Posted on 01/09/2002 5:00:20 PM PST by RCW2001
January 9, 2002White House Shifts on Welfare Law; Food Stamps for Legal ImmigrantsBy ROBERT PEARASHINGTON, Jan. 9 The Bush administration proposed today to restore food stamps to legal immigrants, whose eligibility for benefits was severely restricted by the 1996 welfare law. The White House said that in the budget President Bush will send to Congress in early February, at least 363,000 people would qualify for food stamps under a proposal that would cost the federal government $2.1 billion over 10 years. The proposal, or something like it, has an excellent chance of becoming law. The Senate is considering such changes as part of a far-reaching bill to reauthorize farm and nutrition programs. The welfare bill passed by Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 made immigrants ineligible for food stamps and many other forms of assistance financed with federal money. Supporters of the ban, most of them Republicans, argued that federal benefits drew immigrants to the United States and then discouraged their work effort after they got here. But today, with the country in a recession that is hurting immigrants, and fighting a war on terrorism that has targeted some immigrants, Mr. Bush is looking for ways to show his commitment to them as well as to addressing domestic problems a transition his father failed to make effectively a decade ago after the Persian Gulf war. Moreover, many of those who would benefit from the food stamps are Hispanic Americans, whom the White House is ardently courting. As Mr. Clinton did as well, President Bush is selectively disclosing parts of his budget in advance specifically, those proposals likely to win political support for the president. Antihunger groups and Hispanic groups were enthusiastic about Mr. Bush's proposal, without suggesting any ulterior motive. "This is an enormous step forward, for which the president should be congratulated," said Cecilia Munoz, vice president of the National Council of La Raza, a Latino civil rights group. "Mr. Bush did not speak out on this in the presidential campaign, and he had not done so since he assumed office." As governor of Texas and as president, Mr. Bush has taken pride in his good relations with Hispanic Americans, although the Republican Party is split on how aggressively to go after Hispanic voters. Some Republicans have alienated Hispanic voters with proposals for a restrictionist immigration policy. But Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser, said earlier this year that capturing a bigger share of Hispanic voters was "our mission and our goal" and would require assiduous work by "all of us in every way." Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, the federal government has detained more than 1,100 noncitizens for questioning and has stepped up enforcement of the immigration laws. Mr. Bush has insisted that he is waging war on terrorists, not immigrants, and his food stamp proposal can be cited to support that claim. James D. Weill, president of the Food Research and Action Center, an antihunger group, said: "It's really positive that the administration wants to extend food stamp benefits to this group of legal immigrants. We are delighted the administration is supporting this." The economy is much worse now than in 1996, when Mr. Clinton signed the welfare bill. "Immigrants have been hit hard by the economic downturn," Ms. Munoz said, "and there's no safety net for those who arrived after 1996." Welfare and food stamp rolls have plummeted since 1996, and members of Congress express much less concern now about being overwhelmed with the programs' cost, even though budget surpluses have evaporated and Mr. Bush has emphasized holding down costs. Also, advocates for immigrants have made some progress on Capitol Hill by appealing to the American sense of justice. "This will restore justice to people who work hard, pay taxes and play an incredibly important role in our economy," Ms. Munoz said. "It is unreasonable for somebody who works hard and is laid off to have no access to food for his family." |
Two months? You must have been worn to the bone, you poor thing.
Read it for yourself. It has been discussed enough here on FR you should be familiar with it. I'm not doing your work for you.
Do a search under Patriot act.
Increased? Where? Or continued but cut back the amount? If "increase", where? and don't forget to include
where the cuts are. Again, link me!
As has been pointed out the budget has increased far more than the inflation rate. Again the budget is public record check it out.
You can't see the difference?
Between a democrat and a republican increasing spending? No I don't see a difference. The result is the same. Increased spending.
And gotten rid of some. Creating new agencies is one way he "righted the ship", by putting people in places where
we need them, for starters, and getting rid of fat.
Creating new agency's is one way of increasing government control and bloat. Both of which bush has done. Why do we need a new agency to overlook 40 agency's fighting terrorism. I'll answer that. We have 39 too many agency's fighting it. When you put your eggs in so many baskets there is bound to be some confusion and adding another agency isn't going to solve it.
Do you know the benefit of Americorps and who drew it up? Just asking.
I know you said you were new, but have you been in hiding somewhere? Americorps was clinton's make work vote buying program. Bush increased funding for it. Does that make any sense?
Putting my tax dollars where it will benefit me is not the same as the definition you use of "increase government",
which many use as a catch-all phrase for thier own agenda. You forgot to end it with the word "funding".
Which goes to prove the point I have made before. The only difference between a democrat and a republican is the federal program they want. Ever hear of personal responsibility? You can make it without government you know.
How so? Specifics?
You can't be that new. What is this thread about? Have you been reading it?
Quit being hysterical. Get a grip!
Quit playing dumb. There is nothing hysterical about my position, just the facts. When you can't defend your position you start calling people hysterical?LOL You do need edjukatin.:)
WarHawk42
Well, thank you for pointing out I am "playing" dumb. I think.
You sounded like you supported Bush at one time, why are you dissin' him now? Why not write him? Get your voice heard.
Now as for pictures, I never got any with him during the campaign. But my 10-year old daughter and I did get on the nightly news just moments after we spoke with him! That was worth more because we were able to get the word out to the listening audience. Saved the campaign air time costs on that little "ad" - LOL!
Reagan was no liberal or socialist but I guess he was using your method of reasoning?
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.