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." |
Tell that to American workers who are laid off so that business can hire the illegal slave labor from Mexico.
Lets see, bush increased the funding for clinton's Americorps to gain democrat votes I suppose. Ain't gonna happen.
Now he wants a free lunch for immigrants to buy their votes. That ain't gonna happen either, but the American tax payer gets the shaft again.
It hasn't been that long ago the republicans "talked" about smaller government. Must have been a different bunch of republicans.:)
WarHawk42
Well stated. I agree 100%.
I'm very disappointed with Bush on the domestic front. He did good with the tax cut, but could have easily gotten a bigger one. He did not follow through on his promise to implement vouchers, and instead signed a bloated Education Bill authored by Teddy Kennedy. Federal spending is going up, big time; and social programs (welfare and Americorps) are being expanded. ANWR is still not open for drilling.
His talk now about "being against tax increases" is silly. All tax bills originate in the House, which is not considering a tax increase (quite the contrary, they have been far more aggressive than Bush on tax cuts). The cheerleaders here will say Bush's current tax strategy is a good way to help the GOP during the midterm elections. That might fly, except for the fact that Bush isn't naming names about the "tax increasers". It's just very vague talk, the only purpose for which is to distract us from pushing for real tax reform.
The more things change, the more they stay the same...
Generally speaking, yes. But Bush is clearly making a pitch for Hispanics. Look at the evidence. He has proposed (and subsequently dropped under pressure) a proposal for another amnestia; his Transportation Dept has approved a speed up of naturalization for airport screeners (up to 30% of which are Latino) and now this.
Bush's political advisors are not fools. They know that Latinos are not naturally leftist or liberal as a group. The only reason they vote Democrat is that the Dems have targeted them with pro-Latino propaganda and legislation. So the Republicans can play this game, too. Perhaps Bush will only get a few votes this way, but remember how close the last election was. Every vote he can grab from the Democrats is vitally important to his re-election.
Generally speaking, yes. But Bush is clearly making a pitch for Hispanics. Look at the evidence. He has proposed (and subsequently dropped under pressure) a proposal for another amnestia; his Transportation Dept has approved a speed up of naturalization for airport screeners (up to 30% of which are Latino) and now this.
Bush's political advisors are not fools. They know that Latinos are not naturally leftist or liberal as a group. The only reason they vote Democrat is that the Dems have targeted them with pro-Latino propaganda and legislation. So the Republicans can play this game, too. Perhaps Bush will only get a few votes this way, but remember how close the last election was. Every vote he can grab from the Democrats is vitally important to his re-election.
Generally speaking, yes. But Bush is clearly making a pitch for Hispanics. Look at the evidence. He has proposed (and subsequently dropped under pressure) a proposal for another amnestia; his Transportation Dept has approved a speed up of naturalization for airport screeners (up to 30% of which are Latino) and now this.
Bush's political advisors are not fools. They know that Latinos are not naturally leftist or liberal as a group. The only reason they vote Democrat is that the Dems have targeted them with pro-Latino propaganda and legislation. So the Republicans can play this game, too. Perhaps Bush will only get a few votes this way, but remember how close the last election was. Every vote he can grab from the Democrats is vitally important to his re-election.
Simple math. If you get 30% of 100 new votes then the other guy gets 70%. Not a good deal. As you point out the election was close. It won't take that many more Latino votes to regulate the republicans to the dustbin of history. Think about it, the republicans sure aren't.
WarHawk42
President Reagan had to concede, kicking and screaming of course!, on some spending items the "rats of the day" insisted upon, in order to pass his tax-cut/defense buildup legislation.
Perhaps...GWB is reading the 'playbook' one chapter ahead of the 'rats' on this one.?
Afterall...there is a "Greater Mission" to accomplish right now.
You may be right, but consider his experience in Texas:
"Meanwhile, in Texas Gov. George W. Bush coasted to an easy victory, taking anywhere from 40 to 50 percent of the state's Hispanic vote with him. Thanks in large part to Bush's wide coattails, all 28 statewide officers in Texas are now Republican."
Perhaps he is hoping for the same thing nationwide.
Source: (I know, I know) http://www.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/01/13/latinos
Bush isn't a socialist. He's a center-right politician. What they would call a Christian Democrat in Europe. If you call him a socialist, the word loses its meaning.
Texas is one state and he allowed that state to be over run by illegals for his own political gain. Is that what you want? At what cost victory?
I repeat. It ain't gonna happen that he gets 50% of the Latino vote nation wide. The republican party is self destructing and they don't have the sense to know it. They have deserted there base trying to win democrat votes which they will never do in numbers large enough to do them any good.
Bush is riding high on his war popularity right now but it isn't going to last into the next election. America's attention span isn't that long and if the economy doesn't improve dramatically he will lose the next election.
WarHawk42
Please don't attribute positions to me that I haven't taken. Nowhere have I said that this pitch for Latino votes is a good or effective thing, just that Bush is doing it.
Anyone who increases the federal government is socialist. Bush has done nothing but increase government with the exception of his tax cut package (most of which you will never see). He has increased both government control and spending. In my book that is socialist.
Pretending otherwise is only avoiding the truth.
WarHawk42
Not everyone on this site misuses the word "socialism" in a way that would include the policies of George W. Bush.
You brought the point up, and yes bush is doing it.:) To sell this country out for possible (only in there minds) short term political gains is treasonous in my mind.
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.