A group of Republican senators has proposed a plan to reform welfare — not so much because they expect it to succeed, but to make an important point: that the deficit supercommittee can meet its $1.2 trillion goal without raising taxes.
“I think there’s kind of an acceptance that as long as there’s Democratic control of the Senate, we’re not going to pass anything good,” said Sen. Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), one of the bill’s cosponsors. “Our point here is to show that there is a lot of money that we could save and deal with our deficit in a responsible way if we would look at it.”
The legislation would save $2.43 trillion over ten years by returning means-tested welfare spending to 2007 levels. It would also eliminate federal funding of abortion in these welfare programs and prevent people from using food stamps at fast-food restaurants. The changes would be implemented in 2015, or when unemployment dips below 7.5 percent.
“It’s showing that there are rational ways to begin to solve our problem,” he added. “And it’s also a way to show for the 2012 elections that Republicans have a lot of solutions.”
DeMint lamented that the supercommittee is currently considering tax increases and budget gimmicks, such as counting as “saved” money from the draw-downs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, money that would never have been spent in the first place. “It’s pretty frustrating,” he said. “But this [welfare-reform plan] is one good example — there’s plenty of money we can cut, and make our country a lot better for it.”
DeMint said he is worried that some Republicans will end up supporting a supercommittee plan that includes tax increases. Raising taxes on job creators won’t solve America’s budgetary woes, he argued, criticizing Republicans who insist on compromise. “They say, ‘Well, hey, you gotta meet everybody halfway,’” he said. “It’s not gonna solve a problem to do something wrong in order to hopefully get a little something right.”
Is DeMint not aware of the optics of this? Instead of raising taxes on multi-millionaires he'd prefer to cut anti-poverty programs. Couldn't he have found $2.4 trillion in federal spending that doesn't involve cutting poverty assistance? Let's think strategically here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I mean is, let's find programs that Democrats would be embarrassed to defend rather than ones they'd love to highlight Republicans as being against.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseTrying to think of one that would be anywhere near as large, and can't come up with one. Oh yes, how about the military? Wait, we are supposed to be strong on that.... Well, the Dems wouldn't complain too much if we gutted our capability; Clinton did it so it must be a good thing. No, I think ignoring the 800lb gorilla in the room to avoid namecalling is pretty silly. The Dems will castigate the repubs no matter what they do, short of rolling over and "compromising" to the point of capitulation. No, Repubs are reputed to still have and live by principle, and cutting wastefull welfare spending, reducing generational government dependency and pulling the plug on a bad idea (War on Poverty) would seem to be along those lines. Repubs should not shirk or do anything to avoid an ideological fight; the other bunch certainly don't!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe Dems were defending the cowboy poetry contest as something they just could not justify cutting.
I understand your point about cutting what can be agreed upon first, but I suspect someone will cry no matter what the GOP suggests cutting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere's gotta be something more to this.
Welfare reform? Didn't we do that already? Federal funds for abortion? Hyde Amendment, anyone?
Maybe DeMint should consider cutting back the Space Shuttle and the SST. That would save some money too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Welfare reform? Didn't we do that already?"
Yes, we did. Then Obama came out swinging in 2009 and started dismantling those reforms.
And the Hyde Amendment is limited in scope, primarily for those on Medicaid. Obama is looking to work around those limits too.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDid you not notice where they talk about reducing it to 2007 levels. AKA: BO, before Obama.
His stimulus did away with welfare reform, and is now added billions to the budgets for these department to serve as a baseline.
IOW, it is permanent "STIMULUS".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJust another example of why DeMint has no influence in the Senate. None. He panders to the Tea Party and others on the fringe of the Republican party, scares off the independents necessary to win national elections and wisely is ignored by Senators of both parties.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess you missed this in the article -
"A group of Republican senators has proposed a plan to reform welfare"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWelfare Reform is fringe craziness that scares off independents? Not being able to buy Big Macs off of taxpayer's money, and not being able to kill babies, paid for out of American paychecks is whacko talk?
What have we come to? This is why I ONLY support the Senate Conservatives Fund and not the GOP. I hope DeMint can continue to build a coalition of Conservatives in the US Senate.
Slowly allowing the "middle" to move ever leftward surely hasn't helped this country one iota.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe only thing the Dems won't scream about aren't worth doing, because those things will be ineffective -- or worse, damaging and risky e.g. to national security. We're past the feasibility of engaging in optics, but I understand your concerns.
Can you suggest programs you allude to in your second posting?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDeMint takes an idea that could get some traction as a genuine, material cost-saving measure - reducing overall welfare spending to a lower 2007 level - and mucks it up by throwing in ideological goodies like abortion and fast-food that - regardless of their individual merits - have little to nothing to do with reducing spending.
This is the right-wing version of taking your eye off the ball.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSame old Republican mantra: Sacrifice the poor without asking anything from the rich.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight, because as the Left has so capably proven, the rich just don't contribute anything to society.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"without asking anything of the rich." They already pay the vast majority of taxes. How much do you want?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf he is a standard liberal, then he wants all of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow are the poor being sacrificed? By not having me or you pay for their trip to McDonald's? By not having you or me not pay for their abortion?
Do you understand why it saves money to not allow food stamps to be used at fast food places? Do you understand why an abortion is more expensive than abstinence?
I know, lots of questions. I didn't mean to confuse you.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNice try. Reforming welfare doesn't sacrifice the poor. It de-incentivizes living off benefits.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAh yes, we have on display the typical leftist excuse for thinking... life and the economy are a zero-sum game. If the other guy is rich, then that must mean that I am automatically poor because he has somehow taken stuff from me. In the real world, that's called envy, and leftists are drowning in it.
And the solution??? Of course, take stuff from him instead. It doesn't stop there.. leftists also will take from me and you. That constitutes the typical leftist excuse for morality. But the only morality progressives know is the simple-minded siren song of equality, which is by no means morality, it is sheer laziness masquerading as virtue.
True charity is personal, not collective. Personal morality is hard, which progressives reject. Instead, they want the easy way out, by adopting a pretense, a lazy vicarious excuse for morality. Progressives want to feel good while letting the State enforce their collective morality for them.
In addition to being engorged with envy and an insatiable lust to control other people, progressives are essentially nothing but morality mast#rbators.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf you are a conservative, be honest... do you cringe when you read what I've written? Do you automatically decide not to repeat the phrase I've used, discounting it out of hand, because it is somehow off-putting, somehow less than excrutiatingly polite?
I’m telling you, it’s long past time for conservatives to fight back with language. The left has known about the power of language, and has used with tremendous effectiveness their memes and slogans perpetrated by the Old Left Media. Why do you think Marvin Minsky is such a hero of the left?
FIGHT BACK!!! The best way to skewer them with language is to create and use to excess any phrase that simultaneously degrades them, shames them, and ridicules them.
This is WAR, ladies and gentlemen!!! I have provided you with a weapon. Are you going to stand up and fight, or are you going to surrender? It’s up to you!
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse