ToDaZeD Ignorance? or Intent?

with bonus question

The law [that Bill Clinton signed in 1996] changed the old AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) to TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families). In place of the open-ended entitlement to benefits for unmarried women and their children, the law imposed a five-year limit and the requirement that those able to work seek employment. In 2005, the work requirements were strengthened.

…Welfare caseloads declined by 50 percent within four years of the law’s passage, and by 70 percent by the time Obama took office. The overwhelming majority of those who left welfare rolls did so because they found jobs — and not just the worst jobs either. By 2001, a Manhattan Institute study found, only 4 percent of former welfare mothers were earning minimum wage. The poverty rate declined from 13.8 percent in 1995 to 11.7 percent in 2003. Black child poverty dropped to its lowest levels in history. Childhood hunger was cut in half. It was the greatest social-policy success of the past 50 years.

These facts, while not at Teh Narrative level of “Washington chopped down the cherry tree” or “Lincoln freed the slaves,” are no secret. Especially to those whose bread and butter is politics and policy. Declining poverty rates is A Good Thing, no?

So what’s up with this?

Why [did Obama] issue new regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services (in bold violation of the law) granting waivers to states to alter work requirements?

…Obama is trying to persuade Americans that while he has expanded food stamps to unprecedented levels, extended unemployment insurance to 99 weeks, vastly increased the already overwhelmed Medicaid program, created a new trillion-dollar entitlement with Obamacare, and expanded the size of the federal government to a percentage of GDP not seen since World War II, he is not the dependency president.

[More detailed explanation of the details here.]

“The Dependency President” Good phrase.

So what’s the verdict? Ignorance or Intent?

And what is his goal in doing this? I don’t think there was that large a percentage of those on TANF who weren’t gonna vote for him anyway — if that large a percentage of that population shows up to the polls at all.

To destroy a mechanism that clearly gives people a hand up toward being independent, self-governing, contributing — taxpaying — individuals seems not only disrespectful but downright mean.

Finish your assignment! »

9 Comments!

  1. Posted July 22, 2012 at 6:27 am |

    Intent born of Ignorance

  2. Ironic in Denver
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 7:20 am |

    And what is his goal in doing this? I don’t think there was that large a percentage of those on TANF who weren’t gonna vote for him anyway — if that large a percentage of that population shows up to the polls at all.

    Y’know, that’s a really good question.

    I’m just guessing that it is partly ideological (the State should always intervene) and partly to give his non-welfare followers talking points to reassure themselves and to persuade more-or-less ignorant swing voters that he’s “doing something.”

    But I’m not married to any of this. It would be interesting to see some other opinions.

  3. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 7:34 am |

    seems not only disrespectful but downright mean

    I find it extremely cruel.

  4. joe
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 7:43 am |

    He’s going to pull out all the stops trying to counteract the .0000006 % of his faithful who may stay home because of his gay marriage, abortion, anti business, anti energy, anti employment policies.

    I look for an EO reinstating all felons voting rights.

  5. SondraK, Queen of my domain
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 7:45 am |

    His rhetoric is what I expect from Lympians….not the PotUS….

  6. DougM (November is coming)
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 7:53 am |

    It’s his idea of “good.”
    A good king rides in his carriage tossing coins to the peasants.
    (An enlightened despot does this through a bureaucracy.)
    A racist asks where these coins came from.
    A greedy person points out that it was their money he’s tossing.

  7. Caged Insanity
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 10:58 am |

    I really don’t think it should even be a question anymore that the actions taken by Obama are 100% intent.

  8. Bohica Junior
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 3:22 pm |

    I’m going with intent 100% on this one, he is trying to make every living person in the USA, to depend on the government, rather than everyone depending on themselves, and all the evidence points to that! It is a complete alienation of our rights as human beings…and…AND…is in complete violation of our Constitution!

  9. Joe T
    Posted July 22, 2012 at 4:08 pm |

    There are no jobs. You can have them all looking, but they will never become employed. As much as I hate to say it, Obama made their lives less moot. We should still have them look for jobs, and count them as the unemployed for the numbers to be reported, but what are you gonna do?