i largely agree with the analysis of clinton. however i dont think it was best for america. but a good read. and breaks a lot of misconceptions on both sides. Bill Clinton Was Right He Saw the Roots of America's Welfare Problem By Robert Rector Special to washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town Wednesday, August 23, 2006; 12:00 AM As a conservative analyst who spent much of the 1990s working against most of Bill Clinton's agenda -- including even some aspects of his welfare reform proposals -- it pains me to say this. Bill Clinton was right. He deserves more credit for the passage of welfare reform than most conservatives probably care to admit. No, Clinton didn't play a major role in shaping the policy details of the landmark 1996 act. But he understood something about policymaking that many conservative strategists and policy wonks could stand to re-learn: It isn't enough to get the technical details of a policy right. Words and symbols matter, too. Indeed, thanks in large part to his effective use of words and symbols that challenged liberal orthodoxy on issues surrounding the poor, Bill Clinton not only helped "end welfare as we know it," but he helped end welfare as we know it before anyone even knew it. To fully understand Clinton's role in the passage of this landmark legislation, one must go back to the early days of the 1992 presidential campaign when Clinton first began trying out his welfare themes. According to New York Times reporter Jason DeParle, Clinton regarded his welfare message as the "all-purpose elixir" of his campaign for the presidency. It was a values message, an economic message and a policy message all in one. And it generated more interest than any other topic Clinton addressed. A surprising thing about Clinton's welfare message is that it found resonance with many people in low-income neighborhoods. It won Clinton respect from the poor, a group most analysts figured would object strongly to any welfare reform plan. DeParle reports that in the fall of 1991, Clinton dispatched campaign aide Celinda Lake to North Carolina to conduct focus groups with black voters. The campaign was worried that Clinton's pledge to "end welfare as we know it" might invite Virginia's black governor (and presidential aspirant) Doug Wilder to attack Clinton as a "racist." Lake found otherwise. "The welfare message, worded correctly, plays extremely well in the black community," Lake reported. Low-income African-Americans were all for cutting welfare, so long as they sensed a corresponding commitment to help them acquire the dignity that comes from gainful employment. A major turning point in the debate over welfare reform came in late 1993 when Clinton made a series of remarkable public statements about the links between social problems, welfare dependency and unwed childbearing. No president before him had addressed this topic. It started in Memphis, where Clinton addressed a group of black church leaders. Employing the rhythm, cadence and blunt-spoken hard truths of an old-style sermon, it was the kind of speech that would have caused most white liberals to turn red with embarrassment. But the audience loved it, repeatedly interrupting with applause. At one point in the speech, the president imagined what Martin Luther King, Jr. would say if he were "to reappear by my side today and give us a report card." The slain civil rights leader, Clinton suggested, would say: "'I did not live and die to see the American family destroyed. . . . I fought for freedom, but not for the freedom of . . . children to have children and the fathers of the children walk away from them and abandon them as if they don't amount to anything.'" Later that day, at another black church in Memphis, Clinton attributed the rise in inner-city crime to four things: "the breakdown of the family, the breakdown of other community supports, the rise of drugs . . . and the absence of work." Several weeks later, in a television interview with NBC, Clinton admitted that he had found "a lot of very good things" in Dan Quayle's infamous 1992 speech on family values. "I think he got too cute with 'Murphy Brown,'" Clinton said, "but it is certainly true that this country would be much better off if our babies were born into two-parent families. "Once a really poor woman has a child out of wedlock," he continued, "it almost locks her and that child into the cycle of poverty, which then spins out of control further." The president went on to note that, contrary to popular belief, this cycle of poverty is not primarily a problem of race. "If you look at the figures for black, two-parent families with children, their incomes are almost three times as high as single white mothers who had their children out of wedlock," Clinton said. "So, it's not, primarily 'a racial problem' -- it's a problem of income, family structure, and educational level." Not surprisingly, Clinton's message astonished many liberals. They were embarrassed that one of their own was lamenting "the breakdown of the family" rather than using proper liberal-speak -- i.e., "The family isn't declining; it's simply changing or evolving." Nevertheless, Clinton's bold rhetoric certainly got the attention of many low-income Americans. They heard him say it was harmful for women to have babies out of wedlock, and that the government was going to stop sending checks to people who refused to work. That's why many welfare recipients began to change their behavior even before welfare reform legislation was adopted. Indeed, the day the welfare caseloads started to decline was the day Bill Clinton went on national TV and said that if we stopped giving welfare checks to low-income women, they'd have fewer out-of-wedlock babies. Now, of course, for Clinton tough rhetoric was always easier than tough action. It took a Republican Congress to translate Clinton's rhetoric into reality. But Clinton's values talk helped jump start a decline in welfare dependence, and the work requirements and time limits in the actual legislation pushed this change into overdrive, stimulating an unprecedented plummet in welfare caseloads and poverty among single mothers. Critically, Clinton's rhetorical boldness helped create a climate where national leaders could finally acknowledge the obvious -- that unwed childbearing, not race, was at the heart of our nation's welfare problem. And Clinton's rhetorical boldness helped create a climate where serious welfare reform could take place. "You have to get the values right," Clinton told his aide Bruce Reed during the early stages of the process. "If you get the policy right and the values wrong, the whole thing will fail; but if you get the values right, then this whole thing will work out." To a large extent, Bill Clinton "got the values right" on welfare reform. And because he did, Clinton not only helped end welfare as we know it, but he helped end welfare as we know it before anyone even knew it. Robert Rector is senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation, a leading Washington-based public policy institution. © 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive post
It shouldn't be surprising that there are conservatives praising Clinton. If you look at Clinton's record in many ways he was more of a conservative than GW Bush. Just look at which Admin. reduced the size of Federal government and which one has increased it. This also goes to show where America is on the political spectrum that the Democractic President in 1996 domestic policies are further to the right than the Republican President in 1970.
you mean these corporate welfare. egs include Continuing payment for the bail-out of Lincoln and other bankrupt savings&loan, and Chrysler which was bankrupt during the 1970s allowing conglomerates, such as Accenture, Tyco, Haliburton, etc.---co that make hundreds of millions in profits, to declare that they're not subject to US taxation. and to let these non-US taxpayer to bid for Federal contracts US taxpayer's are being taxed so that non-taxpayer such as Haliburton can prosper granting US corporation favorable tax breaks whenever they send their jobs/operations overseas can we say out-sourcing as compared to these gargantuan hand-outs to the priviledged few, the $$$ spent on social welfare (much more publicized because of the relatively large # of recepients) is but miniscule.
yes, i disagree with all types of welfare. And to the person that said Clinton was more of a conservative than Bush, I sadly agree.
I guess since Clinton was right on welfare, that makes up for him being dead wrong on terrorism, immigration, and many other issues.
I think he was right about terrorism, but just not right enough. Did you disagree with him tripling the FBI budget to fight terrorism, or doubling the overall anti-terrorism budget? Did you disagree with Clinton issuing the presidential directive to assassinate OBL? Did you disagree with his request to expand the intel agencies ability to wiretap when fighting terrorism? Did you disagree with his administration helping to thwart the following terrorist plots? This is from another post I made Did you disagree with the Clinton's team plan to send in special ops troops into Afghanistan, and bolster the Northern Alliance in an effort to get Bin Laden, and oust the Taliban, all before 9/11 had taken place? Of course the Republicans were against him giving the FBI more powers to wiretap, didn't like his idea to increase the budget to fight terrorism, and called him obssessed with Bin Laden. And Bush was too busy vacationing to meet with Richard Clarke before 9/11 to discuss plans like going in after Bin Laden etc. Which part of the plans I laid out that describe Clinton's attitude toward terrorism did you disagree with?
Two of our embassies destroyed and a warship bombed, and what does Clinton do? Lobs a few cruise missles from afar that have no chance of getting the target. There are many of Bush's policies that I can't stand, but if that were to happen on his watch and the Taliban didn't give up Bin Laden, he would be going in there full force like we did, and I don't mean lobbing a few cruise missles in that direction or looking for some covert snatch and grab (if Clinton really tried that, really easy to say you supported it after the fact). I'm talking go after him full force. Clinton didn't have the balls to do that because he was all about doing what was politically popular. After the Somali debacle he became fearful of a similar incident. No way would he send in large ground deployments to respond to attacks on our embassies and warships outside the U.S. Only if the attack occurred on U.S soil would he do it. I guess Clinton was too busy getting his dick sucked to put plans to get Bin Laden in place before the 9-11 plot even got underway.
Wrong and wrong again. After the embassies were destroyed Clinton then issued a Presidential directive to kill OBL. After the warship was bombed which was in 2000 shortly before Clinton left office, he acted once again and put forth a comprehensive plan to take the war to Bin Laden. It was after the warship was bombed that Clinton picked Richard Clarke to form a task force to go on the offensive. It was there that the strategies of stopping bogus charities giving money to support terrorists was developed. It was there that the idea to send in special forces to Afghanistan and get Bin Laden were given. It was there that the idea of freezing assets and funding used by the terrorists was formed, and going after the suppliers. It was there that the idea of giving aid to other nations also at war with Al Qaeda was created. Basically all the things Bush did AFTER 9/11 Clinton's team had gotten ready prior to 9/11. IT was just too bad he didn't have time to implement the plans. Wrong again. The USS COLE was bombed in 2000 less than a year before Clinton was out of office. George Bush came on as CiC less than one year after that happened, and not only did Bush not invade AFghanistan, he wouldn't even meet with Clarke to discuss the plans mentioned above that included going after OBL, nor he would he put terrorism on the agenda. I wish Bush would have acted in the strong manner that you suggested, but the truth is he wouldn't even meet with the expert on it who had the plans in place.
What the hell good does "issueing a presidential directive to kill OBL" do? It's talk. We needed action and Clinton gave us talk, which is something he's good at. Clinton didn't do **** to go after Bin Laden.
actions? what has shrub done? is OBL killed or caught? or is OBL and Al Queda stronger now.. is the terrorist threat now lessened or worse? shrub did everything f***ing possible to let OBL go
When terrorists attacked the WTC just about 35 days after Clinton took office, he apprehended, tried, convicted, and imprisoned those responsible. I call that action. Has Bush caught OBL? Prior to 9/11 Clinton also thwarted planned attacks against the Pope, blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously, the UN Headquarters, the FBI building, the ISraeli emassy in Washington, the LA and Boston airports, the Lincoln and Holland tunnels along with the George Washington Bridge, and he also thwarted a truck bomb plot against the US embassy in Albania. I call that action. What did Bush do regarding terrorism prior to 9/11? I have listed ACTIONS that Clinton took in regards to getting OBL. They amount to far more than Bush did until after it was too late to stop 9/11. Clinton busted up Al Qaeda cells in more than 20 countries. Do you call that not doing **** to go after Bin Laden? Clinton had a team formed with plans to send U.S. special forces to into Afghanistan after Bin Laden. Despite attempts by the head of counter-terrorism to meet with Bush and his staff, Bush never saw fit to meet with Clarke, and put the plan into action. Clinton isn't the one who did nothing. Why would Reagan's chief man on counter-terrorism say that the Clinton administration should get high marks on fighting terrorism, except that he focused too much on Bin Laden, if Clinton had done nothing regarding Bin Laden. I have no problem admitting that Clinton didn't do enough to go after Bin Laden. But to pretend that he did nothing, or was all talk, is simply ignoring the facts and recent history.
Don't post here much. I don't think Bush has done much to go after OBL himself. Instead of trying to go on a real search for these suspects, we went straight to Iraq.
Man, I miss Bill Clinton so much! Sishir, you're right in saying Bill Clinton was in some ways more of a conservative than Bush Jr. is. Even with all the nonsense that went on during Clinton's administration nothing compares to the debacle that is the Bush administration. I'll gladly take Clinton presidency over Bush's any day of the week!--This coming from a conservative, BTW.
Once again I am surprised by the lack of longerm memory. You do realize that the bombing of the USS Cole happened in December of 2000 when Clinton was a lame duck and wasn't in a position politcially to start a war with a new Admin coming in. You also realize that GW Bush was in office for almost 9 months before he launched an attack against Al Qaeda and that was only after 9/11. Prior to 9/11 Bush was in office and did practically nothing on going after Al Qaeda even though he had all of the info from the Clinton Admin. on Al Qaeda and even Clintons terrorist czar.
Yes, you're right. And right after 9/11, Bush was already pushing to invade Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with it, a fact Bush finally admitted a few days ago, typically lying about never having said Saddam had a hand in 9/11. The man is a serial liar, when he's not busy being a serial delusionist, and a serial promoter of those in his administration who have failed this country, and proven to be incompetent to do their jobs. Then, he has his legion of serial excuse makers, those who can't find anything to defend Bush with except for falling back on, "It was all Clinton's fault!!" Nothing is ever Bush's fault. That shows the depths to which his most ardent suporters have fallen to. At least they got the memo from Rove. Good to see you pop in here, Rocketeer. Keep D&D Civil.
