Mickey Kaus, writing over at Slate, is talking about welfare and while he makes a few interesting points, I have a bone to pick with this liberal blogger.
He revises history for Bill Clinton’s benefit:
Only when Clinton’s New Democrats put an ostentatious “time limit” on welfare and required work did they regain the public confidence necessary to increase other kinds of spending (on work-related poverty-fighting benefits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, day care and Social Security, for example.)
Preserving Clinton’s biggest domestic achievement isn’t something you should want “even” if you’re a liberal who believes in affirmative government. It’s something you should want especially if you’re a liberal who believes in affirmative government.
Okay, now, Mickey… don’t forget that some of your readers are not 20-something Obama supporters. We were there for the Clinton Presidency and we remember that the GOP/Newt forced Clinton’s hand on this issue. In a completely political move in order to triangulate against them and take a winning GOP issue off of the table, Slick Willie reluctantly signed the GOP welfare reform.
Does Kaus really believe that Clinton wanted that? Does he believe that any of us over 30 don’t know the truth? Am I foolish to expect intellectual honesty from a liberal blogger? I only know the answer to my last question.