Gutting Welfare Reform: No laughing matter!

There is a new political joke going around.

Question: What is the difference between Romney supporters and  Obama supporters?

Answer: Romney supporters sign the front of their checks.  Obama supporters sign the back of their checks.

It would not be funny, if it were not oh so true.  It is a sad fact that, today, over half of our population is cashing Uncle Sam’s checks.  Some of those people work for the government.  Others live off the government.

We keep hiring more of the former in order to take care of more of the latter. Each of these groups has a vested interest in protecting the size of the other.  It is a vicious cycle that is not easily broken.

Unfortunately, the Obama Administration has just completed a two-step process that gutted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, worked out between President Clinton and Republicans leaders of Congress, that led to a dramatic reduction in dependency and child poverty.

The key elements of this historic bill consisted of giving block grants to the states instead of paying states for the number of welfare recipients they were able to enroll.  The second element was to require all able-bodied adults to work or prepare for work in order to receive financial aid.  Obama successfully abolished part one with the 2009 stimulus bill by restoring the perverse incentives that states had to increase the size of their welfare roles.   Obama abolished part two just last week by gutting the work requirements.

Some say this last move is unlawful.  Nevertheless, in an election year, the weak-kneed leaders of Congress are unlikely to challenge the administration least they be demonized by the left as heartless and out-of-touch.

What a pity!  Even with a down economy, we could have helped those who are truly in need without gutting the welfare reform law that helped so many to learn to stand on their own.  The extra money that was funneled into welfare could have been funneled to the states with the highest number of unemployed,  not simply given to the states that were able to lure more people onto their welfare rolls.

By waving the work requirements,  the Obama Administration has cut the last leg out from under the most important legislative achievement of the 1990’s.

As a result, the welfare roles will continue to spiral out of control. More and more Americans will be trapped into a cycle of dependency.  The tax burden will increase on the working class and our national debt will continue to climb, which will be a noose around the next generation.

Water flows downhill.  Trees grow in the direction the wind is blowing and when the government offers to pay people for doing nothing (no strings attached) more and more people will take the money and stay home.

Likewise, when your livelihood depends on ensnaring more people into the welfare bureaucracy, you will do whatever it takes to sign them up.

Meanwhile, Obama wants to increase taxes on the so-called “rich,” those making over $200,000 per year, in order to pay for more government workers.  Unfortunately, his “rich” are the job creators, the very people who have the ability and the means to put people back to work.

News flash: If you have a small business, filing as an individual, and making $200,000 per year, you aren’t rich.  In many states you are struggling to stay alive.

Think I am kidding? Walk around the shopping centers and industrial parks in your city and look at all the vacant spaces.  Obama’s tax increase on the “rich” will ensure that there are more vacant spaces.  This tax increase would cover government spending for all of eight days, so what is the point with all of this class warfare rhetoric?

And what is the point of gutting the 1996 welfare reform law?  Some say, it is to decrease the number of people working or actively looking for work, which would artificially improve the unemployment rate in order to help him get reelected.

Unfortunately, the end result of gutting welfare reform will be more people whose basic needs are met but whose hope of having a better life is lost forever. No-strings welfare is a cruel trap from which escape is all but impossible. The longer one stays on welfare, the more his or her skills erode.  Over time, the welfare recipient becomes less confident.  Dreams fade and all incentive is lost.

The end result of Obama’s policies will be fewer people signing the front of the check and more people signing the back of the check.

It’s no laughing matter.

3 thoughts on “Gutting Welfare Reform: No laughing matter!

  1. It’s time to do some serious boot kicking in Congress: John Boehner looks like a spineless wimpy RINO…charge at him to either drive him out, or drive some sense into him.


  2. When FDR first created welfare in the modern version we were on the road to ruin. Now the fascist left could buy votes…with our money. So of course Obaminable and its cronies want to eliminate welfare reform and just give away the free money. People on welfare can get AFDC, food stamps, housing assistance, free school lunches, and a host of other goodies. Never mind that our bankrupt economy can no longer afford it; soon the police state will be firmly in control (or so the elites hope).
    I worked for many years for the Social Security Administration and for Sacramento County Welfare, and I can assure you that all the right wing cliches about welfare and SSI recipients are true. We are paying the stupidest, most parasitic, most irresponsible, most vicious members of society to vote for left wing fascists and to have more illegitimate children who will do the same. This process will continue even if the gutless RINOs win the next election (assuming we even have one).
    We are headed for economic collapse and race war and the fascists’ final push for the final NWO tyranny. Every patriot owes it to himself and his family to prepare for the inevitable, and, if we defeat the fascists, to build a new and better world on the ruins of this one.


  3. The number of people forced into poverty by the Panic of 2008 and the general economic collapse that followed came before any change to the welfare system. Claiming that the changes produced an increase in the number of recipients seems wrong-headed. If you wish to persuade anyone not already holding the same opinion, you shouldn’t ignore reality.

    And was welfare “reform” really the most important legislative achievement of the 1990s? Balancing the budget was not as important???? I think you are using hyperbole rather than common sense. I guess if you agreed that balancing the budget, or producing a surplus was important, you would have to condemn G. W. Bush for renewing the G. H. W. Bush-Reagan debt-and-deficit policies?

    If, as you suggest, the money used for welfare should have gone to the states with the highest number of unemployment, you would be rewarding the states which were just as shiftless and lazy as the most disreputable welfare queen — and those with the highest population (maybe you meant highest RATE of unemployment.

    Then you tell us that a single individual (no family) with $200,000 a year (after deductions) and owning a business is “struggling to stay alive.” Are you joking? Is the struggle due to having several cars and a couple of homes, a drug and alcohol habit, deteriorating health due to a life of dissolution? Having retired after just a few years making less than this amount (as a single person and business owner), I find the comment outrageous.

    I guess all your readers are making at least a million.

    Do you wonder how people get by with less than $4,000 a week?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s