mbs Chmn, ABH&L Cttee
>
> Max Sawicky wrote:
>
> >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
>