Posted on 08/29/2012 5:04:45 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
The Romney campaign criticizes the Obama administration for gutting welfare reform, and the Democratic chorus sings the familiar refrain: “Racist!” Leading the choir is tingly countertenor Chris Matthews of MSNBC: “When you start talking about work requirements,” he thundered at Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus, “you know what game you’re playing, and everybody knows what game you’re playing: It’s a race card.” This judgment was immediately confirmed by Thomas Edsall of the New York Times and Timothy Noah of The New Republic, among others.
There is racial politics at work here, and, as usual, it is a Democratic initiative.
Before proceeding to the question of Democratic race-baiting, it is worth paying a moment’s attention to the substantive policy question here. As Mr. Noah disingenuously puts it, the Obama administration says it has the authority to give waivers to states “allowing them to experiment with alternative ways to meet the work requirement” imposed by the Clinton-Gingrich welfare reforms. One of the ways in which states could be allowed to “meet the work requirement” is by not meeting the work requirement, i.e., by sending out welfare checks without requiring that nearly half the recipients perform 30 hours of work-related activities (which is not a particularly burdensome standard to begin with). This is important because, as Jim Manzi and others have shown, work requirements are one of the only policy innovations that have been shown in real-world trials to be effective in moving people from welfare to work. Undermine the work requirement and you undermine welfare reform in toto.
The Left never accepted the legitimacy of welfare reform, even though it came with Bill Clinton’s signature on it, and always regarded the initiative as being tainted by racism. Erasing welfare reform now is the Left’s opportunity to scrub away what it wrongly believes to be a blight on the record of the Democratic party rather than the key achievement of the Clinton administration.
Mr. Matthews’s accusations were, as is his style, presented without evidence or argument, and indeed without anything that might even charitably be called intellectual content. That he immediately connects welfare in his mind with race is of course telling: The majority of American welfare recipients are white. Blacks are disproportionately represented on the welfare rolls, it is true. That is not the only place in which black Americans are overrepresented: As conservatives have been shouting from the rooftops for a couple of years now, the black unemployment rate is a national scandal — reason enough to fire Barack Obama on its own. But the majority of unemployed people, like the majority of welfare recipients — and the majority of the country, of course — are white. Reducing the welfare rolls, like reducing the unemployment rate (and the two are not unrelated), is necessary to rebuilding the economic and human strength of the country for Americans of all races. Mr. Matthews here exhibits a crude, zero-sum view of politics and the economy, and then takes the extra step of attributing that crude, zero-sum view to his opponents. This is startling in its simplemindedness.
Mr. Noah takes a depressingly similar tack, arguing that the alleged Republican racism is (inevitably) “subtle” and encompasses attacks on the health-care law, inasmuch as such attacks consist in accusing “Obama of taking money away from (mainly white recipients of) Medicare to fund (majority non-white recipients of) Obamacare.” But it’s far from clear that the beneficiaries of Obamacare will be mostly non-white; the vast majority of those Americans who do not receive insurance through their employers will be eligible for either subsidized premiums or Medicaid. This is a childish shell game: If Romney wants to repeal Obamacare to support Medicare, he’s a racist; if he wants to reform Medicare, he hates old people.
Democrats’ proprietary attitude toward African-Americans is a disgrace, one that nine in ten black voters unfortunately reinforce at every electoral opportunity. Welfare reform is not about limiting the transfer of money from white taxpayers to non-white welfare recipients, but about ensuring that programs intended to help the poor and ease their transition into the productive economy do not in the end damage the poor, corrupt public institutions, and constrain the economy. The Democrats know that a voter dependent on the government — whether a welfare recipient or an EPA employee — is a Democratic voter, and they actively cultivate that dependency. President Obama’s economy is driving more Americans onto President Obama’s swelling welfare rolls. Republicans seek to reverse both of those trends, which would be self-evidently good for all Americans. The best the Democrats can do in such a situation is to shout “Racist!” and so they will.
His interviews with Newt & Priebus were bizarre and completely disgusting. He doesn't even feign 'reporting' any longer. Maybe he'll replace DWS.
No Chrissie. You may not have your testicles back. They're staying in my lockbox.
ROFLOL!
Clinton reformed welfare to include the work requirement. I guess he’s racist too. Oh wait, he was called a racist during the 2008 primary.
Wonder if Mr. Priebus would agree with my tag line?
Matthews has been on this theme for months, that any mention of welfare by a Republican is simply an appeal to white racists to vote.
I unfortunately saw this segment on The Morning Joe the other day Monday I think. Matthews also attacked Romney on his Birth Certificate Joke, which I think was funny.
What I found sad but not surprising is how Priebus just sat there making faces and had no response as Matthews confronted him directly. Finally Priebus asked that the segment end so he could leave the show, after saying “I am not going to get into a shouting match with you”
Matthews has been on this kick EVERY DAY for months as with Romney's ads and Priebus never thought up a response to it or a strong defense of those ads? Or even better a counter attack? It reminded me of my past comments that Priebus looks weak.
But he is 100X better than Steele, who is really a Democrat. I saw Steele on MSNBC this weekend agreeing with Dems that Republicans are a racist party and with Dems calling them racists.
He's a bitter little black man since he was outed and replaced for trying to destroy the conservative movement. He's a republican the same as Colon Powell. Not at all.
Ask the question - “What is the purpose of welfare?” and for various groups, its purpose varies.
For the sheeperal lib, they’ll say “it’s to help people in need”, and what they really mean is “it’s to make me feel good about myself for advocating helping people in need”.
For the radical progressive, it’s about growing the government, getting more people on gov’t dependence, and controlling people.
For the racialist progressive, it IS about transferring wealth from white people to black people. Flat out true statement.
I'd only add this to the sheeperal lib one ... ... advocating helping people in need, so that I have an excuse not to do so through my OWN charitable giving.
Libs are documented to be the worst charitable givers ... their 'religion' is the DNC.
Who Racializes Welfare Reform?
Are You Really A Racist?
In another article, they explained/excused the sheeperal justification for their own lack of individual sacrifice to help people by their willingness to pay higher taxes.
This is bogus, of course, because the liberal taxation paradigm is “don’t tax you, don’t tax me, tax that [rich] fella behind the tree”.
Thanks sickoflibs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
