A nonprofit publication of the Kentucky Center for Public Service Journalism

Dustin Pugel: In the COVID recovery and beyond, Kentuckians need a strong safety net


The past two years have been hard on Kentuckians. In April 2020, nearly 1 in 7 lost their job and many more Kentuckians lost hours at work or faced quarantines instead of taking shifts. While conditions have improved, thousands still find it difficult to make ends meet amid ongoing new waves of COVID.

And let’s face it, even before 2020, our economy didn’t work for everyone, especially those who face inequities because of their race or gender or where they are from. When folks confront economically challenging circumstances like living in a depressed economy, or when they fall on hard times from a pandemic, a tornado, the headwinds of a felony record or just bad luck, our safety net is designed to catch them, and help get them on their feet.

Dustin Pugel

The safety net — which is what we call things like food assistance, utility assistance, Medicaid, jobless benefits, child care assistance and similar programs — has a wide reach that helps people in all stages of life. It is a powerful, interwoven set of supports that reaches hundreds of thousands of kids, underpaid workers and the elderly every day throughout the commonwealth. At the same time, the safety net empowers local economies as people buy groceries, see a doctor, send their kids to daycare, pay their rents or just get through the end of a month. In a way, the safety net is what we’re about as Kentuckians: looking out for each other.

While our safety net has been around for a long time, its value has really come into focus during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite so many Kentuckians losing health, pay and economic stability, the safety net and other forms of COVID relief kept over 700,000 Kentuckians out of poverty last year. This reality for Kentucky families has meant they could feed their kids, get care for serious health conditions and keep the heat on during many cold nights.

As has been shown again and again in the pandemic, people use the safety net while they need it, and move off it when they don’t. Yet some in Frankfort are talking about making that same assistance harder to get, use and keep in the coming years. Despite decades of evidence that erecting barriers to public assistance harms people and fails to achieve their stated purposes, ideas are circulating again that would cut off jobless benefits early among laid-off Kentuckians, make food assistance harder to use in the checkout line and treat Kentuckians in need as likely criminals.

The fact is that cutting holes in our safety net deepens hardship and is counter-productive to a commonly held goal of improving the quality of life for all Kentuckians.

We know what it takes to have a strong safety net that supports Kentuckians striving toward a good life for themselves, their families and their communities. We need to treat Kentuckians seeking assistance with dignity and respect and without stigma, rolling out a proverbial welcome mat rather than closing a locked door. We should take down barriers to the safety net by making the rules clear and the application process simple, and we should ensure needed help isn’t left on the table.

That’s how we’ll get a strong start for kids, a chance at something better for underpaid workers, relief for struggling parents, and sustenance for the elderly. Decades of research has shown how Medicaid improves health and financial stability, food assistance reduces hunger and is linked to improved graduation rates for kids, quality child care creates lasting, holistic benefits for children, and recent evidence has even shown how sending underpaid moms a check every month helps their baby’s brain development before they’re even born. As a community that truly cares about each other, policies should move in the evidence-based direction of more support, not less.

The COVID-19 pandemic should provide a lasting lesson about the importance of an adequate safety net to our communities and economy. In a time of many challenges, we should brace for the next one by working together to make the safety net stronger.

Dustin Pugel is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Kentucky Center for Economic Policy.


Related Posts

8 Comments

  1. Richard says:

    According to usaspending.gov, a whopping 62% of the federal budget is spent on social programs. Compare this to spending on defense, which accounts for only 11% of total government outlays. State and local spending on social programs has tripled since 2000. Why is this occurring if the unemployment rate is 4.1%? Why is a company like Amazon having to advertise starting jobs on national television paying $15 dollars and hour with benefits? What’s with the ‘great resignation’? How can people just drop out of the workforce? Why will companies pay more for workers when they know the US government will make up the difference? Know one in the U.S. should go hungry, or not have a place to live. I think everyone can get behind that, but spending borrowed money from China and elsewhere, in the form of treasury notes to pay for insane deficit spending will eventually ruin our country, and we will all be poor and hungry. Then China and Russia can rule the world. How’s that sound?

    • J says:

      Your numbers are wrong Richard. Social Security, Medicare, Children’s Health Insurance Program, and Medicaid total about 50% of the annual federal budget. Defense and international security are another 16% of the budget.

      “Safety net programs” that provide aid to families facing hardship are about eight percent of the budget — about half of what’s spent on defense. That includes the Earned Income Tax Credit, unemployment, food stamps, and SSI for elderly and disabled poor people.

      Interest on the debt is about eight percent of the budget. Most of the debt goes toward Social Security, military retirement, Medicare, and other retirement funds. Of the minority of the debt that’s owned by foreign nations, Japan owns the most, China the second most, and Russia’s not even in the top five.

      There is not majority support in this country for cutting Social Security, Medicare, or the defense budget. A lot of people who aren’t working can’t afford to pay child care, so they stay home with their kids, save child care costs and transportation, and are getting by on less — maybe from a spouse or other family members.

      • Richard says:

        My numbers come from a government run website, that I gave you in my previous comment. You can read them for yourself. They are for 2021. Where are you getting your numbers? Who cares who owns our debt, the question is why do we have so much of it and why do we continue to accrue it? It is foolish and irresponsible and will likely over time lead to a much weaker America. China is on the rise and will likely take our place.

  2. J says:

    Richard: Here’s the reason we have so much debt and continue to accrue it: every time there’s a Republican President and a Republican Congress, they pass massive tax cuts for corporations, but they don’t cut spending or corporate welfare, so the annual deficits are huge and the debt continues to grow.

    The Republicans pass these tax cuts to pay off their corporate campaign donors who shovel hundreds of millions of dollars into GOP campaigns.

    All the donors want is lower taxes, so a corporation gets a tax break that saves $200 million a year, and they kick back $20 or $30 million to the GOP, and it’s a win/win for everybody except the general public — we end up paying a much higher share of federal taxes, and state & local governments get less help from the feds for roads, schools, police & fire protection, so local taxes go up and local needs get short-changed.

    There’s no support among Republicans or Democrats for cutting Social Security, Medicare, or defense spending, and those are the big deficit drivers. The GOP has been lying for years about trickle down economics and “shrinking government so it fits in a bathtub, so we can drown it”, but when it comes to real cuts, they fold because the public won’t stand for it.

  3. Richard says:

    I can’t speak to your conspiracy theory regarding kickbacks to corporations, but if there were a shred of truth to it, I would think the liberal media would be all over it. Only about 7% of the media are registered republicans, according to the Washington Post. You realize had the democrats gotten their way, the deficit would have increased even more, with the passage of ‘Build back better’. The fix for overspending is to demand a balanced budget amendment to the constitution. 17 states have voted in favor of a constitutional convention to amend the U.S constitution to do just that. Other states are considering it. With more state legislatures becoming republican (30 right now), there is at least a chance that it will happen. The government has built a dangerous dependency on all types of welfare. This includes providing monthly child tax credit payments, without means testing.

  4. J says:

    The campaign contribution scam is all perfectly legal – corporations shovel millions into the Republican Party, and the party delivers tax cuts, contracts, regulatory relief to the corporations.

    It’s welfare for corporations – businesses pay a little and get back a LOT.

    Republicans have been talking about a balanced budget amendment since Nixon was President – most people finally saw that it was just another campaign lie, and they’re never going to do it – GOP has had majorities many times, but they never get around to passing that darn amendment.

  5. Richard says:

    If the ‘campaign contribution scam’ is legal, than why have the democrats not ended it? They have control of both the house and senate, plus control the white house. if you are talking corporate welfare, the democrats included plenty of it in ‘build back better’ for ‘green’ projects like hydrogen-powered trucks, air taxis, carbon capture technologies, rural broadband and expanding the EV charging network. But the largest source of corporate welfare, as mentioned previously, comes from government spending on social programs. Corporations do not have to pay a living wage, because they know he U.S. government will make up the difference. Regarding the balanced budget amendment…This would be done by a states convention, as I mentioned previously and not by congress (Article V, US constitution).

  6. J says:

    The most common method of amending the U.S. Constitution is for Congress to propose an amendment, then submit it to the states, 2/3 of which must approve it for it to become part of the Constitution.

    In 240 years, there’s never been a constitutional convention. Dangling hopes for a balanced budget amendment is a political lie the GOP has been telling for 50 years.

    If Republicans are so interested in a balanced federal budget, why haven’t they ever adopted one? With reconciliation, a GOP Congress could’ve adopted a balanced budget anytime they’ve had a majority. The fact that they haven’t done it proves they just use the lie to get support from naive voters.

Reply to J Cancel Reply