Who Racializes Welfare Reform?
All racial, all the time from the Democrats and MSM (redundant, I know).
All racial, all the time from the Democrats and MSM (redundant, I know).
BY THE EDITORS
There is racial politics at work here, and, as usual, it is a Democratic
initiative.
Before proceeding to the question of Democratic race-baiting, it is worth
paying a moment’s attention to the substantive policy question here. As Mr. Noah
disingenuously puts it, the Obama administration says it has the authority to
give waivers to states “allowing them to experiment with alternative ways to
meet the work requirement” imposed by the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reforms.
One of the ways in which states could be allowed to “meet the work requirement” is by not meeting the work requirement, i.e., by sending out welfare checks without requiring that nearly half the recipients perform 30 hours of work-related activities (which is not a particularly burdensome standard to begin with). This is important because, as Jim Manzi and others have shown, work requirements are one of the only policy innovations that have been shown in real-world trials to be effective in moving people from welfare to work. Undermine the work requirement and you undermine welfare reform in toto.
One of the ways in which states could be allowed to “meet the work requirement” is by not meeting the work requirement, i.e., by sending out welfare checks without requiring that nearly half the recipients perform 30 hours of work-related activities (which is not a particularly burdensome standard to begin with). This is important because, as Jim Manzi and others have shown, work requirements are one of the only policy innovations that have been shown in real-world trials to be effective in moving people from welfare to work. Undermine the work requirement and you undermine welfare reform in toto.
The Left never accepted the legitimacy of welfare reform, even though it
came with Bill Clinton’s signature on it, and always regarded the initiative as
being tainted by racism. Erasing welfare reform now is the Left’s opportunity to
scrub away what it wrongly believes to be a blight on the record of the
Democratic party rather than the key achievement of the Clinton
administration.
Mr. Matthews’s accusations were, as is his style, presented without
evidence or argument, and indeed without anything that might even charitably be
called intellectual content. That he immediately connects welfare in his mind
with race is of course telling: The majority of American welfare recipients are
white. Blacks are disproportionately represented on the welfare rolls, it is
true. That is not the only place in which black Americans are overrepresented:
As conservatives have been shouting from the rooftops for a couple of years now,
the black unemployment rate is a national scandal — reason enough to fire Barack
Obama on its own. But the majority of unemployed people, like the majority of
welfare recipients — and the majority of the country, of course — are white.
Reducing the welfare rolls, like reducing the unemployment rate (and the two are not unrelated), is necessary to rebuilding the economic and human strength of the country for Americans of all races. Mr. Matthews here exhibits a crude, zero-sum view of politics and the economy, and then takes the extra step of attributing that crude, zero-sum view to his opponents. This is startling in its simplemindedness.
Reducing the welfare rolls, like reducing the unemployment rate (and the two are not unrelated), is necessary to rebuilding the economic and human strength of the country for Americans of all races. Mr. Matthews here exhibits a crude, zero-sum view of politics and the economy, and then takes the extra step of attributing that crude, zero-sum view to his opponents. This is startling in its simplemindedness.
Mr. Noah takes a depressingly similar tack, arguing that the alleged
Republican racism is (inevitably) “subtle” and encompasses attacks on the
health-care law, inasmuch as such attacks consist in accusing “Obama of taking
money away from (mainly white recipients of) Medicare to fund (majority
non-white recipients of) Obamacare.” But it’s far from clear that the
beneficiaries of Obamacare will be mostly non-white; the vast majority of those
Americans who do not receive insurance through their employers will be eligible
for either subsidized premiums or Medicaid. This is a childish shell game: If
Romney wants to repeal Obamacare to support Medicare, he’s a racist; if he wants
to reform Medicare, he hates old people.
Democrats’ proprietary attitude toward African-Americans is a disgrace, one
that nine in ten black voters unfortunately reinforce at every electoral
opportunity. Welfare reform is not about limiting the transfer of money from
white taxpayers to non-white welfare recipients, but about ensuring that
programs intended to help the poor and ease their transition into the productive
economy do not in the end damage the poor, corrupt public institutions, and
constrain the economy. The Democrats know that a voter dependent on the
government — whether a welfare recipient or an EPA employee — is a Democratic
voter, and they actively cultivate that dependency. President Obama’s economy is
driving more Americans onto President Obama’s swelling welfare rolls.
Republicans seek to reverse both of those trends, which would be self-evidently
good for all Americans. The best the Democrats can do in such a situation is to
shout “Racist!” and so they will.
More from Goldberg, Fund, Trinko, and Geraghty on NRO.
No comments:
Post a Comment