The 1996 Welfare reform bill hits again
Max Ehrenfreund and Roberto Ferdman report the latest news in today’s Washington Post
Tens of thousands of Americans just lost their food stamps
A 20-year-old rule that was suspended in many places during the recession requires that adults without children or disabilities have a job to receive food stamps for more than three months, and today is that cutoff for many recipients.
The rule was part of the 1996 welfare reform which didn’t just convert AFDC to TANF but also restricted food stamp eligibility.
Who wants to tell me again that the 1996 bill is ancient history and I should stop grinding old axes. Ed ? Kevin ? Bueller ?
Robert:
Let me add to this with a comment about another Act passed in 1996 which is similar and of the same time period.
The Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (A.E.D.P.A.) is surely one of the worst statutes ever passed by Congress and signed into law by a President (Clinton). The heart of the law is a provision saying that, even when a state court misapplies the Constitution, a defendant cannot necessarily have his day in federal court. Instead, he must prove that the state court’s decision was ‘contrary to’ what the Supreme Court has determined is ‘clearly established federal law,’ or that the decision was ‘an unreasonable application of’ it.”
The unfair treatment of defendants was sacked in favor of states rights. It basically destroyed habeas corpus for defendants and shifted “mens rea” on to the defendant as to the application of constitutional rights and law and away from the state. A defendant had to prove the state misapplied constitution law. Even silence by the state in addressing a defendant’s brief could not be construed as acceptance by the state of the defendant’s argument on their behalf.
Between 1973 and 1975, a study by Columbia university found 7 of 10 cases decided by state courts were defective in the outcomes for capital sentences. After states had overturned 47% of the cases determined in district/parish courts, another 40% more of the cases had serious error in them so as to warrant reversal. State courts are pretty well summarized by a simple song; “The Night the Lights Went out In Georgia,” Reba McIntyre. Federal Courts could no longer over turn state courts.
If one were to talk about sentencing of low income and minorities, the cancelation of this act would have dramatic change in the numbers going to prison. The Koch Brothers in their support of less sentencing are only interested in white collar crime when one of theirs screws up and gets caught. They could care less about building a better defense in going to court for the indigent and minorities.
But what about it, besides advocating its repeal, is actionable now? Are we supposed to attribute everything Bill Clinton felt constrained to accept with a Republican Congress in a time when the public was still under the spell of Reaganism as a prediction of what Hillary Clinton will do now? If not, is it just a form of retributiont? Are we supposed to ignore whether or not she tried to change the law for the better but was only able to go so far under those circumstances? Are we supposed to ignore the history, or assume that decisions made to avoid defeat in elections in which a majority could not be commanded in any case were merely matters of personal aggrandizement by the Clintons that had no substantive importance — i.e., nothing to do with saving the country from another Republican President working with a Congress driven by Newt Gingrich?
I gather the intent is that we ignore the historical context and react without much critical thought.
Bill Clinton could have vetoed the bill and history would have accounted for him in a different manner. This was not the only bill causing great harm to the nation which he signed. This is not about HRC.
Whether we take past or present Hillary is only interested in Hillary.
Yesterdays out burst with someone that she was tired of the lies Bernie was saying about her taking funds from the oil industry. Since Hillary is excepting money from lobbyist of the oil companies; would suggest it is Hillary lying again.
Apparently Bernie gets donations from oil company employees (I don’t know about lobbyists) but that doesn’t count?
Run, according to Bob Woodard Hillary was often campaigned for legislation Bill Clinton was to sign.
Below is just one of those examples.
Elizabeth Warren SLAMS Hillary Clinton With Most Damaging Evidence To Date About How Money Influenced Clinton With Clear Example Of Who Clinton’s Allies Really Are.
beene:
Bill was his own President.
Urban Legend
The post was about the 1996 welfare reform bill. It was not a comment on Hillary Clinton. I voted for Hillary Clinton in the MA primary. I agree that Bill Clinton was in a terrible spot in 1996. There was a serious chance that, if he had kept on vetoing welfare reform bills, president Dole would sign one in 1997.
I don’t think repeal of the 1996 bill is at all politically possible. Also the pre-1996 system wasn’t optimal (although I am sure it was better than the 1997 and 2016 systems). I think the more nearly politically possible approach would be to make the child tax credit available also to households with 0 labor income (the level required was cut to only $3,000 per year by the ARRA which extension has been made permanent). Also the credit level is way too low. This means expanding the one good feature of the 1996 bill instead of trying to repeal it.
I will write a forward looking practical post … uh … soon.
Beene neither Clinton campaigned for the 1996 welfare reform bill. It was very similar to two earlier bills which Clinton vetoed. He signed it reluctantly.
JackD,
Are those oil company executives donating large sums? Or are they run of the mill employees making modest donations. The difference is significant.
I don’t know who’s who among the oil company employee donors but the amounts involved are insignificant in the context of overall contributions for both candidates.
The first video is simply Clinton stating one of his campaign promises was welfare reform.
Second video is Clinton speaking about welfare reform and a comment about senator Moynihan’s objection to the welfare reform bill.
Welfare Reform Press Statement: Bill Clinton Press Conference (1996) 46 seconds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5_-v5spQ_k
Welfare Reform Press Statement: Bill Clinton Press Conference (1996) 24 MINUTES
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6QOuoqeOFQ
RW – If the 96 law is wrong, then how should it be fixed? Make it 180 days? A year? Forever?
JackD, the difference in individual donation is maximum of 2300, corporations and lobbyist can give unlimited amounts to various packs.
The video below is long but will give you an explanation of how the donation for candidates works.
Corporate Money in Politics: The Role of Money in Elections, Political Campaign Finance (2012)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp6KITYe3nQ
I understand how it works. The contributions I was referring to were to the candidates, not PACs which may or may not be coordinating.
JackD, not sure I understand the question. But if you are asking about what the average person donates to a candidate. One of the donation request I received from Bernie said that the average donation was 27 dollars and some change.
Beene,
the report I saw showed that Hillary got a couple of hundred thousand dollars from individuals associated with oil companies and Bernie got something over fifty thousand. My point was that such amounts were de minims and it was inappropriate for Bernie’s people to be making something of it.
Thanks, JackD.
If you run across it on line, you should post the URL.
Beene, the numbers are collected for ll candidates at open secrets.org.
I can’t find the link to a graph I saw indicating that her fossil fuel employee contributions are about one-tenth on one per cent of her total funds, not all that different from Bernie’s minimal contributions from the same industry. But here is another report attacking Bernie’s raising the issue for such minuscule amounts. I agree that Bernie has gone back on his promise not to go negative. He has gone negative in a big way, attacking her character with dripping innuendo that she is corrupt, in contrast to his purity. Resorting to attacking her for tiny amounts from contributors from which he himself has taken contributions in tiny amounts is dirty pool. If she wins the nomination, this kind of reinforcement of Republican talking points is only going to depress turnout for Democratic candidates generally. As far as I can recall, she has never attacked his character, only the realism of his proposals.
http://bluenationreview.com/hillary-did-not-get-money-from-the-fossil-fuel-industry/
I don’t think it’s Nader. He’s actually more important and is contributing to the development of the body politic. I just think he needs to take into account the need to defend against the barbarians at the gate as well as articulating aspirations. Can’t have the latter without the former.
“…innuendo that she is corrupt.”
Given the vast amount of wealth attributed to Bill, Hillary and Chelsea it is difficult to simply dismiss the accusations of corruption with the term innuendo. And all of that wealth seeming to have been accumulated since Bill left office in 2001. And that same time period being one during which the economy was severely depressed. They must have been genuinely brilliant investors or maybe some little bit of corruption, in a general sense, had something to do with their economic good fortune.
“As far as I can recall, she has never attacked his character…”
yes, that is the job of her surrogates. who seem quite eager and capable of doing so themselves.
“Bill was his own President.”
and yet the HRC defenders and apologists want to include that time as part of her experience bonafides. can’t have it both ways. sorry.
Frank:
I do not remember HRC making any policy decisions such as might be attributed to her. You could give her credit for Hillarycare which was killed because Congress did not design it. When you do give them a chance to do so, the Repubs back away from the table.
@BKrasting Foods stamps available forever. We are talking about benefits = one third of the poverty line, that is, below subsistence. I see no risk at all of people treating a food stamp safety net as a hammock.
Robert:
Ditto on the risk, except I would extend to 100% of FPL. Carve a few billion out of the weapons budget. ~47 million people times $300 (family of 2) is about $14 billion or 3% of Defense spending.
Jack,
Yeah, cause people that make almost $20 million a year that they report to the IRS and pay taxes on undoubtedly made it through corruption. Their net worth is around $80 mil for Bill and $30 mil for Hillary.
” (CNN)Hillary and Bill Clinton earned nearly $141 million over the course of eight years and paid $43 million in federal taxes, according to tax returns her campaign released Friday.
In a lengthy statement and on her campaign website, Clinton detailed that she and her husband, former President Bill Clinton, paid more than $43 million in federal taxes from 2007 to 2014, over $13 million in state taxes and donated nearly $15 million to charity over the same period.
The couple earned a total of $140.9 million, with an adjusted gross income of $139.1 million, the returns show.”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/31/politics/hillary-clinton-tax-returns/
the things people say without any basis of knowledge is just frightening. There are real issues in this primary to hang your hat on instead of this kind of sheer partisan bs.
Though there has been a lot of good information posted about individual contributions.
I was not able to find Hillary’s Florida fund raising event where if one had around 350 thousand you could be seated with a movies star.
Below is how this works, and the URL is at the bottom. It is events like this I believe where you can give unlimited amounts Bernie was grossing about. Not about small and limited amounts individuals may give to a campaign.
Contributions or gifts to Hillary Victory Fund are not tax deductible.
The first $2,700/$5,000 from an individual/multicandidate committee (“PAC”) will be allocated to Hillary for America, designated for the primary election. The next $33,400/$15,000 from an individual/PAC will be allocated to the Democratic National Committee. Additional amounts from an individual/PAC will be split equally among the Democratic state parties from these states up to $10,000/$5,000 per state party: AK, AR, CO, FL, GA, ID, IN, KY, LA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NV, NH, NC, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, UT, VA, WV, WI, and WY.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/events/tickets/GUKBCPS3NZ2BJVCK/?raiser=25709
Beene: the information you provided illustrates how Hillary is raising money for the party and all the down ticket races. Those down ticket positions (representatives, senators, state races of all kinds) will be essential for the success of whoever the successful nominee may be if he or she gets elected. Thus far, Bernie has not raised any money for the party and down ticket races and has said he is not certain whether or not he will do so.
JackD, Bernie does not have a PAC. Thinks like many; PAC’s are a corrupt method of the one percenters choosing who is elected.
Bernie’s campaign is showing that one can be elected by the people; and not owing your sole to the corrupt part of the political process; because of all the money someone raised for the candidate.
OK, but if Bernie gets elected, he’s going to find that he needs all kinds of help from people who owe him nothing.
JackD, you only need help in DC if the populist is not behind you.
That’s the reason we need a large turn out…..to intimidate other elected politicians.
I sure you can think of a recent group that intimidated the GOP.
Beene; you really think Bernie’s going to sweep in friendly faces from all of those gerrymandered house districts and entrenched senate seats? OK then! Let the revolution begin1
JackD, at least with Bernie there is the possibility of change in DC.
Hoping the revolution has begun.
JackD
April 3, 2016 9:15 pm
OK, but if Bernie gets elected, he’s going to find that he needs all kinds of help from people who owe him nothing.
beene
April 3, 2016 9:55 pm
JackD, you only need help in DC if the populist is not behind you.”
This may be one of the most clueless comments in the history of the internet. It does not even rise to the level of a 5th grade civics class thought.
Oops
The reply to JackD that is.
JackD, you only need help in DC if the populist is not behind you.
“This may be one of the most clueless comments in the history of the internet. It does not even rise to the level of a 5th grade civics class thought.” EMichael
Nothing like ignorance of the past; perhaps you can investigate what has happened to the GOP since adoption of Contract with America. It’s been enforced by the populist willing to remove congressmen or senators regardless of party.
“Led by Representative Newt Gingrich of Georgia, who subsequently replaced Democrat Tom Foley of Washington as speaker of the House, the empowered GOP united under the “Contract with America,” a 10-point legislative plan to reduce federal taxes, balance the budget, and dismantle social welfare programs established during six decades of mostly Democratic rule in Congress.”
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/the-republican-revolution
Somehow you think that is a sensible reply?
Let’s do the math.
You state Sanders does not need a party to accomplish anything, only populism. Then you respond with an example of how a political party changed the political scene.
“Check, Please!”
EMichael, I only said that support of the populist instills fear in the political class.
And the GOP revolution started with a petition on the internet about reducing taxes.
All During the Clinton Presidency, Hillary had a great deal of influence. Talk has it that the President needed constant monitoring (vis a vis Doug Rand) to keep his Oval Office running smoothly. He was and still is a glad talker and schmoozer-and really good at that. Not so good on really getting things done.
Sorry for the longish quote but it succinctly gives credence to the picture of ‘welfare as we know it’ being as much a Hillary project as anyone’s
[quote]
No mere bystander, Hillary Clinton played an active role in the lead-up to welfare reform, advocating “harsher polices like ending traditional welfare,” as journalist (and Nation contributor) Liza Featherstone writes, “even as others in the administration, like Labor Secretary Robert Reich, proposed alternatives.” Indeed, in 1997 Clinton took credit for pushing for a welfare bill that would more closely monitor and punish women’s “poor parenting” behavior: “I’ve advocated tying the welfare payment to certain behavior about being a good parent. You couldn’t get your welfare check if your child wasn’t immunized. You couldn’t get your welfare check if you didn’t participate in a parenting program. You couldn’t get your check if you didn’t show up for student-teacher conferences.” [end quote]
http://www.thenation.com/article/why-it-matters-that-hillary-clinton-championed-welfare-reform/
On Doug Band’s micro management style of the Clinton Oval Office and how that evolved
https://newrepublic.com/article/114790/how-doug-band-drove-wedge-through-clinton-dynasty
Ray:
Welcome to Angry Bear.
“I would extend to 100% of FPL. Carve a few billion out of the weapons budget. ~47 million people times $300 (family of 2) is about $14 billion or 3% of Defense spending.”
It is already at 130% gross, 100% net. And the average is $124 per person, not $300.
http://www.cheatsheet.com/personal-finance/7-states-with-the-most-people-on-food-stamps.html