Why the whining over work rules for welfare?
House Republicans were right on the money in putting a modest work requirement for some welfare in the debt-ceiling/deficit-reduction bill they passed last week.
And the budget savings (about $154 billion over the next decade, per one analysis) may not be the most important aspect.
Equally as important, work lies at the heart of human well-being — and that’s true for everyone, no matter how well or badly off.
Connecting welfare to a work requirement is the moral thing to do — discouraging dependency on government and nudging recipients into becoming self-sufficient.
Yes, progressive howls of outrage over the bill treat work requirements as a crime against humanity.
Even though the bill only applies such rules to childless, able-bodied adults aged 18 to 55.
Fact is, the American left has always hated welfare reform in this vein.
Remember the hysterical predictions of doom over the bipartisan 1996 reforms?
“Wages will go down, families will fracture, and millions of children will be made more miserable than ever,” prophesied The New Republic.
The Urban Institute saw 1 million kids left destitute.
Instead, poverty rates sank — including for black Americans. Poverty among single-parent families fell by two-thirds.
Gee, discouraging people from remaining dependent on the state longer than they must actually improves their lives: Who’d have guessed?
Even nations that the left deems social-democratic paradises have seen the wisdom.
The Netherlands did a major benefit reform in the early ’90s and saw massive positives as a result — including increased adult earnings for kids who grew up under the changed rules.
Sweden and Denmark also tweaked their systems to encourage as-fast-as-possible transitions to work.
Look: For much of the American left, government dependence is good in and of itself.
That’s why they back endless handouts for everything imaginable.
But people need jobs, for their own dignity.
Encouraging them to become self-reliant makes utter sense.
