Friday, August 10, 2012

It's not really eliminating welfare-work requirements because some Republican governors asked for it

Mickey Kaus responds to the point and counterpoint on Obama's new "waivers" for work requirements made law in Clinton's welfare reform bill:
I had some serious doubts about Mitt Romney’s ad attacking Obama’s welfare “waivers”–until I read the New York Times editorial denouncing it. Now I know Romney’s ad isn’t as accurate as I’d thought. It’s much more accurate.
Specifically, he hoists the NY Times on their own editorial petard by noting that giving states the option to allow welfare recipients to be "exempted from the work requirements for six months" (could be longer) is exactly what Romney is claiming in his ads.

Of course the media is circling the wagons around their precious snowflake and the counter-argument of choice is that Republican governors are asking for flexibility with the work requirement, therefore (?) it's not really dropping the work requirement - which it is.  A better question might be: why alter a law that was bipartisan, worked fine, and was uncontroversial for two decades?  Oh, right, the election.

Extra - From Ace of Spades.

1 comment:

Bari said...

gold investment The idea that you are only investing small amounts of money at a time, so any market fluctuations will not affect you, because you do not have to worry about investing at an all time high, but conversely, you will not be able to invest at an all time low. A REITs sole purpose is to invest in groups of professionally managed properties such as office buildings, apartment complexes, medical complexes, industrial buildings, and so on.