Welfare Reform Extension Act

[The Duke]

I wish they had done welfare reform differently, but it should be made permanent now.

[The Duke]

Instead of abolishing AFDC and turning it into a grant program, they should have reformed it to place time limits on benefits and add a job training program with the money saved by time limits.  Many states did this anyway once they had control.  I just never saw the point of making it a grant program.  I was closer to the Clinton position than the Gingrich position on welfare reform.

[The Duke]

Aside from te obvious "general welfare" part of the preamble:

"Section 8, Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

"Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time."

So the government can appropriate money from the treasury to support the cahrged duties of the various departments with the approval of the legislature.  Most government functions fall under this category.  A perfect example is the Treasury Department, whose largest single expenditure is interest on our debt.  Nowhere in the Constitution does it say we have the power to pay off our debts, or to borrow to finance debts.  But it would be ludicrous to say we can't spend money for such a thing.  The founders did not intend to make the Constitution a straight jacket.

[The Duke]

Its when they're combined that they authorize welfare spending, not alone.  Through these two sections, the government is authorized to spend money to support that purpose of the departments of the government.  That is "appropriations made by law (S9, C7)" that are "necessary and proper (S8, C18)" for "carrying into excecution the foregoing powers (S8, C18)", one of those powers being "provide for the... general welfare (S8, C1)" are Constitutional.

[The Duke]

You do realize that the Federalist Papers were a sales pitch to anti-Federalists who opposed the Constitution to begin with, and is not a legitimate intellectual explaination of the Constitution's purpose?

[The Duke]

His argument is self-invalidating.  He says that without clauses 2-18 of Article I Section 8, the government could have, for example, "A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms..."  But these things are not endangered by Clause 1 being interpreted too broadly, since these things are protected rights in the Bill of Rights.  No one seriously believed that Clause 1 could be used to defame a free press after the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

Furthermore, Madison does not address those who say that Clause 1 enables social welfare programs, he addresses thoe who say that the enumerated right are jeopardized.  That is very different indeed.  I never said that Clause 1 could be used to invalidate the enumerated rights, I said it could be used to justify social welfare spending.  So Madison didn't call me an idiot, he in fact does not even directly address my point.

[The Duke]

One of the qualifiers that follows the semicolon is that very "necessary and proper" clause.  The notion of necessary and proper is thrown in with the specific provisions like posting roads.

If nothing more than a semicolon means that posting roads is included in the general welfare clause, why don't you accept the necessary and proper clause?

[The Duke]

And one of the foregoing pwoers is to make laws which are necessary and proper for advancing the general welfare.

[The Duke]

Section 8, Clause 18 says necessary and proper.  That is, necessary and proper for advancing the general welfare (Clause 1).

[The Duke]

They can't spend money on just anything, because they can't infringe on the enumerated rights of citizens and they can't infringe upon the powers delegated to the other branches of government.

It seems we are moving in circles.

[The Duke]

I think you misunderstand the Constitution.  Here is the text of AI, S8:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You believe that Clause 1 encompasses the following clauses.  That is to say, the things outlined in clause 1, which include providing for the general welfare, are general terms that fnd more specific definitions in the following clauses.  For example, providing for the general welfare includes the posting of roads.

This is a mistake on your part.  It is not clause one that is defined by the subsequent 17 clauses, but clause 18 that is defined by the previous 17 clauses.

Clause 18 says that the Congress shall execute the "forgoeing powers".  What are the foregoing powers?  The previous 17 powers, that is Clauses 1-17.

The Congress has the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."  One of these foregoing powers is in Clause 1, to provide for the general welfare.  The general welfare is not defined by the following clauses, it is actually a distinct power unto itself, and the congress has the power to make all laws necessary and proper for promoting it.

You are actually reading Section 8 backwards.

[The Duke]

No, I am actually quite right.

The powers of the Congress are enumerated powers.  It has the power to dot he things that its enumerated to do.  The first thing in its enumerated powers is to provide for the general welfare.

Providing for the general welfare is a specific enumerated power delegated to Congress.

It is not defined by or qualified by the other enumerated powers.  It is a power unto itself.

Here is the flaw in your "Madison said so" argument.  Madison says that the general welfare is seperated by no more than a semicolon, and therefore it doesn't lord over the other powers but is constrained by them.  Let us take this logic to the other provisions of the Section 8.

Clause 16 says the Congress can raise and organize the militias.  The next provision states that Congress has the power to govern the District of Colombia, the two provisions seperated by no more than a semicolon.  By Madison's logic, that a mere semicolon means the later provisions define the parameters of former provisions, then the only way the Congress is empowered to raise armies is by governing DC!

Also, you need to stop pretending that Madison and only Madison wrote the Constitution.  You try to make it sound as if Madison sat in his study, wrote the thing without consulting anyone, presented it to the Constitutional Convention, and it was approved without debate or delay.  It didn't happen that way, and its wrong to bring up a Madison quote as if only the words of Madison mattered.  Another author of your beloved Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton, had a very different view of the Constitution than Madison did.  His actions once in office demonstrate that plainly, and his actions at the Convention in 1787 and his participation in the Federalist Papers show that he is nearly as much father of our Constitution as Madison.

[The Duke]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

[The Duke]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

[The Duke]

It is hilarious that the right-wingers claim to be very concerned about the feeding of Terry Schiavo and yet are determined to prevent the feeding of the poor.

How does a time limit on welfare benefits make any sense?  As if one magically becomes non-poor after a period of time on the dole.

The purpose of the time limit is to provide people enough time to get back on their feet, but prevent welfare from becoming a lifestyle, which it had for some.  An 8 or 10 month time limit is more than adequate to find employment.

Not so.  The majority of people on welfare will never be able to find jobs that pay enough to support them and their offspring.  They typically find jobs paying $6 or 7 per hour, which is inadequate to support an individual, much less a single mother with children.

I'm going to have to question you on that one.  I don't think you can substantiate that a majority, or even a large minority, make only $6 an hour when they get off welfare.

What the devil do you think they make?  That is what most lower level jobs pay in America.  Heck the median is only $15 an hour.  Do you think they leap from welfare up to or above the median?  No they're forced into working as maids and suchlike for starvation wages.

Okay, we all understand your theory.  Do you have evidence to support that theory?

[The Duke]

Okay, lets see.  Bill is a mid manager at a tech company.  His company downsizes, and he is laid off.  He spends six months on welfare and the finds a job.  Does he find a job at another tech company or does he work at Burer King?  I go to a lot of fat food joints, and I don't see any middle aged men working there, opebo.  They get jobs comparable to the one they lost.

Bill got TANF money and unemployment benefits from the govenrment, so he's a welfare recipient.  Not everyone who goes on welfare is necessarily poor.

Now, if its so easy to prove your claim, and so obvious that its true, why do you object to producing evidence from a credible source that studies economic data?

[The Duke]

I didn't say that, did I?  I simply asked for proof of your statement and presented an example as to why it shouldn't be accepted at face value.

[The Duke]

http://www.cepr.net/publications/TANF.htm

CEPR data, shows the largest sector where work was found for former welfare recipients was retail, an houlry wage of over $10 p/h was earned.

[The Duke]

http://www.cepr.net/publications/TANF.htm

CEPR data, shows the largest sector where work was found for former welfare recipients was retail, an houlry wage of over $10 p/h was earned.

That only says that in the retail sector as a whole the average hourly wage was $10.64 per hour.  Which says nothing about what the wages of the welfare people were. 

"I'm sorry Mrs. Opebo, but your boy ain't right."

[The Duke]

Migrendel,

No one is exploiting race here, or gender.  You're the only one to bring either up in this thread.

Opebo,

Your defense has become strained, particularly by your refusal to support your claims with evidence.

[The Duke]

Unreformed welfare was only 1% of the national budget, far less than we give to useless missile shields, pointless public works programs, and a large group of old people who could survive on their savings without grasping for their Social Security check. The fact of the matter is that there is enough private wealth in this country to support every shiftless Faulpelz for the rest of his or her life. The only thing that stops us is an ability to countenance the suffering of others.

Missile Defense was is far less than 1% of the Budget.  Its actually, about 0.4%