Robert Scheer: Blame Clinton, Not Paul

[marmar]

from truthdig:



Blame Clinton, Not Paul
By Robert Scheer


What is so great about our bloated federal government that when a libertarian threatens to become a senator, otherwise rational and mostly liberal pundits start frothing at the mouth? What Rand Paul thinks about the Civil Rights Act, passed 46 years ago, hardly seems the most pressing issue of social justice before us. It’s a done deal that he clearly accepts.

Yet Paul’s questioning the wisdom of a banking bailout that rewards those who shamelessly exploited the poor and vulnerable, many of them racial minorities, is right on target. So too questioning the enormous cost of wars that as he dared point out are conducted in violation of our Constitution and that, I would add, though he doesn’t, prevent us from adequately funding needed social programs.

Under the leadership of President Bill Clinton, Wall Street secured the radical deregulation of the financial industry that its lobbyists had long sought. I opposed that betrayal of the sensible policies of the last great Democratic president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and I suspect that Paul applauded the move as an extension of the free market that he so uncritically celebrates.

Where I agree with him is that with freedom comes responsibility, and when the financial conglomerates abused their freedom, they, and not the victims they swindled, should have borne the consequences. Instead, they were saved by the taxpayers from their near-death experience, reaping enormous profits and bonuses while the fundamentals of the world economy they almost destroyed remain rotten, as attested by the high rates of housing foreclosures and unemployment and the tens of millions of newly poor dependent on government food handouts.

But the poor will not find much more than food crumbs from a federal government that, thanks to another one of Clinton’s “reforms,” ended the federal obligation to deal with the welfare of the impoverished. Yes, Clinton, not either Paul, father Ron or son. It was Clinton who campaigned to “end welfare as we know it,” and as a result the federal obligation to end poverty, once fervently embraced by even Richard Nixon, was abandoned. ...........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/blame_clinton_not_paul_20100525/

[FrenchieCat]

1. I never felt that "welfare" the way that it was set up was a good thing....

It kept couples apart, and in too many cases, made welfare a permanent way of life.
I think mandatory job training and/or college attendance, paid childcare, and subsidized housing makes more sense than what we had before Clinton's reforms.

[depakid]

4. The experience in most other western nations refutes that Republicratic "othrodoxy"

on just about every level and measure.

[zipplewrath]

6. Gonna need some support for those assertions

"It kept couples apart,"

The only thing that "kept couples apart" was the insistence of the right wing that it not support unmarried couples. Alternately, even with married couples, there were conservative concerns that the husband was "not contributing" or somehow "joy riding" on some child/mother focused assistance program. Don't blame "welfare" for that, blame the conservatives that constantly tried to change the focus and purpose of the efforts.

"and in too many cases, made welfare a permanent way of life."

"It" didn't make "welfare" a permanent way of life. Another right wing talking point. All manner of economic factors made welfare a very long term need in some peoples lives. However, the vast majority of folks didn't spend long on "welfare". If there was a larger problem it was the multi generational nature of assistance programs, which again spoke to some economic realities.

There was no program called "welfare". It was a right wing/conservative term (a bit like "partial birth abortion") which referred to a wide variety of social assistance programs that include WIC, Food Stamps, SSI, AfDC, and others. Those programs were wildly successful, if measured against their original purpose. Their original purpose was to address the symptoms of poverty. It was the right wing that morphed their purpose into some how "Ending" poverty. You'll never "end" poverty, especially in any sort of marginal capitalistic system. Heck, even most socialistic or communistic systems there is poverty. But you can address the symptoms of poverty and then also work towards getting people to be more economically self sufficient.

But it is not "easy" by any stretch. By the time someone comes "into the system", they are already so far behind the eight ball it is going to take YEARS to get them to some sort of economic stability. Until then, they will subject to all of the worst of our economic system. They'll be some of the first to get laid off in down turns. They'll be the ones least likely to deal with severe or chronic disease. They will need years to get through education/job training including any of the intern/apprentice/entry level phase that many jobs will need or expect.

Prior to Clinton, there was job training, subsidized housing, and occasionally childcare. What there was NOT, and it was because the right wing threw a living fit, was any sort of concerted effort to provide all three in a coordinated fashion. Child care is not cheap, and can easily overwhelm the local markets if the government steps in and offers child care assistance to the large numbers of people in urban areas that might qualify. Job training sounds good, but it can take a year or more, and the reality is that you'll have trouble getting that many JOBS that fast, even if you can find that much training, that fast. As for subsidized housing, the NIMBY's are very good at preventing them from being placed where they need to be, and we discovered the hard way that warehousing these folks in large government apartments is not the best plan.

The Great Society Worked. What didn't work was the conservative, trickle down, economic theories that somehow in a capitalistic system where we supposedly reward "winners", wouldn't also produce "losers".

Food Stamps (which actually predates the Great Society) basically wiped out malnutrition as a cause of death in this country. Social Security and Unions virtually created the "retired middle class". WIC, AfDC, SSI, and school lunch programs were all very successful when measured against the symptoms they were intended to address. Don't get sucked into the right wing talking points about how they didn't solve all the problems that the right wing wanted them to solve. They were never intended to "wipe out" poverty. THAT was suppose to be handled by trickle down. How'd that work out?

[xchrom]

7. You're giving nightmares of Paul weyrich, the early years

Of the Heritage Foundation, 70s Grover norquist, etc

shudder I HATE remembering that stuff.

[onpatrol98]

9. Good Intentions...unintended results

"It kept couples apart"

I do wonder if our family structures would have looked much different today had it not been for the insistence that a man NOT be in the home in order for the mother and children to receive assistance years ago. I think that policy has been detrimental and has been one factor among many that helped destroy some communities.

"and in too many cases, made welfare a permanent way of life"

I know people like this. Where mom, daughter, and granddaughter are all receiving a myriad collection of assistance. I would prefer to think that they are the exception and not the rule. But, they know the ends and outs of every program so thoroughly that they essentially pay for very little out of pocket. They receive subsidized housing, utilities, food, free phone (that one surprised me), childcare, travel for health care. I mean they have really educated me. But, it just seems a desperate way to live.

----------------------------------

[zipplewrath]

12. And economically dangerous

"I know people like this. Where mom, daughter, and granddaughter are all receiving a myriad collection of assistance. I would prefer to think that they are the exception and not the rule. But, they know the ends and outs of every program so thoroughly that they essentially pay for very little out of pocket. They receive subsidized housing, utilities, food, free phone (that one surprised me), childcare, travel for health care. I mean they have really educated me. But, it just seems a desperate way to live."

It is not only a desperate way to live, it is economically dangerous. Not only can you see some, or all of the benefits disappear in a week because of some snafu in the government, the rules can change, or you can fall out of "qualification" pretty quickly too.

There aren't all that many living as you suggest, although once one member of a family qualifies, the odds that there are others, and that they now know what documentation to bring, goes up. It takes along time to get "qualified" for some of these programs, and even longer to actually start receiving benefits. And it can all go away in a week. It is a well known problem amonst the organizations that try to help people even get into them, much less stay in them.

[Bluenorthwest]

8. Unsupported right wing talking points

No surprise there.

[xchrom]

2. Scheer is amazing - and here he is spot on. Nt

[Chulanowa]

3. Awesome, so what office is Clinton seeking?

He's not?
But the crazy fucker who thinks Clinton was a wacky far-right socialist of the worst sort is?

Blame the Cookie Monster, if you want. Fact remains that if Paul gets elected, he's going to be a festering bedsore on the ass of America.

[Enthusiast]

5. Festering bedsore, yup. nt

[swilton]

10. What's Wrong With Welfare As A Way of Life

It's good enough for Corporate CEO's.

[onpatrol98]

11. +1

And in a few cases farmers.