Full Court Press - The

Full Court Press - The local "welfare rights" and galloping entitlement crowds are circling the wagons against Governor Pawlenty.

From today's Strib:

Lee Pao Xiong, president of the Urban Coalition, said the pilot project in Dakota County is in a demographic area not representative of urban and rural Minnesota. It has a relatively small number of families on welfare, relatively easy access to transportation, and better job prospects, he said.

Unanswered - and presumably unasked: could anyone get away with such a project in the core area, given the opposition to be expected from the "Welfare Rights" crowd?

Likewise, the coalition criticized the governor's plan to completely cut welfare benefits from families not complying with the rules. Families that are sanctioned typically are those with the most problems, studies have shown, they said.

"For us, the sanction is a red flag that the person needs more help to get them on track," said Kingsley.

What a hopelessly broad statement! "More help?" Is there a focus to this?

Mr. Kingsley no doubt knows that the number of exceptions to his rule are dizzying - and that, in any case, there is no mechanism for separating "Those who need more help" from those who are simply coasting, knowing the state will do nothing about them.

Coalition members voiced concerns about a proposal to beef up work requirements for parents who are studying. The governor's plan would require that welfare recipients who go to school also work at least 25 hours a week.

But working, training and parenting can take a toll, said Matt Gladue, public policy manager for the office for social justice of the Archdiocese of Minneapolis and St. Paul. "You're putting in 25 hours a week at work, going to school for 20 hours a week, and then taking care of the kids," Gladue said. "That's a strain to put a 60-to 70-hour week on families."

Now, I'm just plain mad. What does Mr. Gladue think working a regular job, off the system, and raising kids is like? I wish my week, between work (or, currently, job-hunting) and parenting were only 60-70 hours a week - and that I could squeeze more school in in any case.

Powerline says:

The inevitable failure of Pawlenty's proposal was announced yesterday by "a coalition of social service, labor and religious groups." Why? Because it is based on "a failed experiment in welfare reform in Wisconsin." The groups attacking Pawlenty were particularly incensed by his proposal that people who refuse to follow the State's work rules should have their welfare benefits cut off. (At present, the worst that can happen if someone repeatedly refuses to work or to participate in training is a 30% cut in benefits, and that sanction is rarely applied.) Yesterday's "coalition" explained that "For us, the sanction is a red flag that the person needs more help to get them on track." So that consistently flouting the State's rules results in "more help," not a loss of benefits. As to Wisconsin's "failed experiment," that state's "W-2" program reduced welfare rolls by 90%. We call that success; the fact that the welfare "rights" lobby calls it failure speaks volumes about their real agenda. These "anti-poverty" groups are in fact pro-poverty.

In the meantime, the trusty tool of the far left, the City Pages, is wheeling its own arguments into position against Pawlenty.

Posted by Mitch at February 4, 2003 06:03 PM