Yet, this approach is immediately suspect. The AFDC recipients who get energy assistance are probably not the same recipients who receive, for instance, housing assistance. The Cato study does nothing to address this problem. The greatest flaw in assuming access to benefits concerns housing subsidies. An even smaller proportion of public assistance recipients receive the high benefit subsidies estimated by the Cato Institute.
Housing subsidies are social policy's equivalent of winning the lottery.
Not only is access a problem, so is assuming that benefits are like wages. Comparing welfare benefits to wages overlooks the fact that workers get benefits too. They receive some of the benefits welfare recipients get, such as housing assistance, though their source is often tax credits and deductions. They receive subsidies from their employers too, as in defraying the cost of health insurance premiums or in getting clothing allowances. The Cato Institute makes the questionable assumption that in-kind benefits can be compared to wages.