A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Endangered Welfare Reform « Back to Story
Showing 15 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
How do you explain the fact that Republican governors are the ones who have requested the waivers?
If it is successfuly, then the next step for Obama is to destroy it.
As we go the way of Greece and Spain, government funding will be getting tighter and tighter. No matter what liberals want the "sugar daddy" has lost his sugar. Now the cuts are hitting the cities and states. Soon Uncle Sam will lose his sugar. The reality is that the welfare program should be focused on education, jobs, and fatherhood to reduce poverty. Education is failing to train high school students to get jobs. And rewarding fathers who stay with their families would reduce the poverty of single parent mothers. It would also reduce crime and drug use. When a child grows up without a father, they never know what it means to be a father, a husband, a wife, or a man.
Entitlements have become a lifestyle not a lifeline!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You can bet that Cuomo and his pals in the Assembly would happily add to NY's roster of state parasites.
The ONLY reason these scum oppose workfare is because it leads to fewer cushy do-nothing government jobs for otherwise-unemployable left-wing social science grads. They WANT poverty. They WANT misery. They WANT dependency. They WANT despair. That is their stock in trade. They are the most selfish, heartless, evil people in the country. They are worse than any top-hatted titan of industry, who cannot build his own fortune without giving people jobs.
"Is the Obama administration targeting the most successful poverty-reduction program in decades?"
Short answer, yes.
People on welfare forever vote dem, working stiffs now vote repub, cant have that.
I mean...You don't do what he just did if yoiu don't mean to do just that....
You have to ask "if"...seriously? You do what he just did if you don't mean what you are doing.
There is a comment here about the nature of legislatures and governance. I pick as the specific example the NJ Senator Bob Menendez, running for reelection this year, with no apparent publicity or opposition.
Menendez is as culpable for passing Obamacare,reckless spending, and other parts of the progressive agenda as any congressional member, and even more than the President, who is an inactivist shill. He makes trips to Arizona occasionally to rally the Hispanic vote,although illegal immigaration is a Mexican issue and Menendez is a Puerto Rican Caucasian. He would tacitly support Obama welfarism by executive fiat since neither hhe nor the Harry Reid Senate have actually passed a budget in three years. Neither has Menendez shown willingness to tackle or even discuss the toughest issues -- such as how to reform the tax code, where to realistically cut spending, or how to actually create employment or "opportunity".
Garden State residents are evidently such sheep, that they cannot find a competitive choice to hereditary hacks who are an endemic problem in both the Senate and the Governor's Mansion. Only when they run out of money do they appear ready to grouse about the state budget, yet they do not care how much money or actual leadership is bled off to Washington.
So it is no surprise to watch the unelected bureacracy continue the bleeding while the de facto House of Lords on Capitol Hill shuffles moral or fiscal responsibility under the bus. The point of Obama welfare rules is less about creating loyal political supporters than to create deadly traps against anyone who would dare advance efficient and truly effective government. I mention Menendez because he is the one whom I have dedicated the most attention to, but most of his peers are just as bad.
The logical conclusion of progressives policies are death, both of the soul first, then the mind, then the body.
The day was August 29th, you are in the 9th Ward, New Orleans. You are requested to evacuate, but... Even though you have no soul left having been on multiple Fed/State hand out programs, you still cannot save a single penny.
And your next check arrives on... the 31st. Do you leave and know you will loose that check (either by theft or by washout) or you will have to work with bureaucrats to regain your check (think weeks, months, years - they are their neighbors afterall).
So the reasonable choice (given what you know, what you expect and what you can do about - certainly never get a job), you stay put and hope for the best.
And the progressive policy outcome IS! Thousands of actual deaths, self-inflicted out of fear due to dependence, nothing rational to those not on the dole - rational risk to those that are.
But progressives always have their final answer - it was not their fault - blame Bush!
A progressive is human only in part, they have no shame, but they do have their mendacity - all for the children!
This does seem to be Obama's modis operandi: policy that cannot pass Congressional muster makes it's way through the administrative state by means of executive order, re-writing/re-interpreting regulations, or some other arbitrary means, obviating legislative intent.
The point of all this is that people not looking for work are not counted in the government's unemployment statistics. If welfare recipients drop out of work programs, the unemployed statistic can finally come down below 8 percent, even if no one gets a job.
Convinced that the new approach would create homeless, malnourished, and even abandoned children, liberals and the poverty establishment fought it tooth and nail. ... But a stubborn group of anti-reformers in academia, government, and the nonprofit sector remained opposed to “work first,” convinced that it led to dead-end jobs and the stifling of individual ambition and talent.
I'm sorry, but you are far too generous to welfare reform opponents. They do not oppose it because of the supposed "harm" it brings to former-welfare recipients. They oppose it because they want people to be dependent upon the state, and upon the "social workers" who make quite a good living supervising government dependents. The "harm" they're worried about is the loss of government jobs caused by successfully getting people off the welfare rolls, and in the economy.
Well said. I worked for state government in the field of social welfare from 1980 through 2000 and can tell you my agency fought the Feds "tooth & nail" to retain the broadest and most liberal interpretations of what activities qualified as "work". Finally had to relent and actually put these welfare parents into actual jobs.
Now it looks like all those lessons learned may be for naught.