« | »

NYT Sobs: Still Not Enough Are On Welfare

From an outraged New York Times:

Unemployment applicants waiting at the Wayne County office of the welfare services division.

Welfare Aid Isn’t Growing as Economy Drops Off

By JASON DEPARLE

February 2, 2009

WASHINGTON — Despite soaring unemployment and the worst economic crisis in decades, 18 states cut their welfare rolls last year, and nationally the number of people receiving cash assistance remained at or near the lowest in more than 40 years.

The trends, based on an analysis of new state data collected by The New York Times, raise questions about how well a revamped welfare system with great state discretion is responding to growing hardships.

Michigan cut its welfare rolls 13 percent, though it was one of two states whose October unemployment rate topped 9 percent. Rhode Island, the other, had the nation’s largest welfare decline, 17 percent.

Of the 12 states where joblessness grew most rapidly, eight reduced or kept constant the number of people receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the main cash welfare program for families with children. Nationally, for the 12 months ending October 2008, the rolls inched up a fraction of 1 percent.

The deepening recession offers a fresh challenge to the program, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 amid bitter protest and became one of the most closely watched social experiments in modern memory.

The program, which mostly serves single mothers, ended a 60-year-old entitlement to cash aid, replacing it with time limits and work requirements, and giving states latitude to discourage people from joining the welfare rolls. While it was widely praised in the boom years that followed, skeptics warned it would fail the needy when times turned tough

[C]ritics argue that years of pressure to cut the welfare rolls has left an obstacle-ridden program that chases off the poor, even when times are difficult…

The program’s structure — fixed federal financing, despite caseload size — may discourage states from helping more people because the states bear all of the increased costs. By contrast, the federal government pays virtually all food-stamp costs, and last year every state expanded its food-stamp rolls; nationally, the food program grew 12 percent.

The clashing trends in some states — more food stamps, but less cash aid — suggest a safety net at odds with itself. Georgia shrank the cash welfare rolls by nearly 11 percent and expanded food stamps by 17 percent. After years of pushing reductions, Congress is now considering a rare plan that would subsidize expansions of the cash welfare rolls. The economic stimulus bills pending in Congress would provide matching grants — estimated at $2.5 billion over two years — to states with caseload expansions.

Born from Mr. Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it,” the new program brought furious protests from people who predicted the poor would suffer…

While food stamps usually grow faster than cash aid during recessions, the current contrast is stark. Many officials see cash aid in a negative light, as a form of dependency, while encouraging the use of food stamps and calling them nutritional support.

Food assistance is not considered welfare,” said Donalda Carlson, a Rhode Island welfare administrator…

[M]ost states have shifted [welfare] money into other programs — including child care and child welfare — and say they cannot shift it back without causing other problems…

Not that we are even tempted to believe any figures made up analysis of new state data collected by the New York Times, but shouldn’t this be good news?

Despite soaring unemployment and the worst economic crisis in decades, 18 states cut their welfare rolls last year, and nationally the number of people receiving cash assistance remained at or near the lowest in more than 40 years.

Are there people starving to death on the streets?

If so, we would think The Times would feature them on their front page above the fold for almost as many weeks at their love fest over Abu Ghraib.

And never mind this pesky little detail:

Nationally, for the 12 months ending October 2008, the rolls inched up a fraction of 1 percent.

And this:

By contrast, the federal government pays virtually all food-stamp costs, and last year every state expanded its food-stamp rolls; nationally, the food program grew 12 percent.

But as the article kindly informs us, food stamps aren’t “welfare.” Nor, apparently, is “child welfare” welfare.

And never mind how the DNC and their lickspittle slaveys in the media always tout Mr. Clinton’s trimming of the welfare rolls as proof that the Democrats are the party of reform during election years.

This isn’t an election year, so they can get back on message.

One thing is for sure. In both good times and bad we can always count on our one party media to keep up a steady drumbeat for more and more welfare.

After all, it’s their job to expand the Democrat Party’s base.

This article was posted by Steve on Monday, February 2nd, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

13 Responses to “NYT Sobs: Still Not Enough Are On Welfare”

  1. RightWinger says:


    Are there people starving to death on the streets?

    If so, we would think The Times would feature them on their front page above the fold for almost as many weeks at their love fest over Abu Ghraib.”

    I don’t think they would do that because Chairman nObama is in the White House. I don’t think the love affair will wilt enough this early to risk associating images like that with his dictatorship Presidency.

    Now if Bush was still in the White House, then those images would be Front Page propoganda like you mentioned above.

    • JohnMG says:

      …..“Food assistance is not considered welfare,” said Donalda Carlson, a Rhode Island welfare administrator…

      Uh, excuse me? Den why izzit sumpin’ you be administratin’, Miz welfare administrator Carlson?

  2. proreason says:

    “18 states cut their welfare rolls last year, and nationally the number of people receiving cash assistance remained at or near the lowest in more than 40 years. ”

    Why is that? Do people actually want to withhold food from people who genuinely need assistance?

    Or perhaps people on welfare roles who can afford $200 sneakers are contributing to additional scrutiny.

    On an unrelated topic, wouldn’t it be interesting to see the extent of tax-free income income in this country for transactions like drugs, prostitution, theft, scams, insurance fraud, illegal gambling, and transactions in the non-criminal underground economy? I’m reminded of the famous experiment years ago where a bus accident was staged with nobody on the bus, yet when the police arrived, 19 injured passengers had mysteriously appeared.

    And of course, we haven’t even touched on lotteries and the myriad uses of food-stamps.

    Under the benevolent oversight of Obamy, the need for those sorts of things should quickly disappear.

  3. Alice L. says:

    This “stimulus bill” aims to destroy welfare reform. This, along with amnesty, is a push by Democrats to widen their voter base by putting more people on the dole. Everybody loves some kind of handout – the Demos will turn it, once again, into a way of life to have a permanent majority. This bill must be killed! The Slimes wants welfare by having the Feds prop them up. No way, no how, never, never. If the NY Slimes, LA Slimes and other lib newspapers attempted some form of “balance”, they would not be in the financial mess that they are in.

  4. Kilmeny says:

    They want to bring us right back to that golden age of being on the public dole as a permanent lifestyle choice. In college I worked at a medical office situated in a town with a high percentage of people on Medicaid. I couldn’t begin to tell you the number of people I met there who had been on welfare their entire lives, whose children aspired to be on welfare too, and had themselves a baby or a “back problem” as soon as they could. They got food stamps, free health care, and enough actual cash to where some of them dressed better than I did. The thought of going back to that is sickening.

  5. wardmama4 says:

    Ah yes I can remember the days when my first hubby & I had no jobs – but couldn’t get a damn thing (we had savings to tide us over the 5 weeks between college and the Army) – watching food stampers eat better than we could and going to a local clinic for our healthcare (I was pregnant) because of no insurance.

    We lived on $300/month – half of which was our rent. We made it – and never looked back, nor was homeless, nor starved to death – we tightened our belts and hung in that short period of time.

    My d-i-l used welfare appropriately when her family kicked her out at 17 – she finished high school, raised her son, went to college and got a Bachelor and a Masters – and got off of welfare, as fast as possible. And now lives better than I do.

    I think that the double whammy of welfare and Social Security have led too many people to rely on and believe that Uncle Sugar will pay their bills. The indoctrination works and this is what we get – a massive trillion dollar spending bill being shoved down our throats by a pathetic, inexperienced thug politician.

  6. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    The problem that I see with the NYT article is that they seem to wish that more people were on the government dole. Somewhere along the way liberals looked at the constitution and fixated on the phrase “promote the general welfare”, and decided that Uncle Sam had a moral obligation to ensure that every citizen was housed, clothed and fed.

    • proreason says:

      Too generous, 12. The purpose of welfare isn’t to help people.

      The purpose is to buy votes. The liberal strategy is to entrench themselves in power forever.

      The fact that some welfare helps people over rough patches in their lives is a byproduct. If liberals could buy votes with a cheaper devise, they would. That’s why they came up with hopey-changey. That’s free and in some ways more powerful.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      The fact that UNKA SUGA tried to ensure that everyone had a “home” is “WHY” we are in this BS to begin with.

      As for the STIMULAS PACT………I ain’t STIMULATED about it. For that matter, I’m not even slightly aroused.

    • proreason says:

      “I ain’t STIMULATED about it. For that matter, I’m not even slightly aroused.”

      LMAO

      but you know, I happened to be looking at tax credits today, on the off chance that some might apply to me (ha ha). It turns out that in my state some new homeowners can get a $2,000 tax CREDIT if their income is below a threshold. And they can still deduct interest above 2,000.

      So UNKA SUGA is giving away $2000 a year IN ADDITION to Barney Fife’s little scheme to bankrupt the country so he can feel better about being a drooling pervert.

      Why don’t they just build a sewer line direct from our wallets to the hood?

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Pro….is that…”from our wallets to the hood.”
      or is it…..”from our wallets to DA HOOD.”

  7. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    proreason, perhaps I should have added that the liberals saw this phrase of the constitution as a means of maintaining their institution of quid pro quo. You scratch our backs (Give us your votes unquestioningly) and we’ll scratch yours (We’ll keep you and your offspring under our control forever).

  8. Confucius says:

    This is especially telling when you read it alongside the last S&L posting titled, “$2.5B Welfare Expansion Is ‘Stimulus’?”


« Front Page | To Top
« | »