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." |
Well, no more of that for me. I'm joining the team. You can bash our president just because he supports restoring welfare that Clinton cut, but not me. I'm just happy that a Republican is expanding the welfare state instead of a Democrat.
No matter what he does, at least he isn't a Democrat.
No cigar. I never supported bush and immigration is one (and only one) big reason why. Try reading post #151. His immigration stand was no surprise to me. Education was another big issue with me. Did you know bush used clinton's Goals2000 and STW programs in Texas. In fact Texas was the leading state in implementing Goals2000 and STW.
You wasn't around here before the election. At least not posting. If you had been you wouldn't even have asked that question.
Bush plainly told us he was going to expand the scope and power of government. I listened. Carefully. I will not vote for that. I will vote for what was once conservative values. Smaller less intrusive government. When a candidate in the republican party comes along who I can believe says he will do just that I will vote for him, but not until. Meanwhile I will vote (and did), and I will vote for any candidate who shares my values.
WarHawk42
It ballooned under Reagan because he made many, many deals that a President has to make.
People here seem to forget that the President makes hundreds of deals under his 4 year term and some aren't what we want and some are down right discusting (Reagan not giving the military any raise in the late 80's). Yes, Ronnie did go along with this to get other things funded but if Bush suggested it now he would be hanged by everyone who voted for him. Ronnie took the hit for the good of the country and it went away soon after.
The foodstamp program costs we're talking about here is 500,000 million per year and this money would go to some other pork if it wasn't used for this.
It should also be pointed out that they don't give stamps out like they used to as they issue a credit/debit card that has the monthly money added each month--this has kept fraud way down the last two years.
Is it trading votes for dollars ? You bet you butt it is and I also bet 20 times as much gets cut from the budget that pisses off the dems as well. Do I like it--no way but I do understand the political reasoning behind it.
It's a pure political play !
To each their own. You can believe in the tooth fairy if you want to.:) Obviously you choose to ignore facts. Your loss.
WarHawk42
You are correct when you say it is wrong, but mistaken in saying that there will be electoral awards. Hispanics as a whole vote Democrat. They are not as lock-step as blacks, but their voting pattern will not change anytime soon.
What this will accomplish is the gradual dismantling of the historic 1996 welfare bill.
Here is the quote from the article above.
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.
I highlighted it for RBA.:)
WarHawk42
Was the campaign completely shocked by the election results?
Thanks! I am interested in the bird's eye view, so to speak.
This has to be about getting some other vote. Maybe it's about getting the Asian or English vote but it can't be about pandering to the Mexicans. Besides President Bush wouldn't do that.
Case in point, Bush meeting with homosexuals during the 2000 campaign. Now despite our gravely oversexed society, there just aren't enough activist homosexuals in the world to justify Bush spending any time at all with them to get their votes.
But Bush spent time with them to send a message to the voters in the mushy middle: I, George W. Bush, am open-minded. I am not a bigot. I care about all Americans. You can vote for me and not be worried that you will be embarrassed in front of your wine and cheese intellectual friends.
Having said that, I still believe that Mexican immigrants will vote Democrat, and I can't think of any constituency group that will be more likely to vote for Bush because of this. The socialists will vote Democrat regardless, because a Republican will never outspend a Democrat. Hispanics, blacks, welfare recepients: ditto Democrat.
WarHawk42
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.