Welfare safety net has some big holes in it.

[kentuck]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/02/AR2010100202443.html?hpid=topnews

<snip>
Taken together, this new portrait of welfare answers a central question that hovered over the impassioned debate of the mid-1990s, when Congress and the Clinton administration transformed welfare from a federal entitlement into a state-run program of temporary assistance that emphasized work. How would the reshaped welfare system respond, policymakers and advocates wondered then, if the economy plunged into long, serious trouble?

Nearly three years after the start of a grave economic downturn, it now is clear that "despite extremely high levels of employment, that has not translated into welfare increases as much as many people expected," said Douglas J. Besharov, a University of Maryland professor who has studied welfare for years.

Welfare's role will be further diminished after Thursday, when emergency funds Congress began providing early last year to help states cope with hard economic times run out. Despite urging from the Obama administration and welfare directors around the country, lawmakers decided not to extend the emergency welfare money, which gave states more than $4 million, in part to subsidize wages to help people go to work.

Congress also was scheduled this year to renew the entire welfare program, known officially as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, but deferred the task until at least next year.

.......more

[Greyhound]

1. It was a global embarrassment before the "moderate" butchers killed it.

Now it's more a cruel joke than help.

But fear not, I'm sure those deficit chickenhawks will find a way to make it even worse.

[Stuart G]

2. K and R

[Jackpine Radical]

3. The calculus of despair.

I heard it from a lot of people while phone banking yesterday. The theme goes like this:

I voted Dem last time. We have a Dem majority and President. My life continues to get worse.

Screw it. Why vote?

[jaxx]

4. I hope you told them that keeping the Dem majority is their only ticket out.

People need to be reminded of the alternative.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Yeah. I did what I could along those lines.

For example, in the case of one unemployed woman who was deep in helplessness, I got her to agree that the Republicans would make things worse, I told her the election is really close and every vote will matter, asked if she knew where her polling place was (she did) asked if she would need a ride (she didn't--it was within walking distance), and told her I was really counting on her to help. She agreed that maybe she would vote. I have no way of knowing if she just said that to get me off the line, but I think if you do that often enough, it will pay off on occasion. I also repeatedly made the point with people that the Democratic GOTV efforts were entirely staffed with volunteers, and the Republicans pay their workers. (Subtext: If I care enough to be spending hours on this phone, maybe the least you could do would be to vote to protect your own interests.)

[jaxx]

7. That's great.

And thanks!

[ThomCat]

8. Having a dem majority is only a ticket out IF and only if

we get rid of the ConservaDems. IFF we get rid of the blue dogs and return the part to one that focuses on actually helping people and standing up for issues. IFF we stop focusing on what corporate sponsors want, and fund raising.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. A Dem win is a necessary but not sufficient condition.

Agreed. Right now we need to concentrate on the "necessary" part.

[bobbolink]

10. I find it really interesting that "progressives" were so quick to laugh at people for voting against

their own interests, yet now that is the thing to do.

Rather than arguing with people to get them to do what you want, it seems that LISTENING to them is what is called for.

But then.... we poor folk know that we are just used, abused and tossed like old Kleenex.

[pscot]

6. K&R

[bobbolink]

11. Thank you, kentuck. It is interesting that there doesn't seem to be any tracking of how many

women and children who would previously have been on welfare are now homeless, have had their children taken away because they had no money to feed them, etc.

But then, Clinton cared so little when he did all this shredding of welfare that there were no mechanisms then for tracking how many women and children cut from welfare became homeless or even died.

It simply didn't matter.

Until this becomes as important to everyone as ending the war, torture, gay marriage, the environment, etc., women and children will continue to suffer and die.

When will that day of importance come?