Bill Tightens Rules for 2-Parent Welfare Families

[papau]

Toughening welfare regulations to include work requirements on the 105,000 .two-parent welfare families that experts say is "almost impossible to meet."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-marriage31jan31,0,3865778.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

From the Los Angeles Times
THE NATION
Bill Tightens Rules for 2-Parent Welfare Families
By Joel Havemann
Times Staff Writer

January 31, 2006

WASHINGTON — The wide-ranging spending-cut bill scheduled for a final House vote on Wednesday includes provisions toughening welfare regulations, including work requirements on two-parent welfare families that experts say is almost impossible to meet.

The Republican-backed bill would hold adults in two-parent families to a higher work standard than those in single-parent families. States that failed to meet the standard would lose some of their federal welfare money unless they chose to exclude two-parent families from assistance.

California, home to the largest number of two-parent families on welfare, would be hardest hit, and Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has written to the California congressional delegation in protest.

Sharon Parrott, a welfare expert with the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington, said it was "the height of hypocrisy" for congressional Republicans, with the acquiescence of President Bush, to promote policies that would give states incentives to discriminate against two-parent families. "This isn't a pro-family policy," she said.<snip>

[papau]

1. Where's the Budget Outrage? By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Rep. Rob Simmons (R-CT) is backing away from supporting the "cut-the-poor, help-the-big-interests federal budget" that he voted for last year!!!! Doesn’t like the revised budget bill’s theme of “Protect the well-connected, bash the poor” as evidenced by tossing out provisions that would have sought savings from drug companies and preferred-provider organizations (the famous $22 billion that Hillary was upset about), and replacing them with new burdens on lower-income Americans who rely on Medicaid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/30/AR2006013001161.html

Where's the Budget Outrage?

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, January 31, 2006; Page A17

<snip> President Bush hopes for a new start with his State of the Union address. The words from last year he wants to wipe out of the political lexicon include "Brownie," "Katrina," "heck of a job" and "Social Security privatization."

But there is an uncomfortable bit of business left over from the Republican disaster year of 2005 that will test the seriousness of the party's supposed commitment to change. The cut-the-poor, help-the-big-interests federal budget passed last year needs final ratification in the House. The vote could take place as soon as tomorrow.<snip>

At least one Republican, Rep. Rob Simmons of Connecticut, has had a change of heart, thanks to laudable grass-roots pressure -- which, to his credit, Simmons acknowledged.

"I voted for it in December," Simmons said of the budget in a statement released last week. But after consulting with constituency groups, Simmons decided that the bill "remains unsatisfactory" and that "the budget, as it stands, falls short." Moderate Republicans who had no business voting for this bill in the first place should be challenged to join Simmons.<snip>

[WePurrsevere]

9. Good question. They're about to cut funds to many social assist programs

With the restrictions already in place, from the Republicans 1980's "Contract'ON' America" it's difficult to get what little public assistance there is out there. Now Republicans are once again attacking the poor, trying to make it so that folks who desparately need help will get much less then they need. The vast majority of these people are not folks working the system (look to the big corporations for that kind of welfare). Most are the working poor, disabled or seniors and just need some help so they have basic food on the table, power and heat for their homes and a decent shelter from the elements that so many Americans take for granted.

If we can afford to give the rich tax cuts and assist big corporations with millions of dollars in bail outs why can't we help those less fortunate that are hurting for basic needs. This is something that Dems are famous for doing right and something that we have a chance to change minds on but where's the outrage... where's OUR outrage?

[kurth]

2. And they cry and whine about the divorce rate

not to mention abortion.

[MrPrax]

3. Nutz...

Virtually everyone of these 'bootstrap' schemes cost way way more than just dispensing the checks.

Most of the time, sending desparately coerced poor people out to 'job search' is usually just a way for the low wage companies to 'benchmark' their own dreary sweat shops and fast food fronts.

An employer is NOT likely to raise his own current employee's wages, if he has a boatload of 'job seekers' sent over from welfare. If anything he can use these poor people as a club to threaten the one's he has hired.

Nothing more demoralizing than working in a crap job for chump change and worrying about your own wage review, when you see people lined up 100 deep just outside door, MORE than willing to do YOUR job for even less than what you started with.

[truth2power]

5. But that's exactly the goal of these anti-democracy RW extremists

"An employer is NOT likely to raise his own current employee's wages, if he has a boatload of 'job seekers' sent over from welfare."

More downward pressure on wages. See how that works?

[Selteri]

4. But the economy is getting stronger with tax cuts for the rich

really... honest, we swear, they're making murkia a better place... too bad we live in America.

I guess it's gone fomr blue and white collar to blue, white and gold collar with a black leather collar for thoe who are married and on welfare.

[BiggJawn]

6. Since when did 2-parent families qualify in the FIRST place?

I was told back in 1983 that we didn't qualify for assistance because we were still married.

Now, did the rules change, or was somebody bullshitting the naive little white boy who always had been able to pay his OWN fucking way until Ronaldus Rex came along?

[seasat]

7. The Clinton Welfare Reform in 1996 changed it.

The problem was a number of parents with kids would remain unmarried due to the requirement. It mean't that the father couldn't hang out at the house otherwise the mother would lose welfare benifits. After the '96 bill passed, these folks were able to get married and still qualify. It means that kids could have a father at home. Now "the party of family values" :eyes: is going to undo the positives of Clinton's reform. The '96 bill also allowed states to limit the number kids covered which resulted in an increase in abortions in the working poor. This change will probably further increase abortions and/or single parent families. Nice going Repug idiots.

[BiggJawn]

13. Thanks!

Back in the Bad Old Days, if we got divorced and I just hung aound, but with a diferent legal addie (like my bro or folks) that would have been cool.

It was really rough back then. I broke my ankle kicking the ancient RCA I kept going with the knowledge i was getting in school when that blue-haired bastard asked me if I was "better off than you were 4 years ago"...

[GoddessOfGuinness]

8. More people for the slave-labor force.

[Sadie5]

10. Hoe will this help families

the father couldn't hang out at the house otherwise the mother would lose welfare benifits


Under Bush there are no jobs to speak of so that meand those who were previously employed at good paying jobs have lost their homes and just about everything else. Now they want to deprive them of dimmer on the table and a parent too?

[GoddessOfGuinness]

12. They don't view it as deprivation

In the narrow rethuglican view of things, welfare deprives them of money they could spend as they choose. They believe charities should provide aid to the poor, not the government. They also view those who receive welfare benefits as lazy, especially those recipients who are not white.

How do we educate them? :shrug: I'd sell my soul for an answer.

[Javaman]

11. Rather than the nation falling into a depression, we are getting pushed...

pigs.