goal was to minimize daily expenses. With the new diet my goal is to show that a very healthy diet is possible on a limited budget. The cost of my diet will actually be inflated, not only because I'll be eating no free food, but because a week's diet is not able to take advantage of bulk purchases of sales items," Armstrong pointed out. "I've been known to purchase 40 pounds of bananas, a dozen squash, or twenty pounds of meat when they're on sale; obviously that's not possible for a single week."

Part of the motivation to track the new diet was a recent CNN report -- see http://tinyurl.com/d2lb5g -- in which a woman on food stamps complains, "We get like the mac and cheese, which is dehydrated cheese -- basically food that's no good for you health wise... Everything is high in sodium and trans fats... and that's all we basically can afford. There's not enough assistance to eat healthy and maintain a healthy weight."

Armstrong replied, "That's nonsense, and I'm prepared to prove it. I'm frankly irritated that some food stamp recipients waste our tax dollars on overpriced junk food, then complain about their grocery budget. I'll make the following offer. For anybody on food stamps who complains that they can't afford good food, I'll be more than happy to evaluate your entire monthly budget, including your grocery budget, and recommend judicious cuts, limited to the first five people who reply."

* * *

February 4: Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet: $4.61 Per Day

February 5: Disclaimer

February 6: $4.72 Per Day

February 11: Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet a Success

Westword Covers Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet

February 19: Boulder Weekly Op-Ed, "Eating Well on Food Stamps"

9News Covers 'Low-Carb Food Stamp Diet'

How Obama Lost Another Vote

The following article originally was published by Grand Junction's Free Press on July 21, 2008.

How Obama lost another vote

by Linn and Ari Armstrong

We write as a father-son team. We almost always agree about fundamental issues, yet sometimes we look askew at each others' strategies.

For example, last month Ari wrote on his blog (FreeColorado.com for June 6), "I deem that McCain is the worst evil in the race, and therefore I've decided to mark my ballot for Obama as the strongest possible vote against McCain." Such a position is sacrilege to much of the family.

What's so bad about McCain? Ari's post reviews three main flaws. McCain snubbed the First Amendment with his campaign censorship law, saying he wants to violate our "quote, First Amendment rights" for his version of "clean government." We wouldn't want politics mucked up with all that liberty.

He pushes for faith-based politics and declares his support for "ending abortion." And he humbly requests that you "sacrifice your life" to the state. (Where this involves military conflict, we're reminded of Patton's advice about which side we should get to sacrifice their lives.)

We agree about McCain's flaws. We may disagree about what to do about them, but we now agree that voting for Obama is not the answer. Why the change? In brief, Obama proposes new political controls over our lives and the economy at an astounding pace.

Obama wants socialized medicine, more wage controls, more corporate and personal welfare, higher taxes, and more energy restrictions, to mention just a few highlights. How does he compare with McCain on the issues of speech, faith-based politics, and sacrifice to the nation?

Obama didn't vote on the McCain-Feingold campaign censorship law, because the law passed in 2002, while Obama didn't take his Senate seat till 2005. We were hopeful about a headline from Broadcasting & Cable claiming that Obama "does not support" the Fairness Doctrine, which is a euphemism for censoring radio.

However, Obama did not take a principled stand for free speech; instead, his spokesperson said that the proposal was a "distraction" from imposing other controls such as "media-ownership caps." In other words, Obama believes the national government should be able to forcibly prohibit some people from owning certain media outlets.

Both McCain and Obama believe that the phrase "Congress shall make no law" actually means "Congress shall make a law" imposing speech controls.

Obama had nothing but praise for President Bush's national faith-based welfare, which forces you to hand over some of your money to religious groups.

Obama promised that "federal dollars that go directly to churches, temples, and mosques can only be used on secular programs." However, not only is it immoral to force people who disagree with a particular religion to fund practitioners of that religion, but it is impossible for explicitly religious groups to spend tax dollars in a strictly secular way. The national government has no business forcibly redistributing people's money to any religious outfit.

The First Amendment also states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." While faith-based welfare does not sanction a single creed, it forcibly transfers funds to particular religious groups in violation of religious liberty and freedom of conscience.

If you're a Christian, you shouldn't be forced to fund a Muslim organization, and vice versa. If you're an atheist or "other," you shouldn't be forced to fund either. And churches shouldn't bow to Caesar to stick their noses into the government trough.

What about the issue of sacrificial service? When Obama came through Colorado earlier this month, he outlined his plan for forcing students to serve politician-approved goals. The Rocky Mountain News reports that Obama wants to make "federal assistance conditional on school districts developing service programs." In other words, Obama first wants to take your money by force, then blackmail your local school district with your money to force students to take time away from their studies, work, and other interests to "serve" whatever it is Obama deems appropriate.

And we always thought the Thirteenth Amendment prohibited involuntary servitude. True enough, people can pull their children out of government schools in protest, which means that they merely have to perform involuntary servitude to fund the school they're not using.

McCain and Obama are not merely bad candidates. Their policies are profoundly evil, and they violate the principles of liberty on which this nation was founded. They also violate at least the spirit, and we believe the letter, of the Constitution.

So whom are we voting for this year? We doubt that any of our regular readers need some newspaper columnists to tell them how to vote. We'll probably vote differently, anyway.

However, Ari feels free to mention that he's seriously considering writing in John Galt for president. With so many political "leaders" blaming liberty for the problems caused by political controls, and promising as the answer more severe controls, this election is starting to feel a lot like the world of Atlas Shrugged.

Teen Girls Find Pregnancy "Sweet"

I was a little surprised to read a story in The Denver Post (from Tania Deluzuriaga of The Boston Globe) about 17 pregnant teen girls at Gloucester High in Massachusetts. Many of the pregnancies were intentional. To figure out what's going on, I poked around a bit more. It turns out that people have lots of theories, but I've not found anyone who stated the most obvious theory. So I'll do the job after reviewing the others.

Theory 1: Pathway to Adulthood

...Patricia Quinn, executive director of the Massachusetts Alliance on Teen Pregnancy, [said a]dults in the city need to do a better job of showing teen girls a pathway to adulthood that includes something other than parenting... "People in Gloucester need to look at using what feels like a crisis as an opportunity to improve services and support."

I guess it never occurred to me that teen girls would think that getting pregnant is a "pathway to adulthood." Isn't it obvious that going to college or getting a job is a pretty good pathway? Or how about waiting till you're out of high school and then getting married before getting pregnant?

I wonder what sort of "services and support" Quinn has in mind. Do we need tax-funded seminars about how getting knocked up isn't too smart if you're a young teen? Quinn's musings are less than helpful.

Theory 2: Reaction to Technology

Fox adds:

Keith Ablow, a psychiatrist and FOX News contributor, called the school's epidemic "shocking." ...

"In a world that is so technologically based, there will be predictable push-back from young people," he said. "They want to remind themselves that they are alive and human. One of the ways people do this is that they reproduce."

I think the clinical name for Ablow's theory is "Gigantic Load of Hokum."

Right now I'm typing on my powerful computer plugged into the global internet, listening to digitized music, enjoying electric lighting, and drinking a smoothie courtesy of thousands of businesses around the world. And, somehow, I still feel human.

Ablow's theory seems not to mesh well with the fact that birth rates generally decline in the most technologically advanced countries.

Nor is it clear why getting pregnant might help somebody feel more human than, say, having sex with birth control, studying the classics, preparing for college, or playing Monopoly with the family.

Theory 3: Hit Movies

Time notes that some "blamed hit movies like Juno and Knocked Up for glamorizing young unwed mothers."

That doesn't really make much sense, because in Juno the girl gives up her baby for adoption, and in Knocked UP the "young unwed mother" is a single, adult professional.

Notably, Time reports, "'We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,' the principal says, shaking his head." I don't know what movie that came from.

Theory 4: Too Little Birth Control

Time adds, "Even with national data showing a 3% rise in teen pregnancies in 2006 -- the first increase in 15 years --Gloucester isn't sure it wants to provide easier access to birth control."

But these girls wanted to get pregnant. It's not like they were just having sex with 24-year old homeless guys for the joy of sex; they wanted the baby.

In general, it's not like birth control is hard to find. Any grocery store carries condoms.

Theory 5: Economic Woes

Again from Time:

The past decade has been difficult for this mostly white, mostly blue-collar city (pop. 30,000). In Gloucester, perched on scenic Cape Ann, the economy has always depended on a strong fishing industry. But in recent years, such jobs have all but disappeared overseas, and with them much of the community's wherewithal. "Families are broken," says school superintendent Christopher Farmer. "Many of our young people are growing up directionless."

So let me get this straight: if your daddy gets laid off, the obvious reaction is go screw a homeless guy to get pregnant? Huh. I would think the message would be rather different, something like, "You know, money's a little tight right now, and we might have to move somewhere else to find work, so maybe now's not the best time for you, our young teen daughter, to screw a homeless guy to get pregnant."

While losing a job can strain families, it does not "break" them or cause people to be directionless. People routinely seek out new jobs, through need or desire, and most families weather the transition just fine.

The article gives no indication of whether the parents of the pregnant girls are among the ones whose jobs "disappeared overseas." Interestingly, a Boston Globe article also refers to the town's "economic advantage not usually associated with teen pregnancy."

(This last article is the one that points out that, upon hearing they were pregnant, some girls "broke into smiles. One exclaimed, 'Sweet!'")

Theory 6: A Pact

Clearly some of these girls were influencing others to get pregnant. But that doesn't explain why pregnancy became so popular in the first place or why getting pregnant didn't strike the girls as an obviously stupid idea.

Plausible Theory: Decline of Personal Responsibility

Time does offer a couple of telling lines.

The high school has done perhaps too good a job of embracing young mothers. ... [T]een parents are encouraged to take their children to a free on-site day-care center. Strollers mingle seamlessly in school hallways among cheerleaders and junior ROTC. "We're proud to help the mothers stay in school," says Sue Todd, CEO of Pathways for Children, which runs the day-care center.

And a non-pregnant girl at the school told Time, "No one's offered them a better option."

I suggest that the larger problem is that America's students are taught, through explicit propaganda and implicit practice, that whatever they need, society will provide for "free." Their lesson starts with their "free" education, which is funded by taking others' resources by force. Now, their tax-funded schools provide "free" child care along with "free" education. If they can't afford to take care of their babies, they can sign up for "free" food, "free" housing assistance, "free" health care, and so on. (Notably, Massachusetts now has mandatory and highly subsidized health "insurance.")

These students -- these products of the welfare state -- think it's somebody else's responsibility to "offer them a better option."

Thankfully, the Boston Globe ends on a hopeful note:

Sandy Lakeman said she breathed a sigh of relief when her 19-year-old daughter graduated from high school and went to college in Florida. A single mother, she encouraged her two daughters to play sports and get part-time jobs in order to keep them out of trouble.

"I've had to be a waitress and a bartender my whole life and I've struggled," said the Gloucester native. "I don't want my kids to struggle."

Parents still make a huge difference. People have free will, and they can choose to make something of themselves. We still live in an economy sufficiently free to foster independence. While some young teen girls got pregnant, most didn't.

Gazette Reviews Income Calculator

I was quoted in a March 20 story written by Perry Swanson for the Colorado Springs Gazette:

The financial picture is getting worse for Colorado's working poor families, according to a study issued Wednesday. ...

[T]he Colorado Center on Law and Policy... runs the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, a Denver-based think tank that sponsored the study, which examines the cost to get by in each of the state's 64 counties.

The study is called "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado 2008: A Family Needs Budget." ... The institute Wednesday also unveiled an online Colorado Self-Sufficiency Calculator...

Advocates say the calculator should guide policymakers as they ponder changes to tax laws and welfare programs. They recommend more support for programs designed to help people keep working, such as child-care assistance, food stamps and restoring Colorado's Earned Income Tax Credit. ...

Ari Armstrong, a Denver area resident who writes online about political issues, said the calculator -- at least for him and his wife -- is flawed.

"The calculator suggests that my wife and I need to spend $666 per month for housing," Armstrong said. "We actually spend more than that, including utilities and HOA fees, but we could spend less if we needed to. For example, for several years we rented out the basement of my wife's parents for considerably less. I've checked into local apartments that rent for less."

Armstrong took issue with other estimated monthly costs, including $358 for food and $453 for transportation -- too high -- and $317 in taxes -- much lower than reality.

"I'm all for reducing taxes across the board, and especially for the poor," he said. "If we're really interested in helping the poor be self-sufficient, no single measure could be more useful. Welfare expansions do not promote self-sufficiency. They promote dependency."

Swanson did good job of reporting the basic story while including both perspectives.

You can view the calculator and the report yourself.

However, because Swanson did not include my comments about Social Security, my point about taxes is a bit unclear in the article. Following are my complete, unedited comments to Swanson:

There are two issues here. First, is the calculator legitimate? Second, what are appropriate measures for helping the poor?

Clearly, the "Self-Sufficiency Calculator" is misleading in that it does not actually measure the minimum income needed to live in self-sufficiency.

For example, the calculator suggests that my wife and I need to spend $666 per month for housing. We actually spend more than that, including utilities and HOA fees, but we could spend less if we needed to. For example, for several years we rented out the basement of my wife's parents for considerably less. I've checked into local apartments that rent for less.

The calculator suggests that we need to spend $358 per month on food. But we just made out our monthly budget, and, based on past expenses, we allocated $350 per month for food and household items combined. We could spend far less if we needed to. Last year, we spent a month eating a nutritious but economical diet, and we spent only $159 combined for food. Such a diet wouldn't be much fun over the long haul, but it is adequate.

The calculator also claims that we need to spend $453 per month on transportation. Nonsense. Running an economical car for modest commutes costs less than that. We in fact lived without a car for about two years and took the bus. An RTD monthly pass costs between $60 and $144.

One thing that the calculator underestimates is taxes. The calculator estimates $317 in taxes for us for a "self-sufficiency" income of $2,195, or about 15 percent of the total. But the real tax burden is much higher. All wages are subject to an employer-employee combined tax of about 15 percent off the top, and that doesn't even include any income taxes. Add to that property taxes (which renters pay indirectly), sales tax, and a multitude of minor taxes, and the total tax burden is substantial.

I'm all for reducing taxes across the board and especially for the poor. For example, exempting lower-income earners from the Social Security tax alone would be the equivalent of a pay increase of nearly 15 percent. If we're really interested in helping the poor be self-sufficient, no single measure could be more useful.

Welfare expansions do not promote self-sufficiency. They promote dependency. Moreover, forcing some people to transfer money to others violates rights and pushes out more effective, voluntary charity programs.

If the goal is self-sufficiency, we need more economic liberty and lower taxes, not more political programs backed up ultimately by physical force.