Democrats 'WORK Act' gives poorer moms the choice of Ann Romney


#1

SF Examiner:

Democrats 'WORK Act' gives poorer moms the choice of Ann Romney

[LEFT] Congressional Democrats are responding to the recent controversy involving Ann Romney by introducing a bill which would let poorer stay-at-home moms earn federal benefits. The bill is called the Women’s Option to Raise Kids, or “WORK Act.” Under current law, a “work activity” outside of the home must be performed by recipients of federal benefits, including mothers. The WORK Act would allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home and continue to receive benefits.

Last week the Romney campaign expressed outrage after Democratic strategist Hillary Rosen said that Ann Romney had “never worked a day in her life.” Ann Romney has five children, and responded by saying that he stay-at-home duties did constitute “work.” Mitt Romney later said that “All moms are working moms.”
The WORK Act is clear attempt by Democrats to push legislation they favor using Romney’s recent comments. If being a mom at home really constitutes work, they argue, then Romney should support legislation that allows mothers to receive benefits while staying at home.

In the past Romney publicly said that he supported parents receiving welfare while they have children under preschool age, but has changed that position in 2012, saying even parents of young children need to “go to work,”
"I said, for instance, that even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, 'Well, that's heartless.' And I said, 'No, no, I'm willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. It'll cost the state more providing that day care, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.”

[LEFT]
[/LEFT]
[/LEFT]

I'd have to say I'd favor this or some version thereof.

I work at a shelter for homeless families. A large minority of the women there try to hold down jobs (or already do when the lose their homes) and the *dis*incentives for working are huge:

1.) get up before 6AM to catch early buses in order to drop kid(s) off with baby sitter (usually a relative).
2.) take more buses to low-paying no-benefits job.
3.) be forced to take time off work to meet with Dept. of Social Services and case workers at shelter.
4.) insult to injury; not that they have income they are required to pay part of their paycheck back to the shelter for the privilege of staying there (I don't know how much DSS pays for clients staying at the shelter but I'm sure it's at large multiple of what a decent apartment costs).

The ones who are trying are being gobsmacked, working for low wages, 10+ hour days (counting commutes by bus) and loss of Medicaid and reduction or loss of Food Stamps.

The ones who are not are at least getting parenting, nutrition classes & the like.
(In all cases here I'm talking about mothers with pre-K children)

I can hear the howls; they are poor because of their own irresponsibility, blah-blah. Well, yeah. Lots of them got pregnant young, but let's keep in mind, they're the ones who chose not to abort. Many others fall in other categories -- moved from other areas looking for better opportunities, abandoned by husbands/partners, Code Enforcement condemned their apartment.


#2

I, for one, think this bill is an awesome idea. I just don’t think it goes far enough.

After all, in our modern society, why should ANYBODY have to work if they don’t want to?

Seriously, the wealthy don’t have to work. It is fundamentally discriminatory to allow the wealthy to live their lives of relative ease while forcing others to have to put in back-breaking hours. The solution is obvious: allow everybody to have a choice. If you want to work, by all means do so. If you don’t want to work, then the government should simply pay your way. Sounds perfect to me.

The only question comes in as “how do they pay for it?” Well, as this chart shows, if you eliminate the Department of Defense, you’d have plenty of money to pay for it. And any shortfall that comes up, well, we could just tax the 1%. After all, what do they need the money for?

To provide further incentive, they could mandate that anybody who took advantage of this benefit would have their house and car loans taken over by the government. To help the auto industry (if there is anybody left to work in it), they could buy them all Chevy Volts once every 4 years. And pay for the insurance on them (after all, since the government would be paying for everybody’s health insurance, it’s not fair that they don’t pay for car insurance too).

Here is the one thing, though. I would hate to see a bunch of ghettos created for these people who took advantage of the program. After all, this creates two classes of people: those who work and can buy nice things with their money. And those who receive WORK Act benefits…and can’t buy nice things. That’s not fair. So the Democrats should just give everybody on the WORK Act debit cards that have no spending limit. That way, they could shop at Bloomies and Niemans and Saks just like those anti-government people who make money. After all, why should they be restricted to shopping at Wally World? It wouldn’t be fair, after all.

And then there’s the subject of leisure time for these WORK Act recipients. It is stressful being alive and they should be able to take vacations just like the 1% do, So the WORK Act should also contain a provision to buy up timeshares for everybody (I understand there is quite the market out there right now trying to sell timeshares) so that they can go on vacation for 30 days every year, just like the 1%.

So if they would fix the WORK Act, then I think it would be just about perfect. Let the 99% receive benefits so they could live like the 1% and let the 1% pay for the 99%.

What could go wrong with that?


#3

[quote="didymus, post:1, topic:281678"]
SF Examiner:

I'd have to say I'd favor this or some version thereof.

I work at a shelter for homeless families. A large minority of the women there try to hold down jobs (or already do when the lose their homes) and the *dis*incentives for working are huge:

1.) get up before 6AM to catch early buses in order to drop kid(s) off with baby sitter (usually a relative).
2.) take more buses to low-paying no-benefits job.
3.) be forced to take time off work to meet with Dept. of Social Services and case workers at shelter.
4.) insult to injury; not that they have income they are required to pay part of their paycheck back to the shelter for the privilege of staying there (I don't know how much DSS pays for clients staying at the shelter but I'm sure it's at large multiple of what a decent apartment costs).

The ones who are trying are being gobsmacked, working for low wages, 10+ hour days (counting commutes by bus) and loss of Medicaid and reduction or loss of Food Stamps.

The ones who are not are at least getting parenting, nutrition classes & the like.
(In all cases here I'm talking about mothers with pre-K children)

I can hear the howls; they are poor because of their own irresponsibility, blah-blah. Well, yeah. Lots of them got pregnant young, but let's keep in mind, they're the ones who chose not to abort. Many others fall in other categories -- moved from other areas looking for better opportunities, abandoned by husbands/partners, Code Enforcement condemned their apartment.

[/quote]

The principle is awesome, if there is some way to enable poorer moms to stay at home with their kids great.

Unfortunately, it would cost money, and our country isn't doing so hot on that front right now. But if the money for it could be found by slimming down other programs, that'd be awesome.

Unfortunately, I doubt the money would be or even could be found at this point, rather we'd end up borrowing more. And while it's very important for us to take care of our neighbor, excessively borrowing the kind of money we've been borrowing to do so is not only unsustainable, but not really charity on our part because it helps others at the expense of a third party (future citizens) rather than at our expense (eg donations or even taxes, to a certain extent). But in any case, while I hope that I'm wrong, I doubt there is a good way to pay for it right now. Which kind of sucks.

But again, if we could eliminate inefficiencies, and cut enough other programs to make it work, it'd be awesome.


#4

No, you are not quoting the San Francisco Examiner, which is a mainstream newspaper.

You are quoting Examiner.com, which like Blogger.com or Blogspot.com, allows anyone to write articles on any topic they want.


#5

I think the bill is completely unnecessary because the lower the income of the family the higher likelihood of the mother staying home anyway:

Statistics from the US Census Bureau’s 2010 survey show that the lower the family income, the more likely the mom is to stay at home.

In families earning between $10,000-$25,000 annually, 43% of the moms are stay-at-home moms.

In families earning between $75,000-$99,999 annually, only 14% of the moms are stay-at-home moms.

examiner.com/article/the-mommy-wars-strike-again#ixzz1slE7ilOs


#6

In Canada, moms can take a year off at 50% of their salaray (up to a cap of 50 grand, I think). It would be really difficult for a single mom to live off that salary though. It does help couples who are both bringing in income. But if you are a stay at home mom, you don’t get anything.


#7

What about the stay at home dad? Or the single father? Will he too be covered under the “Woman’s option to raise her children”?


#8

I emphasize with these women struggling to survive-I was also abandoned by my now ex-husband and had 30 days to move out of base housing (he was active duty) and I had a month old newborn. Had to fight to get my other 2 kids back (he tried taking them from me). My dad disowned me and I had no one else to turn to. Fortunately, I was in the Air Force Reserves and went on many active duty orders to survive and now am doing okay. I could have been a homeless veteran and it is quite frightening. So-yes-I hope something is done to help these women out-and for people to not judge them they way they do. Many didn’t bring the hardships upon themselves-they just had hardships due to circumstances. Oh-my middle child has autism-and my youngest has mild aspergers (she is 9 yrs old in regular classes and playing baseball). I am getting my VA disability and working-still in the reserves and was very fortunate, despite the circumstances-without any family support, somehow-I made it. Many women in my shoes don’t make it-and my heart goes out to them immensely. I would rather be in a battle field than go through being abandoned and disowned-really hurt me mentally and emotionally. I sure hope something is done to help these women with young kids out soon. Let’s not forget the high gas prices-that hurts with high food costs and everything-hope to see something done to off-set that as well.:grouphug::blessyou:


#9

"
"What about the stay at home dad? Or the single father? Will he too be covered under the “Woman’s option to raise her children”?

:rolleyes:Indeed. Sexual discrimination at it’s fineset if so. Certainly there is the typical **pandering **of the Democrats on such issues to women under the guise of saying “**Only **we Democrats care” and the mean - spirited Republicans are pursuing the "War on Women’ approcah as touted by the Democrats. Certainly this would also allow the Gov’t to burrough into the private lives of it’s citzens even further. Then there is the ‘created dependencies issues’ that a large Gov’t Democratic ideology would simply adore! Also more taxes to say the least.

Note as well - with the Govt’ taxing even more the (stretched very thin already as indicated by the housing market) general populace (Catholics included,) there will be correspondingly less disposable income to give for Catholic Charites,Hospitals and ‘Faith Based Initiatives.’ These monies gathered via taxes for said programs as suggested by the O.P. will then also require administration staff and oversite staff and committees and auditor staff and no doubt a ‘Plan Czar’ whom will be given Carte blanch to interpret the administration of benefits in accordance with their atheistic ‘seperation of Church and State’ mentality. Then there is zoning to consider. The democrats will use zoning district laws based on staistical income to dtermine whom qualifies for benefits. The said zones would then be arbitrarily determined (like as happened in California) to benefit the Democrats constituency. I would strongly suspect that the Democrats will tap the shoulder of Planned Parenhood’s extensive coffers to assis ti propgating such a plan that no doubt only allow the ‘dependant mothers to have only so many children -yes? Is forced sterilization or abortion going to be implemented down the road? Certainly yes if Planned Parenthood has it’s way, methinks. Because then planned parenthood can finacially charge the Govt’ (us) for services rendered. This is how BIG Business like Planned Parenthood works. Get the picture?

Evil never comes to you and says - 'Hello- I am evil and I am here to kill you." No, evil comes disguised as the ‘sons of light’ and says " I am your best friend- here let me help you." Once the camel’s nose is in the tent the knife comes out - yes? :cool:


#10

Government is not the people’s caretaker. If you want government to "take care of everything and every situation, move to Cuba, where everyone has the same priviledges. When all have the same, it will mean all have nothing.


#11

Interesting.
I’m just not far above the $25K level and my wife was always a stay-at home mom.

I’m sure the high-income moms don’t love their babies any less but probably they think being a good parent means providing the highest living standard possible which means keeping their careers on track.

Awhile ago I saw an article claiming working mothers who couldn’t afford another child accounted for ~30% of all abortions. I wonder if those are mostly working-class women who would be thrown onto the welfare rolls or career women?


#12

Blog post, not a news article. Does not link to a news article.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.