I posted the latest Gallup poll on my FB page stating that "The "Party of NO" strategy is losing support (not that it had a lot to start with)." Since I have a bunch of right-wing relatives that I friended (what was I thinking!), I usually expect some type of ridiculous response to my politically-oriented posts. It took awhile, but if finally showed up from my B-i-L in KY.
Did you know we are headed back to the welfare state? Presumably we're going to enable the return of all those (fictional) welfare queens driving around in their Caddy's...
I share it with you over the hump...
My B-i-L's comment:
When you just sign into law the biggest government give-a-way in our nations history, with the promise of much more to come, then there is no wonder he's so popular! Duh! I'm surprised it's not 98%!
You know leaving the other 2% pissed off because they are having to pay for it all :-). Maybe we all outta just quit and go on welfare and be happy!
He followed that with a link to a Heritage Foundation article posted a couple of weeks ago entitled Stimulus Bill Abolishes Welfare Reform and Adds New Welfare Spending
I don't recall seeing any discussion on Dkos about this and a search re: welfare turned up nothing. If I missed it (I was traveling and also down sick for awhile) and you can provide a link to a discussion, I'd appreciate it. I don't like to leave the relative's comments without a comeback of my own.
Anyway, the article lays out the claim that:
The welfare reform of 1996 replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a new program named Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The key to welfare reform's reduction in dependency was the change in the funding structure of AFDC.
Under the old AFDC program, states were given more federal funds if their welfare caseloads were increased, and funds were cut whenever the state caseload fell. This structure created a strong incentive for states to swell the welfare rolls. Prior to reform, one child in seven was receiving AFDC benefits.
Now I'm not an expert on the welfare issues of that period, but I simply cannot grasp that they believe that reform succeeded just because:
Each state was given a flat funding level that did not vary whether the state increased or decreased its caseload.
and that change eliminated this "perverse incentive". I can see that the rolls probably would have to drop some when a state used up its pool and otherwise qualified recipients just got screwed. But it seems FAR more likely to me that the rolls dropped primarily because the requirements for receiving welfare were significantly tightened (e.g. making applicants prepare for employment). A lot of those changes really were badly needed.
Can anyone more versed on the topic enlighten me on other reasons for reform "success"?
Anyway, Heritage then goes on to claim that the new stimulus package is going to restore the old AFDC funding model because they are adding billions of dollars "to reward states to increase their TANF caseloads" ($4B in the House bill, something less in the Senate version).
They then make the claim that:
It is clear that--in both the House and Senate stimulus bills--the original goal of helping families move to employment and self-sufficiency and off long-term dependence on government assistance has instead been replaced with the perverse incentive of adding more families to the welfare rolls.
The article goes on to make some pretty "interesting" interpretations of other things in the stim pkg that support this notion that we want to eliminate means testing, etc.
So yep, us librul's just want to create a welfare state and return to the good old (mythical) days of the welfare queen.
If you've got any fodder for me to use in my response to the B-i-L, they'll be gladly accepted.