Puppet Masters
Now, President Donald Trump wants to put his stamp on the welfare system, apparently in favor of a more restrictive policy. He says "people are taking advantage of the system."
Trump, who has been signaling interest in the issue for some time, said this past week that he wants to tackle the issue after the tax overhaul he is seeking by the end of the year. He said changes were "desperately needed in our country" and that his administration would soon offer plans.
For now, the president has not offered details. Spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders said more specifics were likely early next year. But the groundwork has already begun at the White House and Trump has made his interest known to Republican lawmakers.
Paul Winfree, director of budget policy and deputy director of Trump's Domestic Policy Council, told a recent gathering at the conservative Heritage Foundation that he and another staffer had been charged with "working on a major welfare reform proposal." He said they have drafted an executive order on the topic that would outline administration principles and direct agencies to come up with recommendations.
"The president really wants to lead on this," Winfree said. "He has delivered that message loud and clear to us. We've opened conversations with leadership in Congress to let them know that that is the direction we are heading."
Trump said in October that welfare was "becoming a very, very big subject, and people are taking advantage of the system."
Clinton ran in 1992 on a promise to change the system but struggled to get consensus on a bill, with Democrats divided and Republicans pushing aggressive changes. Four years later, he signed a law that replaced a federal entitlement with grants to the states, placed a time limit on how long families could get aid and required recipients to go to work eventually.
It has drawn criticism from some liberal quarters ever since. During her presidential campaign last year, Democrat Hillary Clinton faced activists who argued that the law fought for by her husband punished poor people.
Kathryn Edin, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who has been studying welfare since the 1990s, said the law's legacy has been to limit the cash assistance available to the very poor and has never become a "springboard to work." She questioned what kinds of changes could be made, arguing that welfare benefits are minimal in many states and there is little evidence of fraud in other anti-poverty programs.
Still, Edin said that welfare has "never been popular even from its inception. It doesn't sit well with Americans in general."
Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at Heritage, said he would like to see more work requirements for a range of anti-poverty programs and stronger marriage incentives, as well as strategies to improve results for social programs and to limit waste. He said while the administration could make some adjustments through executive order, legislation would be required for any major change.
"This is a good system," he said. "We just need to make this system better."
Administration officials have already suggested they are eyeing anti-poverty programs. Trump's initial 2018 budget proposal, outlined in March, sought to sharply reduce spending for Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies, among other programs.
Budget director Mick Mulvaney said this year, "If you are on food stamps and you are able-bodied, we need you to go to work."
Comment: Without any details offered, it is not possible to decide whether Trump's changes will be good ideas or not. Having said that, it is hard to see how reducing anti-poverty programs, Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies will benefit anyone. Perhaps the matter should not be about slashing the budget but using it in smarter ways? Several countries around the world, most notably European countries, have a number of 'safety nets' for healthcare, the unemployed and the poor, and that doesn't turn them into 'commies'. Even in societies with a strong liberal market ideology, some sort of basic government-sponsored aid is needed for those who need it the most.
Reader Comments
Anyone with 2 braincells could eventually see that he was merely playing her stooge. Especially when he didn't confront her when blatantly stealing the DNC nomination, and conceded like a nutless worm.
But on the important matters, no one is a centrist. The world isn't kind of flat, the Sun doesn't sometimes orbit the earth. Pedophilia isn't kind of okay, rape isn't sometimes necessary.
Nobody want's a brain surgeon who is going to compromise with a tumor, or a doctor with a virus.
There are a lot of things in life in which there is no middle ground. A lot of the right/conservative positions are really kind of essential for the survival of a civilization, and compromising on them just puts a band-aid on the problem.
I love the smell of alienated labor in the morning!
Living definition of oxymoron? Many i'm sure gave him a pass for fear of being labeled racist? political correctness is our enemy? Those globalists are clever little psychopaths, aren't they?
If only legal citizens were drawing from those programs, they would work as they should.
You will suddenly find use for them if you are crippled physically, economically, and find yourself in dire straits. In fact, karma would have Jeff Sessions face a life changing illness in his family that required MMJ. Then he might see the light, suddenly become a believer in compassion, small government, become a real conservative. I do call Trump out for being a swampmonger. Maybe he will have a Jerry Falwell moment?
Welfare, and medicare, are for taking care of people who cannot take care of themselves. But that's not what is going on.
There's this constant refrain about how "well muh european socialism." Firstly, most western countries are deep in sovereign debt from way too much entitlement spending. Of course, people will respond "but muh military industrial complex", but those are jobs, that pay people, that foot the tax bill. The Welfare State depends on the tax farming, even from the "military industry" jobs.
Secondly, an immense amount of world medical costs are maintained by the price gouging in the US. Pharma companies have no problem selling drugs for less in Canada, cause they can recoop the costs by spiking them in the US. The US economy is in a sense footing the bill and making social programs more manageable (but not much) in other countries.
Even with that said, I completely agree that a welfare system needs to be in place, however I don't agree with it being implemented by the state. We wouldn't be in this situation if secular socialists hadn't worked so hard to destroy the Church and philanthropy. There's this old saying: "Socialists think that because we don't want something done by the state that we don't want something done at all."
Welfare has to be turned back over to the people who it was ripped from, the Church, and Lady's Benevolent Societies, and communities. As long as people think welfare is going to be done by the state, they won't develop their community ties and help each other. As long as we believe (wrongly) that we can count on Daddy government, we'll never get out of this mess.
It's amazing, everyone claims they see the problem of state power, the corruption, the abuse, the wars, the incompetence and psychopathy, and you want to give these people power over your healthcare? Are you effing crazy!
Any right the state can grant, it can take away. Maybe one day you getting your medicine depends on whether or not you're in the right party, or say the right things. Don't think that will happen? You're a far more trusting person than I.
1)the establishment hates him.
2) corporate msm hate him.
3)Hillary hates him.
4) European globalists, globalists everywhere hate him.
5) i was leary of Obama the "constitutional scholar" 's apparent lack of respect for his self-declared field of study.






...This will be his undoing, as i'm sure democrats are salivating at the prospect of winning 2020.