They pretend to support women staying home and taking care of the children, but if women with children want dignity then they better get to work.
I haven't caught that one.
Mitt Romney Says 'Dignity Of Work' Only Available To Women In The Paid Workforce - Forbes
Chris Hayes has turned up the video of a speech made by Mitt Romney in New Hampshire this past January where he spoke of his efforts, while serving as governor of Massachusetts, to
force all mothers receiving government aid to get out of the house and into the workforceor lose their benefits.
It wasnt about the money. Romney calculates that getting these mothers to leave their kids and enter the workforce would actually cost the state more through the increased costs of providing day care for the children of these working mothers.
No,
Romney had a higher goal in mind he wanted these stay-at-home mothers to know the dignity of work.
I know. Was it not Governor Romney who spent this past week exhorting the great dignity and hard work done by moms who elect to stay home and raise their kids? How does that square with his speech which touts his long-held view that certain stay-at-home mothers can only learn the dignity of work by getting out of the house and leaving the daytime care of their children to others?
Speaking to the New Hampshire audience, this is what the Governor had to say:
I wanted to increase the work requirement, said Romney. I said, for instance, that
even if you have a child 2 years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, Well thats heartless. And I said, No, no, Im willing to spend more giving day care to allow those parents to go back to work. Itll cost the state more providing that daycare, but
I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.
I thought that if anything had been established through the eruption caused by CNN pundit Hillary Rosens poorly chosen words earlier this week, it was that there is, indeed, immense dignity in the work of stay-at-home moms. So said the President, the First Lady and the one-time First Lady of MassachusettsAnn Romney.
And, for what it is worth, so say I.
The Governors suggestion that there is dignity in the work done by women who stay home to raise their kids (this weeks meme) but, apparently, only when they have sufficient financial resources to do so, completely proves the point Ms. Rosen sought to makeeven if her comments were inartfully uttered.
Thank you for the well articulated summary, Ed. I don't do video so your summary is very much appreciated.
I had the sense that your intelligence was not finding true expression in this mindnumbing circular banter of rehashed cut and paste cherry picked numbers.
These kind of subjects, like the one Romney tried to broach, does not lend well to generalizations.
As an anechdotal observation to his regard, I did learn of a particular social group of women that actually make an "industry" out of having babies and collecting government assistance. I was quite amazed, though not tremendously surpised understanding human nature and the economy, that they learn from each other how to make a living out of it. It is quite real.
The issue is whether it is predominate or simply a very small occurance. (As in .01% of 50 million is like 50,000 small). In the bigger scheme of things, one has to wonder if it is the "low hanging fruit" and if some myopic approach has any chance having any real social effect.
And the serious issue is often, implementing general programs and processes that are intended to target some minor sub-group ends up screwing a whole lot of other people that have a real need. I can tell you about one individual, seriously injured in an auto accident and disabled for life, that found every manner of problems when the government decided they needed to cut back on disability assistance.
On the other hand, I have heard (again not checked) that Maine did a good job with some welfare to work program. And there are perfectly viable methods of incentivising joining the labor market if the demand is actually there for the labor. You let people earn two dollars for every dollar they get cut back, and those that can will.
It's all a great emotionally loaded issue to rally the troops around, but is it worth the effort?
Personally, there are some people I would rather we paid to stay the h out of the way. (I'm pragmatic.)
It seems that the US has the highest incarceration rate of any industrialized country. (So I hear, haven't checked it). We have no problem spending extra ordinary amounts of money incarcerating people that we would rather keep out of the way but get all pissy about a third that amount for some other's that we are just as well better off keeping out of the way.
We are so damned efficient when it comes to food and housing. We have way more then we need of either. They are bulldozing abandoned houses in some counties. Somehow, I really doubt that the "drain on the economy" is as big as some might suppose.
And even if Romney is right, meaning exactly the group I recognize, I am not sure that he has the were-with-all to implement a more refined process that doesn't just screw things up. Isn't he the the Mass socialized medicine flip floppping governor?
The thing is, if there was all that much demand for labor, then the markets would demand it. Maybe the thing to focus on is why the demand isn't there for the labor and why the assistance is the better option for some people. All to often, we find it's an economic issue at it's core and has nothing to do with "dignity". It's about maximizing ones resources.
Just some general thoughts on it, where I truly believe that generalizations just don't work.
Thank for the intellectual relief. I swear I could have gotten drunk and killed fewer brain cells.
