This Was Not "Defending" Children

Someone recently said to me that Hillary Clinton "did some bad things that hurt some people."  He was not talking about Bill's hurt feelings for having to sleep on the couch for the past twenty years.  And although I didn't press him for an explanation, I'm pretty sure he wasn't talking about all the wacky right-wing conspiracy theories out there about Hilz, because he's just not that kind of guy. I'll ask for specifics next time I see him.

Maybe he was thinking of this:  Hillary is rightly proud of her early work with the Children's Defense Fund, and mentions it regularly.  And yet . . . twenty years ago, in a vestige of lingering Reaganism, the Clinton administration worked with Republicans and some conservative-leaning Democrats to "end welfare as we know it."

This supposed "reform" push, opposed by liberal Democrats, resulted in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act (PRWOA).  President Clinton signed it into law in 1996.  It put an end to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) federal assistance program, and replaced it with a state-run block grant program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), under which benefits were reduced and, of course, temporary.

Over the past 20 years of TANF, the number of children receiving benefits is now less than a third of what it was in 1996 -- not because the program is "working," but because requirements are more stringent and because states are incentivized to reduce their TANF rolls.  (AFDC paid states per the number of enrollees.  TANF pays a flat fee regardless of the number.)

President Clinton's welfare reform was basically a sop to conservatives.  There's no proof that it succeeded in moving people into the workforce, or in anything other than eliminating federal assistance to a whole lot of needy people, including millions of children.  (Hard-asses like that part.)  Saved a few bucks.  Not exactly a "defense" of children.

Hillary Clinton actively supported the PRWOA back in '96, but she was the president's spouse, not an elected official.  It was not really her deal.  Today, as a presidential candidate and with the benefit of two decades of hindsight, maybe Hilz ought to acknowledge that Bill's welfare reform was not the success they'd hoped for.  Perhaps she could vow to make it better if elected, try to reform the reform.


But no matter how you feel about this one thing, please look to the bigger picture:  What's essential is that you vote for the nominee, no matter whether it's Hillary or Bernie.  The freak-show alternatives on the other side are too hideous to contemplate.  If you are Democrat-leaning, please do not let your fervor for one candidate prevent you from supporting the other, if it comes to that.

I hear some people say, "It's Bernie or nothing!  If Hillary's the nominee, I'm just not voting."  (Or name-flip it, vice versa.)  Please think twice.  Such "principled" refusal is effectively a vote for Trump or Cruz.  And you know you don't want that.

For my few conservative readers, if you are equally repulsed by both Trump and Cruz (and you should be), I recommend you write-in a vote for Donald Duck, or just refrain from voting altogether.