NYT: Welfare or Jails? They neglect to mention DCF-Rowlandgate
Mort Zuckerman
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, the-...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com,
for...@nytimes.com, nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov,
brigidc...@optonline.net, tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com,
jle...@courant.com, tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org,
thomas...@usdoj.gov, thoma...@po.state.ct.us,
kur...@washpost.com, georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org
Subject: NYT: Welfare or Jails? They neglect to mention DCF-
Rowlandgate
Date: Feb 8, 2009 5:50 PM
Here, below, the Times discusses the Republicans'
issue with Welfare, when denying poor people
benefits results in increased "crime." DCF
takes kids away from poor parents for the
reason that the parents are poor, alone.
In fact, they usually ONLY go after poor
parents.
The DCF-Rowlandgate RICO (it was originally
charged as "racketeering") was intended to be a
"national string of prisons and juvenile
detention centers."
http://www.actionlyme.org/CRYME_DISEASE.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/BRAINLESS_BUREAUCRATS.htm
The racket was to involve the social "workers"
unions in every state... taking kids away from
parents and placing them in institutions
for whatever made up reason:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Psychiatric_MumboJumbo.wmv
drugged into oblivion:
http://www.actionlyme.org/DCF_GRADUATARDS_SPEAK.htm
http://www.actionlyme.org/duh_DCF.htm
If you don't give poor people some sort of
assistance, the dot guv employees get the welfare.
And one hell of a lot more welfare... with
the intentional overtime by *provoking* prisoners
in the jails so they can "call a code"... and
get overtime. [They do this at least once a week.
That way, every week, the prison guards get some
overtime.]
So, it's Dumb White people (Dot Guv Welfare
Recipients, otherwise known as the unions)
against Dumb Black people, who are dumb only
according to Republican dogma of black people
being poor because "they're nearly-retarded"
(AEI's Charles Murray:
http://www.actionlyme.org/CUSTODIAL_DEMOCRACY.htm
Now, Corrupticut is bankrupt because of
all the white-retarded people who work
as "corrections officers," DCF "workers,"
and all the bottom-feeders associated with
them.
So, it would have been cheaper to pay
welfare benefits. The stupid white
people who now "work" for the State would
have had to find REAL jobs and perform
actual *work* for a living, pushing carts and
sweeping the floors at Walmart third shift
and what-not:
http://www.actionlyme.org/andersonpenisbiter.htm
Ya can't say they're not STUPID...
"Government Employee" *MEANS* "STUPID."
Think about it. Where is there a smart
dot guvver maybe outside of NASA?
It's pretty hard to make any arguments
about who is gaming the system. The *biggest*
gamers, the biggest frauds are the dot
guv employees who are paid the most.
The NIH?
The CDC?
What have we gotten out of them the last
20 years? Brain damaged children from
vaccines, brain damaged children from
psychotropics, and nowhere on cancer,
HIV, Lyme, MS, and ALS.
N O W H E R E.
What do we pay Anthony Fauci, for instance?
We know we pay that psychopathic moron
Edward McSweegan over $100,000 a year for
admittedly, NOTHING:
http://www.actionlyme.org/McSweegan.htm
Now, how about politicians?
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn02062009.html
"Since America’s political system is one of institutionalized bribery,
overt (the legal political “donation”) and covert (the bag of cash )
and has a tax code with 50,000 pages of fine print, it stands to
reason that of any ten nominees enduring scrutiny by White House
investigators, by the staff of the Senate Finance Committee plus the
occasional journalist probably 98 per cent will have some sort of
explaining to do. Throw in infidelity and kindred offenses outlined at
detail in the opening books of the Bible and maybe only Rep Ron Paul
would survive."
And the DOJ of course don't do dick:
http://www.actionlyme.org/USDOJ_COMPLAINT_RICO.htm
Pretty ridiculous argument (below). Anyone associated
with the dot guv is some kind of low-life ho, and
as we know from the movie "Beetlejuice," in hell
these public servants are actually going to have
to be public servants.... for all eternity as a sentence
for not doing dick in real life.
http://www.actionlyme.org/080924.htm
The people can't get past the dot guv porkers.
http://www.actionlyme.org/index.1261.jpg
Kathleen M. Dickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===========================================
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/weekinreview/08deparle.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
The New York Times
This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order
presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients
or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any
article. Visit www.nytreprints.com for samples and additional
information. Order a reprint of this article now.
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By
February 8, 2009
The ‘W’ Word, Re-Engaged
By JASON DePARLE
Ronald Reagan brooked no doubt that food stamps equaled welfare.
Running for president in 1976 he told what became a defining tale
about the “strapping young buck” in the supermarket line who used
stamps to buy T-bone steaks. His first White House budget made deep
food stamp cuts.
Newt Gingrich equated food stamps and welfare, and tried to use Bill
Clinton’s pledge to “end welfare as we know it” to dismantle the
program. Rudolph Giuliani, in his end-welfare days as the mayor of New
York, railed against a “romantic and emotional” view of food stamps
and ordered subordinates to withhold applications.
But George W. Bush did not treat food stamps like welfare. He dubbed
the program “nutritional assistance” and gave bonuses to states that
were most aggressive in signing poor people up. At the same time he
pushed states to cut their cash assistance rolls — citing the failures
of the welfare state.
There has long been an element of the subjective in what gets defined
as the “safety net” and what gets attacked as “welfare,” that elastic
and stigmatizing term. Now rising joblessness and misery have started
new conflicts and exposed old rifts.
The recovery measures moving through Congress would spend significant
new sums on programs for the needy. The House version includes food
stamps, unemployment benefits, Medicaid, child care, Head Start,
energy assistance, homelessness prevention, disability payments and
infant nutrition. A Senate agreement was reached Friday night, with
further negotiation to come between the two chambers.
Sponsors of this spending call it a humane response to soaring
hardship and an economically productive one; giving money to the poor
stimulates the economy, they say, because poor people are quick to
spend it. Conservatives have argued that poverty programs undermine
work and marriage, and some see the stimulus bill as a stealth
expansion of the welfare state. The very word, welfare, was weaponized
last week.
“I’m not trying necessarily to use it as a dirty word,” said
Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Dallas Republican. “But if there’s a
benefit that you’re getting that you don’t pay for — that arguably is
a form of welfare.”
Like other House conservatives, Mr. Hensarling wants less spending and
more tax cuts, for businesses and families. He is especially opposed
to a refundable tax credit, championed by President Obama, that would
send checks of up to $500 to low-wage workers, even if they paid less
than that in income and payroll taxes.
Supporters call it “tax relief.” But Mr. Hensarling said: “It’s
welfare. Period. Paragraph.”
These colliding instincts — pro-safety net, anti-welfare — each draw
on legitimate concerns. One side sees poverty amid plenty, and an
economy that heavily favors the few even when times are good. It
trusts the impulse to help.
The other fears taxation, warning that it can quash initiative and
choke an economy. This side also stresses moral hazards, warning that
while feeding the hungry may be necessary, it can discourage people
from feeding themselves.
“This tension waxes and wanes — but it remains a tension, absolutely,”
said Isabel V. Sawhill, a researcher at the Brookings Institution.
“Americans understand that some people are poor through no fault of
their own. On the other hand, they suspect that some people aren’t
doing all they could to help themselves. It’s pretty deep-seated in
our national mindset, this belief that you can succeed.”
Other factors come into play — a collision of class interests, and, at
times, possible appeals to racial prejudice. “Strapping young buck,”
in Mr. Reagan’s day, was widely understood to mean black. Indeed, with
minorities disproportionately poor, they are disproportionately found
on welfare caseloads. When the old cash program, Aid to Families with
Dependent Children, was abolished in 1996, nearly 70 percent of its
long-term recipients were African-American.
The demise of A.F.D.C. was a landmark event in welfare history. Many
liberals warned the program’s end would fill the streets with paupers.
But in the booming economy of the late 1990s, work rates rose, poverty
fell and “ending welfare” was largely judged a success.
Conservatives claimed vindication. Some vowed to take their fight to
other corners of the welfare state, though in that they found little
success.
Liberals argue that the new cash welfare program, Temporary Assistance
to Needy Families, has cut caseloads but left many people poor. And
they say it is only now meeting its truest test, with the onset of a
crushing recession.
Understanding public support for poverty programs to be fickle, some
policy makers have designed programs that serve everyone, as Social
Security and Medicare do. But universal programs like these are
expensive and potentially unfair; they may tax the poor to help
provide benefits to the rich.
Targeting the poor as recipients solves that problem, at the risk of
creating others. Programs for the poor are often poor programs —
stigmatized and underfinanced.
Taxpayers are especially wary of programs that give away cash.
Programs that offer “in kind” benefits — like food or medical care —
often seem less susceptible to abuse. This is one reason food stamps
and Medicaid have survived, as cash assistance has withered. (Food
stamps have the added advantage of enlisting growers and grocers as
allies.)
Other approaches curry public support by focusing on children, who
cannot be held responsible for their poverty. (Marian Wright Edelman
founded the Children’s Defense Fund, not the Welfare Recipients’
Defense Fund.) One victory for that approach came last week at the
White House, where President Obama signed a measure extending
subsidized health insurance to an additional four million children.
Still, poor children are raised by poor adults, and their needs cannot
be met in isolation.
In recent years, Democrats and Republicans alike have advocated a
“work-based safety net” that seeks to make benefits more generous
while reserving them for people who work. The earned income tax credit
— which distributes $47 billion a year in wage supplements — has
thrived on this logic, despite occasional attempts to brand it
welfare. But what now becomes of a work-based safety net, with ever
more people out of work?
These complex dynamics can make for a safety net at odds with itself.
The food stamp program now lays out a welcome mat, urging the needy to
apply. Temporary Assistance, the cash program, often looks like an
obstacle course, with time limits, work requirements and state
discretion to shoo people away.
Amid rising joblessness, 18 states cut their cash caseloads last year.
But every state increased its food stamp rolls, with the benefits
(unlike cash welfare) all federally financed.
Despite the constant tug-of-war around the safety net, Robert
Reischauer of the Urban Institute said he saw a consensus forming
around aid for low-wage workers. “When most of the people receiving a
benefit are working families, the entire aura around a program is
different,” he said. “Redistribution is less of a hot-button issue.”
Still, last week’s buttons felt awfully warm.
Robert Rector of the conservative Heritage Foundation released a paper
slamming the House stimulus bill as a “welfare spendathon.” With an
expansive view of “welfare spending,” Mr. Rector puts the bill’s two-
year welfare tally at $264 billion. (He counts things like Pell
Grants, which help low-income students attend college, and Community
Development Block Grants, which help low-income neighborhoods finance
everything from sewers to crime prevention.)
“I find it offensive that they’re trying to sneak things in there,”
Mr. Rector said of the bill’s supporters. “None of these programs
deals with the fundamental causes of poverty, which are low levels of
work and lower levels of marriage. They just say, ‘Give me more.’ ”
His liberal counterpart is Robert Greenstein of the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities. He did not strain for politeness in responding
to Mr. Rector’s work. “It’s demagoguery,” he said. “There’s nothing in
this package that would give people a cushion to quit their jobs and
be lazy. That’s the normal implication when you wave the word
‘welfare’ around. He’s trying to conjure old images of welfare queens.
He’s waving the bloody shirt.”
Home
* World
* U.S.
* N.Y. / Region
* Business
* Technology
* Science
* Health
* Sports
* Opinion
* Arts
* Style
* Travel
* Jobs
* Real Estate
* Automobiles
* Back to Top
Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
* Privacy Policy
* Search
* Corrections
* RSS
* First Look
* Help
* Contact Us
* Work for Us
* Site Map
Dan Sullivan
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Mort Zuckerman
> SpinL...@yahoogroups.com, kshep...@calea.org, fitz...@gmail.com,
> patrick.fitzger...@usdoj.gov, modelt1...@sbcglobal.net,
> jdra...@nejm.org, lett...@courant.com, Jgerberd...@cdc.gov,
> michael.c...@po.state.ct.us, conn...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
> edi...@nytimes.com, managing-edi...@nytimes.com, news-
> t...@nytimes.com, the-a...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com,
> fore...@nytimes.com, natio...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov,
> brigidcalla...@optonline.net, t...@hotmail.com, illinoisl...@aol.com,
> jlen...@courant.com, tinajgar...@yahoo.com, jhornber...@fff.org,
> thomas.car...@usdoj.gov, thomas.r...@po.state.ct.us,
> kur...@washpost.com, georgew...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
> commissioner....@po.state.ct.us, bransfi...@comcast.net,
> vtsh...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freethin...@charter.net,
> scott.mur...@po.state.ct.us, governor.r...@po.state.ct.us,
> attorney.gene...@po.state.ct.us, randall.samb...@usdoj.gov,
> Robert.shil...@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com
> Cc: fran...@ucia.gov, dr-ahmadine...@president.ir,
> eugenerobin...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
> bmil...@newstimes.com, t...@hotmail.com, rastr...@aol.com,
> billcurr...@gmail.com, amcgui...@rms-law.com, rjmur...@aol.com,
> paulcraigrobe...@yahoo.com, sidney_blument...@yahoo.com,
> criminal.divis...@usdoj.gov, karla.dobin...@usdoj.gov,
> christopher.chris...@usdoj.gov, richard.Le...@yale.edu,
> harold....@yale.edu, james.phill...@yale.edu, inqu...@aldf.com,
> l...@idsociety.org
>
> Subject: NYT: Welfare or Jails? They neglect to mention DCF-
> Rowlandgate
>
> Date: Feb 8, 2009 5:50 PM
>
> Here, below, the Times discusses the Republicans'
> issue with Welfare, when denying poor people
> benefits results in increased "crime." DCF
> takes kids away from poor parents for the
> reason that the parents are poor, alone.
>
> In fact, they usually ONLY go after poor
> parents.
>
> The DCF-Rowlandgate RICO (it was originally
> charged as "racketeering") was intended to be a
> "national string of prisons and juvenile
>
> The racket was to involve the social "workers"
> unions in every state... taking kids away from
> parents and placing them in institutions
> for whatever made up reason:http://www.actionlyme.org/Psychiatric_MumboJumbo.wmv
> "Since America’s political system is one of institutionalized bribery,
> overt (the legal political “donation”) and covert (the bag of cash )
> and has a tax code with 50,000 pages of fine print, it stands to
> reason that of any ten nominees enduring scrutiny by White House
> investigators, by the staff of the Senate Finance Committee plus the
> occasional journalist probably 98 per cent will have some sort of
> explaining to do. Throw in infidelity and kindred offenses outlined at
> detail in the opening books of the Bible and maybe only Rep Ron Paul
> would survive."
>
> And the DOJ of course don't do dick:http://www.actionlyme.org/USDOJ_COMPLAINT_RICO.htm
>
> Pretty ridiculous argument (below). Anyone associated
> with the dot guv is some kind of low-life ho, and
> as we know from the movie "Beetlejuice," in hell
> these public servants are actually going to have
> to be public servants.... for all eternity as a sentence
> for not doing dick in real life.
>
> http://www.actionlyme.org/080924.htm
> The people can't get past the dot guv porkers.http://www.actionlyme.org/index.1261.jpg
>
> Kathleen M. Dicksonhttp://www.actionlyme.org
>
> ===========================================
>
> The New York Times
> This copy is for your personal, noncommercial use only. You can order
> presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients
> or customers here or use the "Reprints" tool that appears next to any
>
> read more »