Sign In Sign-Up

Welcome!

Close

Would you like to make this site your homepage? It's fast and easy...

Yes, Please make this my home page!

No Thanks

  Don't show this to me again.

Close

One of the most controversial provisions of the 1996 welfare reform law barred many legal immigrants from using certain welfare programs. This report evaluates that effort by examining trends in immigrant and native use of the four major welfare programs that constitute the core of the nation’s welfare system: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), and Medicaid. The findings show that use of TANF and food stamps has declined significantly for both immigrant and native households and also that the gap has narrowed between the two groups. However, considering all four programs together shows that the gap between immigrant and native households has not narrowed, and in fact has widened slightly. Moreover immigrant households comprise a growing share of all households using the welfare system. Our analysis finds that: • In 1996, 22 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program, compared to 15 percent of native households. After declining in the late 1990s, welfare use returned to 1996 levels by 2001, with 23 percent of immigrant households using welfare compared to 15 percent of native households. (Figure 1) • The persistently high rate of welfare use by immigrant households is almost entirely explained by their heavy reliance on Medicaid, use of which has actually risen modestly. In contrast, their use of TANF has fallen significantly, from a little under 6 percent in 1996 to slightly over 2 percent in 2001. Food stamp use has also declined significantly, from about 10 percent to 6 percent. These rates are now only modestly above those of natives. (Table 1) • The decline in immigrant TANF and food stamp use has not resulted in a significant savings for taxpayers because it has been almost entirely offset by increases in the costs of providing Medicaid to immigrant households. • The total combined value of benefits and payments received by immigrant households from welfare programs is almost unchanged in inflation-adjusted dollars, averaging almost $2,000 in 2001, about 50 percent higher than natives. (Figure 2) • Continuing high rates of immigrant welfare use, coupled with the rapidly growing immigrant population has meant that the number of immigrant households using welfare has increased by 750,000 since 1996, with immigrant households now accounting for 18 percent of all households using a major welfare program, up from 14 percent in 1996. (Figure 3) • Estimating welfare use for only households headed by legal immigrants also shows a significant decline in TANF and food stamps use. However, continued heavy reliance on Medicaid has meant that the percentage of legal immigrant household using welfare remained constant at about 22 percent in the 1996-2001 time period and the average value of payments and benefits received by legal immigrants also remained constant at roughly $2,200 a year. (Table 1) • Households headed by illegal aliens receive welfare, primarily Medicaid, on behalf of their U.S.-born children. In 2001, for example, the value of benefits and payments received by illegal alien households averaged over $1,000. This is considerably less than the $2,200 received by legal immigrant households on average, so one unintended consequence of legalizing illegal aliens would be a significant increase in welfare costs. (Table 1) • Although refugees do make extensive use of welfare programs, they do not account for a large enough share of the legal immigrant population to explain continued heavy use of welfare by legal immigrants. Excluding households headed by refugees, 21 percent of non-refugee legal immigrant households used at least one major welfare program in 2001, compared to 15 percent of natives. (Table 1) • Consistent with previous research, this study finds that use of welfare programs does not decline significantly the longer immigrants live in the country. In 2001, households headed by immigrants who had been in the country for more than 20 years continued to use the welfare system at significantly higher rates than natives. (Figure 5) • The high rate of welfare use associated with immigrants is not explained by their unwillingness to work. In 2001, almost 80 percent of immigrant households using welfare had at least one person working. • One of the main reasons for the heavy reliance of immigrants on welfare programs is that a very large share have little education. The American economy offers very limited opportunities to such workers, and as a result many immigrants who work are still eligible for welfare because of their low incomes. • Use of the welfare system varies significantly by country. In 2001, immigrants from Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and South America had the highest use rates, while those from South Asia, Western Europe, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Canada had the lowest. (Table 4) • Immigrant households make extensive use of the welfare system in almost every state and metropolitan area with a large immigrant population. The highest use rates for immigrants are found in California, New York, Texas, and Massachusetts. (Table 5)

2003 Crude Oil Imports From Persian Gulf Highlights: Released on July 9, 2004 It should be noted that several factors influence the source of a company's crude oil imports. For example, a company like Motiva, which is partly owned by Saudi Refining Inc., would be expected to import a large percentage from the Persian Gulf, while Citgo Petroleum Corporation, which is owned by the Venezuelan state oil company, would not be expected to import a large percentage from the Persian Gulf, since most of their imports likely come from Venezuela. In addition, other factors that influence a specific company's sources of crude oil imports would include the characteristics of various crude oils as well as a company's economic needs. While, in general, crude oil is fungible, i.e., one crude oil can be substituted for another, many refineries are optimized by refining crude oil with specific qualities (e.g., the API gravity, the amount of sulfur in the crude oil, etc.). Also, depending on the global crude oil market condition at the time, the price difference between heavy and light crude oils varies, thus changing the economic dynamics for different refineries. Therefore, many factors determine the source of a company's crude oil imports.

In his report Oil: Never Cry Wolf - Why the Petroleum Age Is Far From Over, he says that rather than being fixed, oil reserves are often larger than first thought because of increasing knowledge about specific deposits and advances in technology for recovering the oil. In addition, estimates of proven world oil reserves have been increasing since the 1940s, a trend he says is likely to continue.

Dr Maugeri says that proven reserves exceed one trillion barrels, while yearly consumption is about 28 billion barrels. But he points out that, overall, the world retains more than three trillion barrels of recoverable oil resources.

In a report published in the journal Science, Dr Maugeri says that the current model of oil pessimists is derived from a 1956 text by KM Hubbert, a work he dismisses as based on out-of-date information.

If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning. Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person. The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

UNTIL a little over two years ago, the fashionable topic for debate in conferences, opinion pages and even bars around the world was whether globalisation was really Americanisation, and whether that was a good or a bad thing. Now, few pundits anguish about whether their countries are having to become more like America. The fashionable source of anxiety in both Europe and Asia is whether America is becoming so different from everywhere else that it is becoming a problem for the world, not a solution. It is not just a reckless Bush administration leading America astray, in other words. On this view, the United States is now inherently assertive and unilateralist, and so can no longer be trusted to lead the world. Instead, it should be feared.

GRAPH

American exceptionalism is nothing new. But it is getting sharper

An unsparing new report by Arab scholars explains why their region lags behind so much of the world