Equitable Growth hosts Econ 101 virtual event on how U.S. social insurance programs boost economic mobility
Microsoft Copilot helped draft this event recap.
The Washington Center for Equitable Growth recently hosted its latest Econ 101 briefing aimed at providing in-depth evidence for policymakers on how U.S. social insurance programs boost economic mobility and support broad-based economic growth. This briefing on November 20 was primarily for state policymakers, highlighting the importance of federal funding flowing to their states and how they can leverage those funds more effectively.
The Econ 101 briefing featured insights from Priyanka Anand, associate professor at George Mason University and a nonresident scholar at Equitable Growth, and Megan Rivera, a fellow for policy and advocacy at Equitable Growth. The event opened with a review of the role and purpose of social insurance programs, how they fit into the broader safety net in the United States, and the role of the states in designing and running some of these programs.
Rivera then turned to an explanation of the government’s role in social programs and their impact on poverty. She emphasized that many U.S. families often move in and out of low-income status and why government-run programs such as Unemployment Insurance are essential for these families because private markets cannot adequately provide protections against risks due to falling earnings. These programs not only support families in times of need but also, in our consumer-driven economy, ensure that households can participate and strengthen both local and national economic growth.
Anand then outlined the major U.S. social insurance programs, including Social Security, Medicare, disability insurance, and Unemployment Insurance, as well as means-tested programs such as Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, various tax credits, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Together, these programs provide cash benefits, health coverage, food assistance, and tax credits to tens of millions of U.S. households.
Anand then reviewed the benefits of these programs. She pointed out how Medicaid, for example, reduces infant mortality, improves high school graduation rates, and raises adult incomes. Similarly, she noted how nutrition assistance reduces food insecurity and improves children’s long-term health and educational outcomes. This research underscores the programs’ role in promoting both family well-being and economic stability.
Anand then highlighted that since the 1996 welfare reforms, social insurance programs have increasingly emphasized work requirements and in-kind transfers over direct cash assistance. Recent legislation, for example, including the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 and the 2025 Republican budget bill, expanded work requirements across many different social programs. These requirements mean fewer families in need of assistance can qualify for these programs.
Anand then turned to present her own research with Robert Moffitt of Johns Hopkins University, which details the movement from a need-based welfare system toward a work- based welfare system. Anand reviewed how this shift presents challenges in the face of unfavorable U.S. labor market conditions. Federal Medicaid spending, for example, is projected to decrease by $900 billion over the next decade, and states also will face new responsibilities for SNAP funding. Staffing shortages at Social Security Administration field offices may reduce access to in-person services as well.
Rivera then discussed her work on the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, which highlights that fewer families than ever before are receiving direct TANF cash assistance. Indeed, TANF funds currently reach only about 1 in 5 eligible U.S. households, despite more than $7.7 billion in unobligated federal TANF funds sitting in state reserves across the United States.
Rivera explained that this vast pool of unspent TANF dollars comes down to the block grant structure of the program, meaning these federal funds are provided to states with considerable flexibility on how to spend the money and with limited oversight. This allows states to accumulate billions of dollars in funds without a federal requirement to spend the money. Reversing this trend and utilizing those dollars to support families would be a major step forward in reducing poverty in the United States.
Anand and Rivera closed the briefing by urging policymakers to protect funding for programs that sustain household consumption, such as nutrition assistance and home energy assistance. They also raised the possibility of exploring new revenue sources to expand low-income support programs, such as universal child care, which can strengthen labor force participation and economic growth.
Audience members then had an opportunity to ask questions. Several of them inquired about how data—and limited releases of federal economic data due to the recent federal government shutdown and other budget cuts—may impact means testing or other eligibility questions, as well as the determinations of benefits. Anand emphasized how important federal data are to target programs accurately to those who need support, as well as to determine whether that support is working as it should.
Another question focused on Anand’s paper with Johns Hopkins’ Moffitt regarding how work requirements affect labor market participation. Anand responded that labor force participation rates have not changed among formerly eligible families, meaning work requirements do not necessarily lead to people rejoining the workforce in higher numbers in order to satisfy the work requirements. Rather, these families mostly just do not receive the benefits to which they used to be entitled.
The Econ 101 briefing underscored that social insurance programs are not only vital for family well-being but also for sustaining U.S. economic growth and mobility. By safeguarding these programs, policymakers at all levels of government can ensure that U.S. households have the stability they need to contribute to a stronger, more inclusive economy.
