Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Why It Matters That Hillary Supported Welfare Reform [View all]
Hot on the campaign trail in South Carolina last week, Bernie Sanders attacked Hillary Clinton for her role in pushing to overhaul the welfare system in 1996. I spoke out against so-called welfare reform because I thought it was scapegoating people who were helpless, people who were very, very vulnerable. Secretary Clinton at that time had a very different position on welfare reformstrongly supported it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage. A day later, former President Bill Clinton swiped back. Theres no question that (welfare reform) did far more good than harm, he said, but added that subsequent events showed it needs some improvement.
The Clintons have championed welfare reform for over 20 yearseven as study after study has shown that it has severely harmed poor families, and driven a historic number of black and Latino children into deep poverty. In the early 1990s, they designed a strategy to lure white voters back to the Democratic Party: capitalize on white disgust toward dependent black and Latina mothers on welfare within a liberal veneer that promised them a hand-up, rather than a handout. As first lady, she not only cheered her husbands goal to end welfare as we know it, but she also helped whip up support for the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the legislation that remade the welfare system: I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage, she recounted in her 2003 memoir Living History. Later, as senator, she continued to applaud it, referring in one 2002 interview to people who had left welfare as no longer deadbeatstheyre actually out there being productive. Even as recently as her 2008 run for president, she defended the welfare-to-work legislation as enormously successful, while lamenting that people who are more vulnerable would suffer more during the recession.
They dont acknowledge the number of people who were hurt. Its just not in their lens, Peter Edelman, a friend of Hillarys since law school and former assistant secretary of social services at the Department of Health and Human Services, said of the Clintons in 2008.
But in her current campaign for president, Clinton, who is running as a pragmatic progressive, has publicly avoided the issue. At a time when many Americans are outraged over economic and racial injustice, she is quiet on the subject of welfare reform, because it tells a story of how she betrayed poor people of color and undermines her image as a feminist candidate who has been a lifelong champion for women and children.
(More at link)
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-it-matters-that-hillary-clinton-championed-welfare-reform/
The Clintons have championed welfare reform for over 20 yearseven as study after study has shown that it has severely harmed poor families, and driven a historic number of black and Latino children into deep poverty. In the early 1990s, they designed a strategy to lure white voters back to the Democratic Party: capitalize on white disgust toward dependent black and Latina mothers on welfare within a liberal veneer that promised them a hand-up, rather than a handout. As first lady, she not only cheered her husbands goal to end welfare as we know it, but she also helped whip up support for the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), the legislation that remade the welfare system: I agreed that he should sign it and worked hard to round up votes for its passage, she recounted in her 2003 memoir Living History. Later, as senator, she continued to applaud it, referring in one 2002 interview to people who had left welfare as no longer deadbeatstheyre actually out there being productive. Even as recently as her 2008 run for president, she defended the welfare-to-work legislation as enormously successful, while lamenting that people who are more vulnerable would suffer more during the recession.
They dont acknowledge the number of people who were hurt. Its just not in their lens, Peter Edelman, a friend of Hillarys since law school and former assistant secretary of social services at the Department of Health and Human Services, said of the Clintons in 2008.
But in her current campaign for president, Clinton, who is running as a pragmatic progressive, has publicly avoided the issue. At a time when many Americans are outraged over economic and racial injustice, she is quiet on the subject of welfare reform, because it tells a story of how she betrayed poor people of color and undermines her image as a feminist candidate who has been a lifelong champion for women and children.
(More at link)
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-it-matters-that-hillary-clinton-championed-welfare-reform/
Is she still silent on this?
I suppose it's supposed to be good enough that she's no longer defending it?
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
56 replies, 6331 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (40)
ReplyReply to this post
56 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Somehow, the damage the bankers did to the world economy when they cheated their
JDPriestly
May 2016
#10
"Somehow, the damage the bankers did to the world economy when they cheated their
puffy socks
May 2016
#12
I guess if she were to apologize for cheerleading for this, she'd be doing another about-face
vintx
May 2016
#13
That was back when the Clintons were strenuously opposing NAFTA. They were busy.
silvershadow
May 2016
#18
If Sanders would have made this primary a referendum on Bill Clintons presidency he'd be the nominee
tularetom
May 2016
#28
If Sanders had taken the gloves off, we'd have heard nothing but bleating and wailing
vintx
May 2016
#36
"Take the gloves off" is a metaphor and does not actually refer to "punching out" anyone. nt
vintx
May 2016
#47
Not good enough for me! It's sickening to see Democrats defend welfare reform.
CharlotteVale
May 2016
#29