The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Hold That Baton

2.29.08 @ 12:01AM

(Page 4 of 4)

With the indulgence of the editors of the American Spectator, I would like to respond to Mr. Arand's letter.

Mr Arand wrote: "The gambit of choice, used by liberals of all stripes, is to paint all who voice opposition to federal wealth re-distribution programs as some sort of uncaring and evil pariahs. The question that needs to be answered is, "Who can best meet the needs of those who require help?" After decades of governmental malfeasance associated with having Congress in control of doling out welfare benefits, it should be obvious that the let-the-federal-government-do-it approach to this problem, espoused particularly by Democrats, has failed to meet its stated objectives at every level.

I would like to remind Mr. Arand that President Clinton and Congress changed "welfare as we know it" in 1994 with the passage of the Work and Responsibility Act. The act did two things: First, it changed the goals of welfare under Aid to Families with Dependent Children by imposing time limitations for welfare payments (two years) and by introducing "family caps" which eliminated increased welfare benefits for additional children born to mothers already receiving benefits. Secondly, with block grants, the federal government also gave considerable authority to states to devised aid programs for the poor. Clinton was castigated by the left for this reform and from the right he received little thanks from those who complained that he had "co-opted" their program. Such is politics. In 2006 conservative Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation wrote concerning welfare reform: "As a conservative analyst who spent much of the 1990s working against most of Bill Clinton's agenda -- including even some aspects of his welfare reform proposals -- it pains me to say this. Bill Clinton was right."

Mr. Arand continues: "What most conservatives want to see is real compassion for the poor. This cannot be done from Washington. We want programs administered by entities within our local communities that eliminate dependency by making people self-sufficient, not groveling politicians who pander to an underclass they perpetuate and can count on to get themselves re-elected." So, Mr. Arand, how is Missouri and your county doing in achieving these goals in the context of "real compassion for the poor?"
-- Mike Roush
North Carolina

HOPE FLOATS
Re: Philip Klein's The McCaining of McCain:

Conservatives are disappointed in the choices we have for November, but here are some long-shot grounds for hope:

1) We backed Bush, and he turned out to be a dud. We opposed McCain but maybe he'll surprise us and be a great president.

2) McCain has always been the rebel. But if he becomes President, he can hardly play the rebel anymore. Hopefully he will remember that it was Republicans who put him there.

Seems like everyone wants to be the be the courageous maverick, rebelling
against "the establishment" but somebody has to be the establishment.
-- C.Baker
Ft.Worth, Texas

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Taxes, John McCain, Bill Clinton, Business, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, European Union, NATO, Conservatism, Energy, Oil