-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Obama’s Rising Inequality
May 8, 2013 | 101 comments
-
Downsize the Liberals
May 1, 2013 | 53 comments
-
Fight Back! Privatize the FAA!
April 24, 2013 | 65 comments
A Further Perspective
At Their Most Brazen
The real scoop on the Democrats’ desperate fabrications on welfare work waivers.
You can tell where the Obama campaign is worried that Romney is drawing blood, because it’s made up a fairy tale totally disconnected from reality to address that concern. We’ve seen it already in the Obama reaction to Romney’s tax plan, in which the GOP nominee has proposed across the board 20% cuts in income tax rates, similar to Reagan’s 1981 25% across the board cut in income tax rates. Obama’s fabrication in response is that Romney’s tax cut for everyone plan, which includes several other tax cuts for the middle class, is a tax increase on the middle class, to finance tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires.
What a dastardly fiend the Republicans have nominated! To think Romney would propose a tax cut for everyone that is actually (somehow) a tax increase on the middle class, to finance tax cuts for millionaires like himself. Too bad Carter never thought to counter Reagan’s Kemp-Roth proposal with the argument that it was actually a tax increase on the middle class.
Now you can see the same thing in regard to President Obama’s announced waivers from the work requirements in the enormously successful 1996 welfare reforms. Bill Clinton recounted the Obama administration’s fabrications about those waivers in his speech at the Democratic National Convention last week. Here’s the complete truth about how brazenly dishonest Obama and the Democrats are being on this issue.
The Astounding 1996 Welfare Reform Success
Story
The 1996 welfare reforms involved
sending the federal funds for the old, New Deal, Aid to Families
with Dependent Children (AFDC) program back to the states in block
grants. In the process, the entitlement status of AFDC was actually
repealed, to give the states maximum discretion in redesigning the
program, subject only to the work requirements in the federal
reform legislation.
Federal financing for AFDC was previously based on a matching formula, with the federal government sending more to each state for AFDC the more the state spent on the welfare program. The federal government was effectively paying the states to spend more on AFDC welfare. As a result, when Reagan as governor first proposed welfare reforms that would reduce welfare spending in California, the liberals and their media screamed that Reagan was going to lose federal funds for the state if state welfare spending declined.
Reagan’s top welfare policy advisor in California was Robert Carleson, who later served him in that role in the Reagan White House. I worked directly for Carleson in Reagan’s White House Office of Policy Development.
The key to the success of the 1996 welfare reforms was that the federal financing for AFDC was changed so that it no longer matched state spending, increasing as state spending increased. Instead the federal financing for the program was provided to the states under the reforms in fixed finite block grants that were the same amount no matter how much the state spent. Consequently, if the state spent more on its new redesigned AFDC program, the state had to pay for 100% of those increased costs. But if the state spent less, by getting those formerly dependent on the program out to work, or married to someone who worked, the state could keep the savings. To drive home the point of the reform, the program was renamed Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).
This policy arose directly out of the thinking of Reagan and his top welfare policy aide Robert Carleson going all the way back to their experience with welfare reform in California in the early 1970s. This is explained in detail in a new study I have co-authored with National Tax Limitation Committee (NTLC) President Lew Uhler, “Restoring Fiscal Order: Block Grant Federal Welfare Entitlements to the States,” published by the National Tax Limitation Committee Foundation.
I recently recounted here the astounding success of those 1996 reforms. Two thirds of those dependent on the program left it entirely for work, or marriage to someone who works. As a result, federal spending on the program declined by 50% from where it would have been otherwise on prior trends. At the same time, incomes for those formerly dependent on the program have been documented to increase by 25%, and poverty among them plummeted.
In the NTLC report, we propose extending those same 1996 reforms to all federal means-tested welfare programs. We have identified close to 200 of those, including all the big ones such as Medicaid, food stamps, federal housing programs, etc. Send them all back to the states with fixed, finite block grants, restoring the original federalism. That would be perfectly suited to Tea Party activists.
The best estimate of the cost of those federal means tested welfare programs over the next 10 years is over $10 trillion. Based on the experience with the 1996 reforms, such extended reform would potentially reduce federal spending over a same period by $5 trillion. If the states follow our advice in the NTLC study as to what policies they should follow with those block grants, we think the savings would be much greater, while all involuntary poverty would be completely eliminated.
Obama’s Waivers and Obama’s Lies
As I
recently recounted, despite the astounding success of the 1996
reforms, on July 12 of this year the Dept. of Health and Human
Services published a “regulatory guidance” that announced that the
Department would favorably entertain requests from states for
waivers from the work requirements on the TANF block grants. Romney
gamely pounced, running ads denouncing this retreat from required
work in return for welfare.
The Obama administration tried to respond that the waivers would be granted only for states that increased required work by 20%. Clinton elaborated on this point in his address at the Democrat National Convention last week, saying:
When some Republican governors asked to try new ways to put people on welfare back to work, the Obama Administration said they would only do it if they had a credible plan to increase employment by 20%. You hear that? More work. So the claim that President Obama weakened welfare reform’s work requirement is just not true.
That is a complete fabrication of reality. Here is why.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (52) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/09/12/at-their-most-brazen
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Martin kzovich| 9.12.12 @ 7:07AM
The election coming up is totally about Obama--the lawless lair, Marxist,Communist etc.
At this stage there is nothing of substance that Obama says that I believe --Zero. And that would be 99.99 of the MSM. Occasionally someone by chance tells the truth.
It is all well and good to reveal in this article still another example of Obama's lies and lawlessness. What is more important is what is done about it.
If Romney loses, the Republican Party is finished there will be a new third Party which I would support aimed at true Conservative ( the Party Base ),Regan Democrats and others who do not want a Socialist system. I would imagine Patriotism,National Security and of the Constitution would be among its main concerns.
vtwin| 9.12.12 @ 8:04AM
Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts quadrupled the national debt before Bill Clinton entered the White House and Bush’s 2001/2003 tax cuts which still in place have tripled it again. And now Romney is calling for more nation bankrupting tax cuts? “If Romney loses, the Republican Party is finished” in the name of fiscal sanity lets pray you are correct.
Ryan| 9.12.12 @ 8:18AM
Cuts don't increase debt. Spending does. Congress under Reagan enacted the cuts and refused to reduce spending.
vtwin| 9.12.12 @ 9:32AM
Deny Evolution, deny Climate Change, deny Arithmetic…
Anthony| 9.12.12 @ 9:47AM
Historical revisionism is a wonderful thing, vtwin. Or perhaps the malady you suffer from is a bit more severe than revisionism?
Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue three-fold, Tippy boy didn't play along with the spending cuts. It's kinda what Ds do, spend like drunken Democrats.
Obozo spends Trillions, yet it's the Bush tax cuts that have vtwin all in a tizzy. It's the new math as taught by Ds and applied by Ds. I bet the new math was invented in California.
Deny Reality, that's the Ds motto!!!
vtwin| 9.12.12 @ 10:18AM
“Reagan's tax cuts increased revenue three-fold [but] Tippy boy didn't play along with the spending cuts.” Question, if revenues increased 300% what was the need for the spending cuts? “Historical revisionism is a wonderful thing”… and funny when practiced by the ignorant.
Kwan| 9.12.12 @ 10:18AM
When are the Democrats going to get the message. The party is over there is no more money to pour down the rat-hole of Democrat Party social programs.
Ryan| 9.12.12 @ 4:25PM
If you are spending more than you are bringing in, doesn't that increase debt? What do most people do when the money isn't coming in - spend more or cut spending?
Jack of Spades| 9.12.12 @ 8:22AM
The Reagan tax cuts increased Federal revenues. The deficits were the result of increased spending by Congress after Congressional Democrats would pronounce Reagan's proposed budgets "dead on arrival."
Some of us were paying attention during the Reagan years, vtwin. Take the Democrat talking points somewhere else.
The Avenger| 9.12.12 @ 9:23AM
Exactly Jack, and those who were paying attention will forever vote against democrats.
vtwin| 9.12.12 @ 9:31AM
“Cuts increased … revenues” sure, ask your boss the cut your salary so you’ll have more money to spend.
Paul McGrath| 9.12.12 @ 11:46AM
By your logic, vtwin, every bar that is losing money should double the price of drinks. Right? Their revenue will double! Right?
But this is not the case. Instead, just about every bar has a happy hour, or other price reduction schemes during the week to increase the number of patrons.
If you have a hundred people in the place paying $5.00 a drink, you are going to make a lot more that if you have ten people in the place paying $10.00 a drink.
This is exactly what happened during the Reagan years. Lower taxes meant higher growth, higher growth meant more employment, more employment meant more people paying taxes, and more people paying taxes meant . . . higher revenue!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Think about it. Please. IN fact, please, just think.
Dave Williams| 9.12.12 @ 2:50PM
Hopeless request, as Purp the Twerp demonstrates his utter inability to think with every stupid post he excretes here. Nice try, though, and it reflects well upon you, Paul.
George S| 9.12.12 @ 12:47PM
Wrong analogy. Ask your boss how much he spends on non-producing payroll whose sole purpose is to comply with regulation , that is:
Human Resources; Accounting; Legal; Consulting; and Lobbying.
Those guys do not earn money by selling, manufacturing or research. So where does the money come from to pay them? From you.
That's why you salary is stagnant while working harder... to pay for regulatory compliance. (So now you have an answer as to why there is an ever widening wage gap.)
So if your boss gets to cut regulatory spending, where would that money go? To you.
And that means you can spend more because YOU earned that in the first place.
Al Adab| 9.12.12 @ 1:58PM
"Do not waste time bantering words with morons and barbarians." Marcus Aueralius
Gary B| 9.12.12 @ 6:01PM
Hey, VTWIN, how about Kennedy's tax cuts? They increased revenue, too. Cutting taxes boosts the economy every single time. Raising taxes kills the economy every single time. Are you incapable of reading history, or is it because the tax cut proposal is coming from a Republican to get the Obama economy off it's dead ass?
The Avenger| 9.12.12 @ 9:22AM
You are either to young, to stupid, or to obtuse. Which is it? Spending increases debt, period. Reagan had a deal with Tip O'Neil, do you know what it was? If not, then your ignorance is on display for all to see.
vtwin| 9.12.12 @ 9:42AM
“Spending increases debt” true and Reagan did his share of spending. Remember the six hundred ship navy? But if you set your ideological blinders aside you will realize lowering revenues also increase debt.
The Avenger| 9.12.12 @ 4:50PM
But Reagan didn't lower revenue you twit, he raised them. So the answer is you are stupid and obtuse. Thanks for clarifying things.
Gary B| 9.12.12 @ 6:04PM
Forget it, Avenger. He's either dumber than a pile of rocks or he's twelve. Either way, he needs to go sit at the children's table.
JD| 9.12.12 @ 11:26AM
In addition to insisting that tax cuts reduce revenue when empirical evidence has always suggested otherwise (that's why he speaks in terms of deficits, not revenue, so that spending changes can distort the results), vtwin commits a bigger, more fundamental dishonesty:
He demands that tax cuts be "justified".
How completely backwards!
Tax cuts do not need to be justified. Taxes need to be justified.
This is the fundamental lie that Democrats have perpetrated for decades, and we have been far to lax in calling them on it.
What audacity, to suggest that the natural order of things is for government to take all of our money, and that we must justify being allowed to keep any of it! Is that "government by the people, for the people"? Heck no!
If government is going to take any of our money from us, it must justify itself, and the burden of proof should be very high. It must prove, quite convincingly, that it will use our money in a way that benefits us more than us keeping it for ourselves. The instances in which government can meet this requirement are few, which is why we conservatives recognize that government should necessarily be small. Liberals recognize the same thing, but because they desire bigger government, their response to this realization is to flip the conversation and act like it is our prerogative to justify keeping any of our own money!
JD| 9.12.12 @ 11:27AM
We must not let them do this anymore. Be offended - be very offended by the mere suggestion that tax cuts must be "justified". Be MORE offended by the suggestion that a tax cut must be "paid for" with a corresponding delta in the federal budget. Quite the contrary - government must prove that a tax HIKE will be "paid for" with a corresponding increase in PRIVATE wealth!
We conservatives must return the conversation to honest fundamentals: That our money is first and foremost ours, and that PRIVATE SECTOR WEALTH is more important than PUBLIC SECTOR WEALTH, and the latter exists to enhance the former, not vice versa.
Von Mises Jr| 9.12.12 @ 8:19AM
Martin, that was very well stated and the crux of the matter. This is what needs to be said by Romney, Ryan and the RNC.
If not, you are correct that if Obama wins, the Republican Party goes the way of the Federalist and Whig Parties. Unfortunately, so will the country. More and more people are trying to help people understand that Ben Stein's father Herb was spot on when he said "if something is unsustainable, it will stop."
The stop is a financial collapse brought about by no growth, Depression level unemployment and hyperinflation due to "Helicopter" Ben and "little Timmy the tax cheat' Geithner.
The reset is the important consideration. Obama has consistently ruled like a dictator on oil drilling (falsification of the report and ignoring the Federal Judge Ruling), immigration lawsuits and the "Dream “Act, "Fast and Furious" with Executive Privilege and an Attorney General held in Contempt, refusal to enforce voting laws, etc....versus two-thirds of the country that demands our Constitutional Republic back.
Little Barry just apologized to the Egyptian Islamist for attacking our Embassy. I am betting on two-thirds of the American people.
Pecos Pete| 9.12.12 @ 10:08AM
VMJ: If Obama wins reelection then the only solution for survival of any state is secession. Otherwise the bankrupt states will pull all other states into bankruptcy, just like falling dominoes.
Von Mises Jr| 9.12.12 @ 10:51AM
Maybe I will see you in South Carolina. If Nikki Haley throws like a girl, at least she is a girl. And she man’s up way better than Obama and his boy Kev Jennings.
irish19| 9.12.12 @ 11:03AM
I thought Jennings liked boys.
Von Mises Jr| 9.12.12 @ 4:45PM
He's commenting as Perp since he got sacked (no pun intended).
Al Adab| 9.12.12 @ 2:00PM
Pete, JR:
It is interesting to note that the States doing best these days are those acting in opposition to or despite federal demands.
Gary B| 9.12.12 @ 6:12PM
You bet. The AG in Texas has sued the federal government several times. He's won some and lost some. The point is... he's fighting back. So, too, AZ, OK and others. I believe strong governors are our next line of defense. What I would like to see is more coordination between the states in fights with the ruling class in DC. I think the Tea Party has them pooping in their pants, else why would the GOP elites shaft them at the convention? As Martin (first post) says, if Romney loses a third party is the answer. Actually, I think a third party is the answer even if he wins. Said it before... Step One: get that goddamned Muslim out of the White House. Step Two: primary Romney out or form a third party in 2016.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.12.12 @ 1:07PM
Romney wont do anything about it if he wins, and now with the Mideast pot starting to boil, Romney might win-- Americans have usually looked to the GOP for military leadership since Abe Lincoln's day.
Face it, the era of "small" government ended forever 9-11- '01.
JD| 9.12.12 @ 3:27PM
On the contrary, the acceleration of the growth of a government is the acceleration of the demise of that government, which is the only historical path to a substantial shrinking of government. Revolutions replace big governments with small ones, due to the distrust of concentrated power in the hands of government which revolutionaries always share (unless they mean to be tyrants themselves).
But while many of us prefer smaller government, we do not look forward to the pain of collapse, and tend to prefer to try slowing or stopping the growth of existing government so that we can live with it for a while longer.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 9.12.12 @ 4:23PM
It is different today, if big government collapses, it will be relaced by another big government.
Appleby| 9.12.12 @ 7:30AM
Georgia reduced their welfare rate with one brilliant stroke: they repealed Hava-Baby-Getta Cheque. That is, once you are on welfare, you get welfare for ONLY THE KIDS YOU HAD WHEN YOU WENT ON BOARD. The illegitimate birthrate went down by 40% in the first year. They also put a time limit on how long you could be on welfare. Just like "no pass-no play" regulations that insisted kids get a C average before they could participate in non-education programs such as Footbawl, when people were faced with a firm line in the sand, they stepped up and complied. Although the schools were filled with parents howling that if their children couldn't play Baw--ell, they'd drop out, instead the kids got the required grades, proving they could do it after all. The same thing happened vis-a-vis welfare. Put in standards and people meet them. What a concept.
The Avenger| 9.12.12 @ 9:26AM
Those dastardly, mean republican. Imagine demanding that someone actually perform.
Louis Jenkins| 9.12.12 @ 8:57AM
Too bad we don't have standards for Obama. No birthcert, no grades, hardly know he attended school other than what CBS tells us, and were was he living? Who was his daddy? Obama only has standards that he wants us to have. Pay your taxes-it's patriotic. Yet Turbo Timmy ignores the bill. Everything is thrown out with the wash unless you're a WASP and your nose had better be to the grindstone.
Mimi | 9.12.12 @ 9:17AM
Peter....You used the ..." I " word! God if he eeks out a win, he most likely will FINALLY get Impeachment proceedings.....If we think he's stepped over the LINE now ....wait until the second term!
The country-side, farm towns, people in the wide open spaces away from the city...need to VOTE IN DROVES in a greater percentage than ever before... We can WIN this thing....Get registered NOW ...and urge all to GO TO THE POLLS!
The Avenger| 9.12.12 @ 9:27AM
To put it quite bluntly, the Republicans don't have the balls to impeach him.
Pecos Pete| 9.12.12 @ 10:12AM
TA: And, if Congress actually impeached Obama, the nest of vipers in the MSM and the Obamacrats will do lots of marching and flag burning, etc. Hooray, we are back to the 1960s.
Pecos Pete| 9.12.12 @ 10:13AM
I should also have said: Obama should be impeached immediately, tomorrow, the next day and not later than now.
Who Knows?| 9.12.12 @ 10:20AM
All of my adult life, the all too predictable political charades in Central and South America, country by sad country, have always been a wonder to behold. Why, here we are, in blessed America, founded by “enlightened” and brave men, who created and gave to posterity a Constitution, putatively guaranteeing we’d continue to be a free self-governed people---if we could keep “it”.
No doubt, aside from the Cuban nightmare, it’s the Venezuelan “miracle boy”, Chavez, who has been most recently providing all the political “humor” south of the border. And, he’s happily spreading the wealth of his success, even hugging up with Iran.
Finally! America has gotten up to speed, with the depositing of The One and Only Obama---our own Castro-Chavez!
It took long enough. But, the grass roots mind-killing has been wildly successful; public schooling has passed the tipping point. A deadly majority of programmed physiological, but NOT ideological, adults, are firmly in place, doing their electoral jobs.
Undoing welfare reform is just ONE detail. And, the vast majority of voters could care less about it, and all the myriad other details---what’s on TV tonight, what’s for dinner?
Want proof?
In effect, Obama-Pelosi-Reid et al are the greatest robbers in history. They’ve STOLEN trillions of dollars! Used to be a million was a lot of geld.
Try a million million, or $1,000,000,000,000.
Purp| 9.12.12 @ 4:33PM
"Romney's tax plan, in which the GOP nominee has proposed across the board 20% cuts in income tax rates, similar to Reagan's 1981 25% across the board cut in income tax rates. " - And how he does this? By closing loopholes - what loopholes you say?
Well, Romney doesn't say and that's the problem. His plan is locked up with his tax returns apparently.
But note, the biggest "loopholes" that would generate 1.3 Trillion dollars/year are the Homeowner mortgage deductions that 68% of Americans use (84 Billion/year) , State and local income tax deductions, 401k and IRA deductions, child tax credit and healthcare deductions (184 Billion/year) along with many, many more.
Close them all, and we would have no deficit, would need no changes in budgeting whatsoever.
But, eliminating all those deductions to lower our taxes, RAISES TAXES on all those that take those deductions today. MIDDLE CLASS TAXES will rise... isn't that interesting?
Now you get it?
The Avenger| 9.12.12 @ 5:05PM
The problem is that you don't get it. Romney's proposed changes are to be revenue neutral. The balancing is to come by spending cuts and economic growth. Three things there that Obama knows NOTHING about.
lost| 9.12.12 @ 5:46PM
purp also does not know what a loophole is.
Gary B| 9.12.12 @ 6:21PM
Lost, Purp and Vtwin both teach in public school. They get paid a whole bunch of money, have great vacations and terrific benefits. All they have to do in class is just say stuff. Is this a great country, or what?
Purp| 9.12.12 @ 6:37PM
Growth from what? Taking money out of the hands of millions of customers (Middle Class) and giving it to a few hundred thousands of the rich that already spend whatever they want to? That makes sense to you? How many groceries, clothes, cars, houses, refrigerators, roofs, computers can the rich buy vs. 300 million Americans?
He doesn't specify what he would cut, he doesn't specify what loopholes he'd close - but it WILL be revenue neutral? Trust him? He said he'll tell us AFTER the election? Seriously? That's his plan?
If you fall for that, I have a bridge to sell you. Hahaha.... His "59 point plan" is vague, doesn't spell out he'd do any of the 1 or 2 sentence "points" he'd implement. He doesn't say HOW he gets them passed and through Congress.
He says VERY little about his foreign policy (but then we've seen what a train wreck that is today) ...
THAT's what you support? Ok, go with that.
Gary B| 9.12.12 @ 6:19PM
Purp, I don't get it. Can you explain it again? Are you a science teacher? You sound so smart.
Purp| 9.12.12 @ 6:38PM
Try HARDER...
Gary B| 9.12.12 @ 7:02PM
Now, I get it! All the rich people are evil and should have all of their money confiscated to teach them a lesson, which is... America shouldn't be the land of opportunity. It should be the land of equal outcomes. You know, so no one gets hurt feelings.
Suggestion: Look up "incentive" and see if you think it's compatible with human nature.
Purp| 9.12.12 @ 8:42PM
How long did it take for you to make this shit up? It's ridiculous you think so little of America and her workers, work ethic and society ...
We're born being selfish, self-centered and possessive... Ever watch 2 year olds play? They aren't very good at sharing, playing well together, are they? We have to be taught that.
Society, culture and growing up teaches us we are all in this world together and if you win at all costs, somebody else has to lose terribly.
What a democratic society embraces is equal opportunity for all, not some with a leg up to be able to stick it to the rest of us. We're taught to share, help your neighbor, support your community.
If that means fewer billionaires, so be it. What good are they anyway? But they've certainly sold you on how to protect them ... not that I believe your ridiculous premise, but I assume taking all the money from the rich wouldn't affect your finances, now would it? Who are you protecting?
How exactly did your mother raise you? Are these foreign ideas to you?
Gary B| 9.12.12 @ 8:54PM
Purp,
Here's the short answer: You're confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome.
"What good are billionaires?" Are you kidding? Who do you think creates employment opportunities?
And, thank God my mother wasn't a socialist.
Oldefarte| 9.12.12 @ 8:51PM
The only viable solution rest with 11/6/12 and to overwhelmingly vote his AA ars out of office. As to this editorial, my suggestion would be for the [hopefully] next Republican administration to announce that effectively immediately any/all forms of federal governmental welfare will become block-granted back to the states with the appropriate work requirements attached and legally obligated by its recipients. Additionally same block-granted amounts so provided to the states will become reduced annually by 10% and therefore completely ending in ten/10 years from its inception. Coordinated with the initiated full and complete enforcement by the federal government of immigration laws which will require computerized verification of legal status of immigrants apply to businesses for work, this should result in a self-imposed return by illegals to their countries of origin, the replacement of their jobs' fulfillments by governmental welfare eliminated job seekers. Also, with the hopeful serious reduction in governmental employment to reduce our defecit/debt, some of the vacated government employments can be filled by former welfare recipients now seeking employment or by governments using the new work requirements for welfare to supply low-skilled worker for such needs. Finally with private employment increasing from the Republican economic/fiscal incentives, the former welfare recipients will also have access to more job availabilities. It'll be a win-win overall!!!!!
Mickle | 9.13.12 @ 12:06AM
Balkans to the African Atlantic. Once they have control of the oil (which they will continue to sell to the West/Europe), they can buy all the weapons they will need to attack Europe.