Mittens has a new attack ad, accusing President Obama of “plans to gut welfare reform.” Watch it here:
There are two big problems with Mitt’s assertion.
One, he’s a dirty liar. The Obama administration has allowed individual states “to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.” He hasn’t eliminated the work requirement.
Two, Romney’s a lousy Republican. With this welfare issue, Obama is using the same argument Romney has been using forever recently to justify Massachusetts’ individual mandate—that it’s a states’ rights issue. And this is a very Republican position to take. A smaller federal government gives more power to the states, where they can customize programs for their own citizens’ needs.
But an even more Republican stance would be to eliminate welfare altogether. Not only is there no Constitutional provision for it (and FDR only made the New Deal happen through bold use of his wheelchair-supported balls of steel), but why should I have to pay for someone else’s hardships? That’s not the free market at all.
Even if someone is willing to work, they may not have the skills necessary to actually add value to a company—which is the only reason anyone would ever be unemployed. Is that my fault?
And if they aren’t working, they obviously aren’t adding any value to society—leeching off the hard work of others. So why am I giving them money?
If Romney were a true Republican, he would vow to eliminate welfare in all its forms—healthcare, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment, etc.—and leave it up to local communities to help those less fortunate.
Of course, Romney isn’t really a Republican; he’s a not-Democrat. More specifically, he’s a not-Obama. If Obama did, said, considered, ate, or otherwise endorsed something, Romney feels the opposite way.
It’s one thing to be steered by the winds of change; it’s another to be a limp piece of trash driven by the winds of partisanship.