Posted on 05/25/2003 11:03:46 PM PDT by Monitor
At least they waited until after Mother's Day.
It seems state Republicans don't appreciate the essential bonding necessary between a new mother and infant child.
Even though these are the same folks who make a lot of noise about "family values."
So last week, the Republicans in Madison who control the Joint Finance Committee defeated a plan to let W-2 mothers of newborn children stay at home an extra three months before returning to the work force.
Anyone remember when "compassionate conservatism" was supposedly the hallmark of a new and improved GOP?
Gov. Jim Doyle's plan to let W-2 moms stay home six months instead of three and receive cash grants of up to $673 before returning to the welfare reform system was partly based on fiscal responsibility, something most politicians pay lots of lip service to in light of the state's enormous deficit.
According to projections, if welfare mothers stayed home an extra three months, the government would save up to $4 million in mandated child-care costs.
So, one would think this cost-cutting proposal would have been a real winner.
Not so fast.
The opponents of the move to extend maternity benefits to welfare mothers insisted poor mothers shouldn't get any more benefits than new mothers in the private sector, who can get up to three months of unpaid leave at most jobs.
Of course, new mothers in the private sector can often negotiate for more than three months if they want it.
And, many new mothers in the private sector have something at home poor mothers don't.
A husband, or at the very least, a father willing to help out with the bills.
And new mothers in the private sector are supposedly making a living wage.
Pam Fendt, a policy analyst who works on welfare reform issues for the Center for Economic Development in Milwaukee, said the politicians who voted against the extended leave for welfare mothers did a disservice to poor families in Wisconsin.
"We care so much about looking hard on work requirements for welfare recipients, we force poor women after three months to return to a job sorting clothes for Goodwill," Fendt said last week, referring to an actual W-2 "make-work" job.
She found it ironic, just days after the local media was filled with Mother's Day advertisements and accolades, a group of hard-hearted pols in Madison showed what they really thought about mothers.
Poor mothers, that is.
Federal rules allow a one-year exemption for new W-2 mothers from any work requirement, but here in Wisconsin, we've decided to make things even harder.
Fendt has done research to prove Wisconsin is one of the stricter states when it comes to new mothers in poverty; we're one of only 12 states that require mothers to participate in welfare program work requirements so soon after giving birth.
Given that, under Doyle's plan, the state saves money by extending the maternity benefit, there's seems little justification for the move.
Other than a desire to make new motherhood as hard as possible for poor women.
Fendt laid out the details in a letter to state Sen. Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee), who supports the extension of maternity benefits:
"In an era of scarce resources, requiring women with very young babies to participate in work requirements when infant child care is so expensive would appear to be an adherence to a 'work at any cost' mind-set rather than a careful cost/benefit analysis."
I can take it even further. I believe there's a common misconception about poverty, mostly held by those who have never been unfortunate enough to have to receive food stamps or other social services.
For some reason, many have this idea poor people - particularly poor mothers and children - are actually having a party instead of leading hard lives of struggle.
Maybe they think poor mothers would spend the extra time watching soap operas on TV or driving around in their big Cadillacs buying lobster and steak with food stamps.
In the face of a budget that will exact much pain and sacrifice, the shortsightedness of some politicians is astounding.
They forgo the chance to save money just to keep hammering home their distaste for poor people.
Next time we encounter another horrific story from the central city like the mob of unsupervised kids who beat Charlie Young Jr. to death, someone will probably make a connection between such urban tragedy and the failure of parents to look after their kids.
Well, that kind of supervision starts at home. Usually, before the kid is barely 1 year old.
Bullcrap. Mothers can stay at home forever as far as I or anyone else cares. By my reading, all that happened is that the state legislature (or should we say "proxy husband", perhaps?) won't be sending them as many $673 checks.
This is the most incredible crap I have ever read.
How did we ever generate a system whereby a single woman can take money from the public by becoming impregnated?
The only way out of this is to require no-option contraception (Norplant) or sterilization as a condition of welfare.
LOFL, does this author have any clue how utterly stupid he sounds? I have no doubt the little scumbag thinks it's a great idea for women who can't afford to have baby Democrats to have them like flies.
Someone should, at least, nail him for, overuse of, the comma.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.