Yes, Romney’s Welfare Ad Is Accurate

Pages: 1 2

Poor Mickey Kaus. He’s the liberal intellectual (not an oxymoron — he’s the last known living “liberal intellectual”) lefties on TV are usually stealing from, but now that this welfare reform maven has concluded that Romney’s welfare ad is basically correct, liberals refuse to acknowledge his existence.

The non-Fox media have formed a solid front in denouncing Romney’s welfare ad for daring to point out that Obama has gutted the work requirements of the 1996 welfare reform bill.

The New York Times claims that Romney’s ad “falsely” charges Obama with eliminating work requirements. CNN rates the ad “false.” Underemployed hack Howard Fineman says Romney’s ad “is just flat out wrong on the facts” and “that every fair analyst, every fact checker” has said it’s “just factually wrong.”

When a campaign ad induces this much hysteria, you know Romney has struck gold. On closer examination, it turns out that by “every fair analyst,” Fineman means a bunch of liberals quoting one another.

This is how the media’s “fact checkers” operate when it comes to a Republican campaign ad. One not very well-informed person (or a heavily biased person) announces that Romney’s welfare ad is false, and the rest of the herd quote him, without anyone ever bothering to examine the facts, much less citing anyone who knows what he’s talking about.

It is striking that everyone who actually knows something about the 1996 welfare reform law says that Romney’s ad is accurate.

One of the principal authors of the 1996 welfare reform, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation, and Douglas Besharov, who advised Hillary Clinton on the 1996 welfare reform law, say Romney’s ad is accurate.

Andrew Grossman, also of Heritage, produced something the MSM “fact checkers” avoid: a specific and detailed explanation of how the new waivers will allow states to evade the work requirements.

Even Ron Haskins, one of the reform bill’s authors now at the liberal Brookings Institution — cited far and wide for “blasting” Romney’s ad — doesn’t deny the Obama administration plans to waive the work requirements. He just says he supports waivers for “job training.” That’s not disputing the accuracy of Romney’s ads.

A lot of Americans don’t support waiving the work requirements, even for “job training.” Mitt Romney thinks they should know that that’s what Obama is doing.

And liberal Kaus — whom liberal hacks are usually plagiarizing from — has written a series of blog posts explaining in detail why the Times is wrong and Romney’s ad is not incorrect. True, he says the ad is “oversimplified,” but I think most people grasp that a 30-second ad will not provide the lush analytical detail of a Kausfiles blog posting.

We know liberals are reading Kausfiles; why aren’t they stealing from him this time?

As Kaus explains, HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius has interpreted the welfare law to allow her to waive work requirements “subject only to her opinion” as to what will serve the purposes of the law.

By viewing the work requirements as optional, subject to her waiver, Kaus says, the law has been “altered dramatically”: “Old system: Congress writes the requirements, which are … requirements. New system: Sebelius does what she wants — but, hey, you can trust her!”

Pages: 1 2

  • traeh

    I read one of the Kaus articles on this and was surprised. I had swallowed the conventional wisdom that the Romney ad on Obama's proposed welfare changes was a lie, and I just assumed both candidates were lying like crazy about each other. But Kaus changed my mind about the welfare ad.

    I wonder if a lot of center-leftists are becoming closet Romney folk. Sometimes I get the feeling that a significant minority of leftie media types are nervous about Obama's real motives and beliefs and are leaning Romney too. I seem to see here and there some of the leftie media questioning Democrat politicians more toughly than in the past. For example, Anderson Cooper in that recent interview with Debbie Wasserman Schulz, who permits herself to lie a bit too promiscuously for the Democrat cause, in which I'm sure she very sincerely believes. Anderson Cooper was fairly relentless with her. And I seem to recall another mainstream media type who was relentless in a similar way with her — Wolf Blitzer.

    We have to win. We have to vote Obama out. But if we don't, the consolation is that a second Obama term will so mobilize Republicans that we might get veto-proof majorities in both houses of congress.

  • Paul B.

    I've been reading Kaus, and find it hard to believe he's still a liberal, or will be voting for obama. He's got too much clarity. Awesome column, Ann. God bless.

  • Resh Yud Yud

    Paradoxical Quote From Ben Stein

    "Fathom the hypocisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured………
    But not everyone must prove they are a citizen."

    Now Add This, "Many of those who refuse, or are unable ,to prove they are citizens, will receive free
    , paid for by those who are forced to buy insurance because they are citizens."

  • Schlomotion

    Ann Coulter, as usual, is full of it. As a person who lives in Massachusetts and pays $100 a week for doctors I don't even visit, I can safely say that Mitt Romney's Health Care Plan is also a failure.

    • IsraelFirster

      Maybe if you did visit them, all those therapist appointments would actually start reaping dividends.

      • Schlomotion

        Yes. It is well known that Israel Firsters support psychological reeducation camps.

        • reader

          Is this what you see in your shrink? Apparently, your schizophrenia is in a pretty advanced phase.

          • Schlomotion

            Apparently you think DISA style trolling is still in vogue.

        • IsraelFirster

          Fraid not. I leave the reeducation camps to the colleges.

        • tagalog

          Israel First? Wouldn't such an organization be likely to be located in Israel? Don't we Constitutional-type, Declaration-of-Independence-lovin' Americans say that a nation can have any kind of camps it wants within its own borders as long as they don't affect our national security?

    • tagalog

      So, add the $100/week ($5,200/year) to the "tax" for not buying health care insurance under Obamacare (that's what, about $2000?), and you're paying $7,200/year or so for health care insurance you don't even use.

      And what's the payoff? The assurance from government that your money is going to pay for the health insurance of the poor.

      In a free market, you wouldn't have Obamacare you don't use, Romneycare you don't use, and you could pay the premium for private health care insurance either on your own or through your employer, pay a great deal less than $7,200 a year, and the entire community around you wouldn't have to undergo these economic contortions in the name of insuring 40 million allegedly uninsured people. The poor would receive their health care via social welfare programs that already exist and laws that require health care facilities to provide emergency care, with us picking up the tab via tax increases that we can vote on, so that we can control how much we are called upon to pay for these services. John Locke and Adam Smith in action. But nooo, we have to have Marx and Engels.

      By the way, the CBO figures on the financial gutting of Medicare and Medicaid to fund Obamacare, and the lack of state registries and involvement of the states in federal health plans means that about 30 – 32 million people will still be uninsured when Obamacare finally takes effect in what, 2014, so Obamacare will cost a wealthy nation's economic health and insure about 6-8 million people, leaving the rest right where they were in 2009, a health care insurance market that disincentivizes private insurance, and lower dollars going to health care providers and research and development.

    • tagalog

      The good news about Romneycare is that it's a state program under the 10th Amendment, which acknowledges the power of the states to do such things, while Obamacare is a federal program that will be nationwide, so if someone REALLY objects to Obamacare, they can't move to some other place in America where they don't do Obamacare, as they could move to, say, New York or Connecticut if they didn't like Romneycare.

    • Ghostwriter

      Still reveling in Jew bashing,huh Schlomotion? I wish you'd stop it. It makes you sound unintelligent.

  • kafirman

    NPR joined the chorus of hand-wringing leftists herds, full of incredulity at the lies in Romney's ads. NPR cited Politico's and WaPo's Pinocchio lies.

  • cynthia curran

    Well, the way to get rid of Welfare is to convinced more illegal immigrants whose children are more on the free and reduce lunches in states like Ca and Texas is to go home. Just doing the Alabama plan of giving blacks less welfare doesn't work by itself since blacks like Hispanics also have a large portion of children on free and reduce lunch programs they need higher job skills by finishing school, getting rid of job competition in the construction industry to get their children off the dole. States like Texas and California with lower black populations have most of the people on the dole that are foreign born, changed legal immigrant and get some illegal immigrants to self-deport.

    • tagalog

      Or, assuming Romney defeats Obama in November, Romney could just do what Obama does: sidestep Congress and the People by issuing executive orders, making absentee appointments, and delegating his duties to administrative agency heads. Just be king, that would be great, right? Well, at least as long as the king is in our party…

  • cynthia curran

    Center for immigration studies Texas; native born on dole 40 percent and foreign born 60 percent,. Orange County Ca native born 19 percent and foreign born 56 percent. San Diego native born 27 percent and foreign born 56 percent. Is there a pattern here. Republicans want foreign born to support themselves for legal immigrants so support that.. Harris, Dallas and Austin are the caused of Texas having 40 percent native born on the dole since they also have a lot of second and third generation Hispanics and blacks that are on the dole. Suburbs stats are similar to Orange County and San Diego where its mainly foreign born.

  • patriotwork

    Think of what Slo just said: He pays $100 a week and Romneycare is a failure. What is he inadvertently saying about Obamacare?

    • Schlomotion

      Oh, I'll advertently say that Obamacare produces a gigantic and moist vacuum as well. They are both pushing the bad ideas of The Heritage Foundation.

  • Lillith

    Stop feeding the trolls people, just ignore them!