>Republican Nut-Boy (M-L)
I hope this doesn't mean you're stepping down for your leadership role in the Anybody But Lieberman & Hillary movement.
Hillary's stance on welfare reform earned a rebuke from the NYT edit page today. Gail Sheehey claimed that contrary to frequent liberal fantasy, Hill was often to the right of Bill.
Doug
----
New York Times - May 15, 2002
A Surprise From Senator Clinton
When President Bill Clinton worked with Republicans to "end welfare as we know it" six years ago, there was speculation that Hillary Rodham Clinton was a silent critic. But whatever her views then, Mrs. Clinton now favors a tougher policy. To the surprise of many, New York's junior senator has decided to side with President Bush and others advocating punitive new work requirements in legislation to be voted on this week in the House.
The House bill, a travesty of the concept of reform, would undermine the positive features of the measure signed by President Clinton in 1996. Mrs. Clinton has pledged to improve the bill in the Senate, and some of her proposals are positive. But they do not go far enough.
The House bill imposes a work requirement of 40 hours a week, up from the current level of 30. Mrs. Clinton and a few other Democratic senators propose raising it to 37, with a bonus for states that get recipients to work 40. Many governors have testified that this requirement is unworkable without a huge new investment in day care and other services, which the House bill lacks.
Mrs. Clinton hopes to please both the right wing and left by combining the longer work requirement with $8 billion over the next five years for day care for welfare recipients and some limited exemptions for mothers with small children. But even in the unlikely event that the Senate can add all the money she wants, it would almost certainly not be enough. Outside experts say at least $11 billion would be needed to take care of the children of mothers affected by the House legislation.
While Mrs. Clinton is making a mistake in thinking she can appease both sides on this issue, President Bush has betrayed his pledge of "compassionate conservatism" by supporting the House approach instead of building on the reforms of six years ago. The House bill would almost certainly force states to create make-work public jobs in order to meet new federal requirements. Worst of all, it would apply a "super waiver" enabling some states to ignore federal requirements in food stamps, housing, job training and education programs and spend the money in ways they prefer. This is the wrong kind of flexibility; it could easily allow states to cut back on serving the most desperately needy populations in their care in favor of more politically popular priorities.
A better alternative in the Senate is a measure supported by a bipartisan group including some influential Republicans like Orrin Hatch and Olympia Snowe. It would keep the work requirement at its current level of 30 hours a week. However, in its current form it does not have a specific amount for day care or other services. Ideally, new welfare legislation should include both realistic work requirements and sufficient money to supply day care and education subsidies for all those who need them. Meanwhile, anyone who favors genuine welfare reform should oppose the destructive bill before the House.
Forum: Join a Discussion on Today's Editorials