Another “scrapbook” of items that might have become full-fledged posts, but didn’t.
It Really Is All Politics
I observed awhile ago that the Republicans were making a fuss about waivers the Obama administration has offered states to improve their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families programs was based on the source, not the substance.
That was before the Romney campaign jumped on the issue, with a spate of ads accusing the President of “gutting” the TANF work requirements — a claim that’s been roundly debunked by fact-checkers.
Then House Republicans decided they’d flog the issue too. Before they left the Capitol, having briefly visited, they passed a resolution to block the waivers. Some Senate Republicans tried — unsuccessfully — to get a vote on a similar resolution before they also hustled home to campaign.
But Wonkblogger Dylan Matthews has unearthed proof that Republicans — at least those on the House Education and Workforce Committee — don’t really care about those work requirements at all.
In June, they passed a bill revamping the Workforce Investment Act — the single largest source of federal funds for job training, counseling and the like.
The bill would let states roll all their federally-funded workforce-related programs together into one big Workforce Investment Fund — not only those funded under the current WIA, but many others, including TANF.
The Congressional Research Service analyzed the bill and concluded that the TANF work requirements might no longer apply if states opted for the Investment Fund because TANF wouldn’t be a separate program any more.
Some ambiguity here. But none in what the bill tells us about Republicans’ purported concern for those very restrictive work requirements — or their enthusiasm for state flexibility so long as it’s not offered by a Democrat.
What I Didn’t Know About the Census
As I guess you know, the big downside news in the latest Census Bureau report on its Current Population Survey wasn’t the poverty rate.
It was the unusually large increase in income inequality last year — or more precisely, the widening gap between the top fifth on the income scale and all of us who occupy the lower fifths.
What I didn’t know is that the gap is probably much wider — at least, between the richest fifth of households and households trying to get along on incomes that put them in the bottom two fifths.
That’s mainly because the Census Bureau doesn’t count capital gains as income. Yet profits from the sales of stocks, bonds, real property and the like flow primarily to the top fifth — and within this privileged group, to the very wealthiest of all.
The Bureau also limits the income information it collects for this very wealthy group. All salary income over $999,999 per job gets recorded at this amount. We know that some big corporate types get a whole lot more.
So if we want to see what’s really happening with income inequality, we’re better off with analyses based on Internal Revenue Service figures — or a combination of these and the Census figures.
Here’s what the latest of each type look like, courtesy the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
You’ve all heard of food stamp challenges, I’m sure. Now an organization called Everyone Matters has come up with a very different sort of challenge.
On November 19, we’re to go for 24 hours without judging anyone for anything — out loud or in our heads.
“They have as much right to be who they are as you do,” EM says. “Everyone gets to choose for themselves … [W]e are no better or worse.” Meaning, I think, that no one’s choices are better than anyone else’s.
I’m quite sure I could refrain from judging people on most of the bases EM cites as examples. I tend not to judge people by what they wear or how they behave in their everyday, private lives, unless they deliberately hurt others. Never judge by where they come from or their race, age, disability, etc.
But could I go for 24 hours without judging anyone on the basis of their social and/or political views? Highly doubtful, as those of you who’ve read my posts — even the first fragment here — would guess.
Frankly, I don’t think that taking an anything goes attitude toward people who demean others because they don’t earn enough to pay federal income taxes or who claim our government does too much to help the poorest of them is something to strive for.
Nor do I see any value in suppressing admiration for people who commit their lives to serving the needs and interests of the most vulnerable in our society.
There’s a difference, I think, between believing that all men (and women) are created equal and believing that all their opinions — and the actions that follow from them — are equal too.