In the New York Times yesterday, columnist Charles Blow accuses America of being heartless because, among other things, polling shows that Americans consider the number one cause of continuing poverty being "too much welfare that prevents initiative". Then Blow slams Americans for opposing immigration "reform" and the expansion of food stamps. Americans even do things like vote for Republicans who blame the poor for their poverty according to Blow. America is "a town without pity."
It is hard to overstate just how wrong Blow truly is. American are extremely generous. There is, however, a major difference between generosity and acceptance of bad policy. Let's use food stamps as the example. Prior to 2009, single individuals of working age and without special circumstances like disability could get food stamps for three months every three years. The theory was that a 25 year old single guy or gal needs to get a job and not to live off the public dole. In 2009, president Obama's stimulus bill removed that limitation for a year. Of course, one has to wonder how changing the requirements for food stamps in this manner stimulated the economy, but that is another discussion. Then, when that law expired, Obama simply announced that by executive order the federal government would no longer enforce that limitation. Let's be clear here: the law expressly limits food stamp availability to single folks of working age to three months every three years, but Obama refuses to enforce that provision.
What has Obama's action regarding food stamps meant? There are enormous numbers of people who are not supposed to get food stamps who are receiving them now. Just yesterday came a report about a 29 year old guy in La Jolla, California who spends his days surfing and partying and who never looks for work. He has been on food stamps for many years now. It would not be heartless to tell this man that he is on his own. No moral code requires people or their government to feed those who should and could feed themselves.
And what has happened to welfare? Here too, Obama changed the rules. In the 1990's Congress forced through a welfare reform that president Clinton was eventually forced to sign. It required the able bodied to work rather than to live on welfare. It was not heartless; it did not leave folks starving out in the cold. Welfare was available to those in need for two years before the work requirement kicked in. Further, welfare recipients were given job training so that they could get jobs. The net effect was to cut the welfare rolls about in half after five years. The people who could take care of themselves were given a helping hand to move up rather than a payment which could keep them alive but in poverty. Obama, however, did away with enforcement of these rules as well. Today, welfare rolls have soared back to heights not seen in many years. So, in Blow's terminology, it is heartless to get folks back to work, but it is generous to keep them permanently in poverty.
It always amazes me to hear a liberal ideologue like Blow discuss the rise of poverty without ever connecting the liberal policies that promote poverty through "generous" government programs to that rise. The truth is that Blow should have retitled his column "Town Without Insight", and written about the failure of liberal policies and the inability of the Democrats who control Washington to recognize that failure.
It is hard to overstate just how wrong Blow truly is. American are extremely generous. There is, however, a major difference between generosity and acceptance of bad policy. Let's use food stamps as the example. Prior to 2009, single individuals of working age and without special circumstances like disability could get food stamps for three months every three years. The theory was that a 25 year old single guy or gal needs to get a job and not to live off the public dole. In 2009, president Obama's stimulus bill removed that limitation for a year. Of course, one has to wonder how changing the requirements for food stamps in this manner stimulated the economy, but that is another discussion. Then, when that law expired, Obama simply announced that by executive order the federal government would no longer enforce that limitation. Let's be clear here: the law expressly limits food stamp availability to single folks of working age to three months every three years, but Obama refuses to enforce that provision.
What has Obama's action regarding food stamps meant? There are enormous numbers of people who are not supposed to get food stamps who are receiving them now. Just yesterday came a report about a 29 year old guy in La Jolla, California who spends his days surfing and partying and who never looks for work. He has been on food stamps for many years now. It would not be heartless to tell this man that he is on his own. No moral code requires people or their government to feed those who should and could feed themselves.
And what has happened to welfare? Here too, Obama changed the rules. In the 1990's Congress forced through a welfare reform that president Clinton was eventually forced to sign. It required the able bodied to work rather than to live on welfare. It was not heartless; it did not leave folks starving out in the cold. Welfare was available to those in need for two years before the work requirement kicked in. Further, welfare recipients were given job training so that they could get jobs. The net effect was to cut the welfare rolls about in half after five years. The people who could take care of themselves were given a helping hand to move up rather than a payment which could keep them alive but in poverty. Obama, however, did away with enforcement of these rules as well. Today, welfare rolls have soared back to heights not seen in many years. So, in Blow's terminology, it is heartless to get folks back to work, but it is generous to keep them permanently in poverty.
It always amazes me to hear a liberal ideologue like Blow discuss the rise of poverty without ever connecting the liberal policies that promote poverty through "generous" government programs to that rise. The truth is that Blow should have retitled his column "Town Without Insight", and written about the failure of liberal policies and the inability of the Democrats who control Washington to recognize that failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment