(1) Does the government spend more on:

a. Job training for the poor b. Head Start for low-income children c. Women, Infants and Children nutrition subsidies d. Healthcare for the richest 10 percent of elderly Medicare beneficiaries.

(2) Government housing subsidies end up going:

a. Ten times as much to the poor as the middle class b. Five times as much to the poor c. More to the middle class than the poor d. About equally to both groups

(3) Taking spending programs and tax subsidies together, which type of person would, on average, get the most money in federal benefits:

a. A person with income less than $10,000 b. From $10,000 to $40,000 c. From $40,000 to $100,000 d. Income of more than $100,000

The answers: (1) In 1989 the government spent more for the medical care of well-off seniors than it did on Head Start, job training and WIC combined. (2) Counting the mortgage-interest and other homeownership tax breaks, the government spends more than four times as much on middle- and upper-income families as it does to house the poor. In fact, it spends more just on those with incomes above $75,000 than on the poor. (3) If one counts a broad range of federal spending and tax programs, an average upper-income person will get more than a typical poor person.

It’s no secret that middle- and upper-income families enjoy the benefit of tax breaks and entitlement programs like social security. But such families, many of whom complain bitterly these days that government is ignoring them, may be surprised to learn how much more they get than their poorer counterparts. In some ways, such benefits remain the holiest of sacred cows. Bill Clinton repeatedly champions the “forgotten” middle class. And in a recent visit to a Philadelphia parochial school, President George Bush met a woman who complained that the government offers plenty to the poor, but not enough to those in the middle. “They’re the needy,” she said. Bush responded, “You’re right.”

But lawmakers who want to corral the runaway federal budget deficit will have to grapple with the issue of who gets what. The average person with an income over $100,000 receives cash benefits (like social security) of $5,688, slightly greater than those of someone with less than $10,000 in income, according to a study by the conservative National Taxpayers Union Foundation, which used unpublished data from the Congressional Budget Office. When the report’s author, economist Neil Howe, factored in major tax benefits, like the home-mortgage-interest deduction, the poor received the smallest average benefit of any group–less than families with $30,000 to $50,000 incomes or those with $50,000 to $100,000 incomes. Most remarkable, the benefit for the wealthiest group, $9,283, was the highest of all. The study isn’t flawless–it misses a few programs like student loans and Medicaid–but the conclusion is clear, Howe says: “The system would work about as well if the federal government were simply to mail cheeks of roughly $5,000 to every U.S. household.” Another unpublished CBO analysis obtained by NEWSWEEK revealed that in 1989 at least $11 billion was spent on people with incomes above $100,000. And, according to a U.S. Census Bureau study, the portion of the benefit pie going to the poor has been shrinking in the past 25 years, while the slice going to the rest of the country has grown.

Given the wide range of antipoverty programs, this might seem puzzling. But not if you look closely at families like Brian and Chris Howe of Rutland, Mass. (who are not related to the economist Howe). They do not receive what we normally think of as “government benefits” like food stamps or welfare. But they do own a home, and the government allows them to reduce their taxable income by $13,229, the amount they paid in interest on their mortgage. So in 1991 they ended up paying $3,704 less in taxes. What about medical care? Through the tax code, the federal government gave the Howes a $2,029 medical-insurance subsidy. That’s because the IRS doesn’t tax health-care benefits employers provide to workers. While the government certainly spent a lot last year on medical care for the poor (roughly $50 billion), it “Spent” even more–$65 billion–on this tax subsidy, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a think tank.

The full-service poor–families who receive maximum benefits from every antipoverty program–certainly would get far more money than the Howes. But few poor people fit into that category. Lorena Hernandez of Los Angeles County doesn’t get housing assistance because the L.A. Housing Authority’s waiting list is too long. Her kids get Aid to Families with Dependent Children, but she doesn’t because she’s not yet a citizen. So her total benefits come to slightly less than the Howes’. That’s typical. Just under half of families below the poverty line receive food stamps or AFDC, and only 36 percent get housing subsidies. But most wealthy families benefit from the mortgage deduction.

The affluent elderly fare the best of all. Hastings Keith, a former U.S. representative, last year received $143,598 in income, including his generous congressional and military pensions. Yet in 1991 he still collected an additional $13,104 in social security, got a mortgage deduction and had Medicare pay for thousands of dollars of medical bills he could have handled himself " It’s unfair for the young people of today to have to pay social security to take care of people like me," he says. Other seniors, meanwhile, still struggle to survive. Eve Moffitt, 71, of Venice, Calif., has no pension income at all, having worked sporadically as a salesclerk in various local five-and-dimes. She receives $645 a month in social security–making her too “wealthy” to qualify for food stamps–but pays $500 a month in rent. Her monthly social-security benefit is a fraction of Keith’s, because he earned more than she did in their youth. The working poor and lower middle class get the least in benefits– earning too much to get poverty benefits, not enough to buy a home. Those who suffer most, though, are poor people living in states with low benefits. The average monthly benefit for an AFDC family in California in 1991 was $624–in Texas it was $165.

There are, of course, policy arguments for these middle- and upper-income subsidies. Wealthy seniors get social security because they paid money in. Middle-income families get tax benefits, but they also pay more in taxes than the poor. The mortgage-interest break is “not at all a handout,” says Massachusetts homeowner Brian Howe, because “it stimulates the economy.” He is half right. It does create jobs in everything from construction to housecleaning. But it is a handout–one that gives a mansion a bigger subsidy than a tract house.

It isn’t true that there is “no money” to reduce the deficit or initiate social programs. There’s just little interest in the government’s focusing benefits on the needy. Clinton’s economic plan suggests only one small entitlement reform. President Bush’s aides have in the past urged such changes, but since 1990 Bush hasn’t pushed hard for them. The economic plan devised by aides to Ross Perot, however, does tackle these issues. It would eliminate the interest deduction on mortgages over $250,000, tax some employer-paid health-insurance and increase taxes for wealthy social-security recipients. These types of changes would raise more than $180 billion over five years.

Perot’s plan may win Brownie points, but don’t expect a stampede of congressmen looking to cut benefits for the elderly or the upper middle class. Consider the case of Sen. Hank Brown, a conservative Republican from Colorado, who is, relatively speaking, a crusader on this issue. He proposed cutting farm subsidies for families earning more than $120,000. (Republicans and Democrats joined together to defeat him.) His rhetoric is blunt and harsh: “We think a lot of programs go to help people in need. The reality is most federal subsidies go to buy votes.” But even Brown’s courage doesn’t go very far. Did he want to make wealthy seniors pay more for Medicare? “It’s not the place I would cut,” he says. Would he limit the mortgage-interest deduction for the wealthy? " I wouldn’t. I consider that a valid expense." If even the senators who rail against the deficit can’t show more fortitude, it’s not likely the rest of Congress will. The politicians, after all, are just following the will of the voters, many of whom view the other guy’s benefit as a handout but their own as an entitlement.

Senior citizen. Lives in Washington, D.C.

Income $143,598 Social Security $13,104 Medicare $3,414 Mortgage Subsidy $2,367 Total Entitlements $18,885

Welfare mother of two, part-time waitress. Lives in Los Angeles County.

Income $7,000 Aid to Families with Dependent Children $3,372 Food Stamps $1,098 Federal Medicaid $1,186 Total Entitlements $5,656

Firefighter, nurse. Live in Rutland, Mass.

Income $73,886 Mortgage Subsidy $3,704 Medical Insurance Tax break $2,029 Total Entitlements: $5,733