The Woman's Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act: Discussion

[QuarkCharmer]

Anyone heard about this yet?

Work Act:

Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required "work activity" that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the federal program that emerged from the 1996 welfare reform. Some states make an exception for mothers with children less than a year old.

The Woman's Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, a copy of which was provided to HuffPost in advance of its introduction, would allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home with their children and continue receiving benefits.

I'm curious what peoples thoughts on this are.

 

[Evo]

Sounds like they're out to embarrass Romney. Silly. IMO, of course.

 

[Jack21222]

Sounds like they're out to embarrass Romney. Silly. IMO, of course.

It's been silly on both sides. Republicans went on the offensive after some random talking head commented that Romney's wife never worked a day in her life. Democrats went on a counteroffensive after unearthing Romney taking a similar position to the one he's now outraged about, and this is a continuation of that.

Republicans shouldn't have blown the original comment from a talking head show out of proportion, and Democrats shouldn't be proposing a bill specifically to score political points.

 

[russ_watters]

Sounds like they're out to embarrass Romney. Silly. IMO, of course.

Agreed. If they hadn't introduced it directly in response to the flap about Romney's wife it might be worthy of some discussion, but it almost isn't even worth it at face value. I'll try anyway...

1. At face value, it just extends/federalizes an exemption to a law that already exists in many places: 4 years instead of 1 year of child raising allowable for a woman on welfare. That is not, at face value, an unreasonable thing. Debateable, sure, but not unreasonable. The only direct connection with the Romney's wife flap is that they stated that that's the purpose to get people like this blogger to write silly articles about it.

2. Romney's wife was lucky (?) enough to be able to stay home and raise her kids, but the blog article implies she got paid for it. She didn't.

3. Romney's kids were born in '70, '71, '75, '78, & '81. That's a lot of kids and 15 straight years of having a kid aged 4 or under (depending on the exact birthdates of the '71 and '75 kids). She can truly be said to have been a career mom. And in addition to age, quantity affects the workload as well, of course.

 

[russ_watters]

It's been silly on both sides. Republicans went on the offensive after some random talking head commented that Romney's wife never worked a day in her life.

And why not? It was a really stupid thing to say, so they tried to capitalize on it. That's politics.

Democrats went on a counteroffensive after unearthing Romney taking a similar position to the one he's now outraged about, and this is a continuation of that.

That's simply a falsehood being implied by the Democratic Congressman and dutifully picked-up and hardened by HuffPost and this liberal blogger: Romney never stated that women should be paid for raising children. It is a pretty simple piece of logical fallacy:

1. State a similarity between two differen things.
2. Connect that similarity to other areas that really aren't related.

For example: Winning the lottery is about as likely as getting struck by lightning, so the government should pay me for getting struck by lighting.

It just doesn't follow.

Republicans shouldn't have blown the original comment from a talking head show out of proportion, and Democrats shouldn't be proposing a bill specifically to score political points.

Um...you have heard of "politics", right?

 

[Jack21222]

It was a really stupid thing to say, so they tried to capitalize on it. That's politics.

You cannot simultaneously approve of the Republican politics of blowing Rosen's statement out of proportion and condemn the Democratic politics of blowing Romney's statement out of proportion.

I personally condemn both, and think that you should do the same. Or at the very least condone both. Otherwise, you just sound like a hypocritical party shill.

 

[Number Nine]

And why not? It was a really stupid thing to say, so they tried to capitalize on it. That's politics

Why was it stupid? Ann Romney was being presented as an authority on the employment concerns of women, and it was, correctly, pointed out that she has never actually been employed. You can, of course, take the position that proposing a bill specifically to draw attention to the dishonesty of Romney and his supporters is ridiculous, but I honestly don't understand the outrage over the comments themselves. They were factually accurate and relevant.

 

[russ_watters]

You cannot simultaneously approve of the Republican politics of blowing Rosen's statement out of proportion and condemn the Democratic politics of blowing Romney's statement out of proportion.

I didn't condemn Democrats for trying to diffuse the situation - they of course should and many did by agreeing that Rosen said something stupid. What I condemn is certain dems for doing a bad job of responding. Romney was given a layup and he scored. Some dems responded by falling on their faces.

Don't be sillly here guys: Hillary Rosen is a Democratic strategist and a woman and now Democrats and women are criticizing her. Clearly, she has failed at her job in this instance.

For my part, I'm a man who often sticks his foot in his mouth when talking about/to women, but even I'm smart enough to realize that the "work" issue is a minefield. It forms the basis of perhaps The classic argument between married couples precisely because the word "work" has two meanings that could be applied in this context. Sure, everyone knows which context/definition Rosen was using, but that doesn't stop men from being ripped by their wives every day for making the mistake of using the same phrasing. Rosen should be smart enough to know that the comment would backfire.

 

[russ_watters]

Why was it stupid? Ann Romney was being presented as an authority on the employment concerns of women, and it was, correctly, pointed out that she has never actually been employed.

A comment can be factually accurate and stupid at the same time*.

Important caveat: I'm not sure the original comment was factually accurate. According to her wiki, Ann Romney was director of a charity. Now I don't know if it was a paid or volunteer position, but it seems to me that it is the type of position that should be considered "work" in the employment sense.

You can, of course, take the position that proposing a bill specifically to draw attention to the dishonesty of Romney and his supporters is ridiculous...

I don't and didn't say I did: What I think is ridiculous is trying to point out a lie by lying.

BTW, here's the actuall comment that started this:

What you have is Mitt Romney running around the country, saying, 'Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues, and when I listen to my wife, that's what I'm hearing.' Guess what? His wife has actually never worked a day in her life...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...asily-divided/2012/04/15/gIQAxEqBKT_blog.html

*It isn't clear to me that you were being factually accurate there either. Did Romney specifically mention his wife's "employment concerns" or just "economic concerns"? Because clearly, pointing out that she never worked is factually accurate regardless of context, but if there never was a claim about her working, then saying it is at best a red herring/intentionally misleading statement.

There's lots of viable paths for criticising the Romney's on understanding the economic woes of the poor, but Rosen picked perhaps the worst possible thing to say to try to point it out.