William Weld, father of Welfare Reform (pre-Clinton/Gingrich Bill), with Mitt Romney - circa 1990 - image sunshine state news dot com
From Red State”Breaking David Axelrod Endorses Mitt Romney for President” - although satirical, one has to be confused as to whom the President’s Campaign Manger is referring. In the video clip below, Axelrod, on a Sunday morning news show, noted that the middle class needs are not being met, and that “we” as a people, can either change that – or “keep going on the same path”. If anyone watching this gave it a moment’s though, to travel on the same road we’re on, would be to re-elect the man for whom Axelrod shills, and to help the middle class, (and since when do we have a “class system in our country” – that defies the principles of our founding fathers), one would think that would be someone who was in a position or had knowledge of how to produce actual private sector jobs, rather than stimulus programs, extended unemployment benefits – jobs programs to date, have “saved” public sector jobs, such as teachers, which, without a taxpayer behind the scenes, these jobs would not exists in the public sector.
Video, comments shown twice
What might be most amazing is that to run on the administration’s record, one would have to change “history” to reflect a great record – since Academics are capable of changing history, by virtue of a rewrite, perhaps that’s what Axelrod is attempting in his latest “salvo” against Mitt Romney.
Desperation can produce many a faux pax. In the latest Rasmussen polling the Daily Presidential Tracking shows Obama down, and in a matchup with Romney, losing 48 to 44% (that would appear to be somewhere at or near the margin of error). However, with the last Gallup state by state polling released, the President had approval ratings in only 10 states that was above 50% - Obama’s Ten States show above 50% approval are: California (at 50.1%) Illinois (50.4%), New York, (54.7%), Massachusetts (55.1%), Vermont (51.3%), Connecticut (55%), New Jersey (50.8%), Delaware (50.9), Maryland (55.5%) and Hawaii (56.1%). The bigger story is that these ratings have declined, since the state by state survey in 2010.
One keeps hearing about how close this race is going to be, however, if this trend continues, state by state, an incumbent pulling 50% and some change in approval in only 10 states, does not bode well for the general election – consider the population in these 10 state: California and New York are large population centers, however, the balance are not.
So the battle has begun between Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, with the conservative wing of the Party still looking at Romney as if he had grown three horns, and many vowing to hold their noses and vote – against Obama – on the other hand, Romney appeals to the moderate – of which in this country that appears to be a growing and large segment of the population.
What does the Obama Campaign have on Mitt Romney – not much when the truth be told – it is a phenomena called “sort-term-memory loss” – when it comes to politicians, especially incumbents – Obama continues to blame Bush, blame the Republican’s, blame the Congress, but, as Harry Truman noted: “The Buck Stops Here” and those who are voting, only know that Obama has been President for four years, and in four years, nothing has improved. Therefore, you will find complains surfacing in papers such as the Boston Globe, about Mitt Romney.
The most recent example is an article from Boston.com’s Political Intelligence section - Mitt Romney Says All Moms Are Working Mom’s, but Mothers on Welfare Need to Work - the headline leads one to believe, Romney put those two concepts tougher in the same sentence – not so. In one instance, Romney was defending remarks made by a CNN Political Pundit, and Democrat Operative, regarding his wife, Ann’s inability to understand the economy because she was nothing more than “a stay at home mom” – This took place last week. However, in the Romney says mothers on welfare need to work; he was in New Hampshire on the campaign trail in January.
Romney was, of course, speaking about Welfare Reform, a product of former Massachusetts peer and Governor, William Weld, which was nationalized under the Republican Congress and President Bill Clinton. The premise: a timeline was set for welfare recipients to get off the “dole”, they would go to college or get a job, (college was a two year program), and much was provided, including daycare – it was a resounding success, cutting the welfare roles and putting people to work refer to discussions on the success of the MA model up to and through 2001(Urban.org) Therefore, Romney is speaking about “Welfare Reform, getting individuals off the government dole and in the workforce, by incentives, and thereby reducing the welfare roles and increasing the taxpayer base. FDR has workfare, as the most often referred to Social Revolutionary (one thinks he might roll in his grave) President by Progressives, the institution of his workfare program and other benefit programs were clearly, intended to be short term – a point those who laud the programs apparently miss.
What of the incumbents views of Welfare Reform? They don’t exist: In fact, replacing Welfare Reform was primary in the Obama administration to the point where states were incentivized to increase the welfare roles – see: Presdient Obama Ends Welfare Reform.
Welfare Reform, instead replacing it with a program that increased aid to states who increased the welfare roles. By replacing Aid under Clinton’s Welfare Reform Plan, with the new TANF
Under the new system, states will once again be paid more if their Welfare roles increase. States will actually be paid even more than under the system that was in effect prior to 1996. The government has added $4 billion per year to help states increase their welfare roles.
Of course, all is well and good, if welfare is used as a transition, and enables the individual to find skills, gainful employment, and become a part of the society – In the interim; they receive benefits that are not always designed to be the most generous. Therefore, when inflation hits, for example with food and fuel, that not only hurts those in the “middle class”, but those in the “welfare class” as well.
That is evidenced by a trip to the grocery store, and finding those with EBT cards making hard choices about food – just like those in the middle class.
Clearly the administration cannot run on its record, even if there were some sleight of hand or outright miracle and the price of a gallon of gas drops to $2.25 and the unemployment rate drops to Bush Era levels (4 to 5%) between now and November, it is the sales pitch that will fall hallow. The cumulative facts must have been on Axelrod’s mind as he rambled out that statement.
Bloggers Note: As a stay at home mom for the first four years of my daughter’s life, it was not only hard work, demeaning in terms of how stay at home mothers are viewed by former peers, and the family who decides to go that route, ends up losing income and making do. However, nurturing the child is worth every sacrifice. With women, especially, it should not be an us vs. them (stay-at-home moms versus those mom’s in the workforce , especially those who are financially capable of making the choice to either stay home or work – should be supportive of one another. To do otherwise, is to take one of the most important and powerful roles a woman owns, that of bearing and rearing her children. It is politics that divides - the us versus them of the Democrats who feel they own women, and the Republican’s /Moderate Democrats such as a Bill Clinton, who feel that women have a right to be – equal – no matter which choices they make when it comes to their children. Which would you choose? Servitude or Freedom from being a political football?
No comments:
Post a Comment