Trump Admin: Stop The Soft Bigotry Of The Welfare System

Trump Admin: Stop The Soft Bigotry Of The Welfare System

There is a stark contrast between the Trump and Obama administrations. That’s pretty obvious. That’s like saying there’s a difference between night and day.

Perhaps the most telling difference is the way in which they address government handouts. Recent news has come out that casts a light on the Trump’s agenda. It also highlights how this White House intends to fix the growing problem of getting Americans back to work.

We all should be thankful that America is a country that helps people in need. Even conservatives like myself understand that times can get tough. Knowing that we can get support from the government is reassuring. Not everybody has a rich uncle that can bail them out of trouble (I know I don’t). Programs like Food Stamps, Welfare, Unemployment, and Medicaid can literally mean life or death.

But where and how do we draw the line? How far does the government’s responsibility extend? For some liberals, there is no line. People should be able to depend on government handouts for as long as they like. Heck, some even suggest that the government provide universal paychecks for everyone!

As amazing as that may sound to some, it’s a terrible idea. So is the idea that the government should provide entitlements indefinitely. The goal of a thriving country is for everyone to be working. We should work for our keep.

But unlike socialist regimes, Americans aren’t slaving away for their glorious leader. We are free to work any way we see fit. That includes getting a good job to support your family or starting your own business. Or maybe even putting tape on your face for fame and fortune!

It seems like government entitlements don’t encourage that kind of attitude. Over time they infantilize a population. Why bother going out there are earning your nut, when you can sit back and get checks from the government? I mean, it sounds like a plan, but that can get boring very fast. Not to mention it creates a burden on our society.

Our goal should be Americans working hard to earn their dreams. It seems like Trump agrees with me.

In remarks this week before the National Association of Medicaid Directors, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma said the president supports measures that would help recipients “move up, move on, and move out” of the program, designed to help low-income Americans.

“Believing that community engagement requirements do not support or promote the objectives of Medicaid is a tragic example of the soft bigotry of low expectations consistently espoused by the prior administration,” Verma said, according to The Washington Times.

“Those days are over.”

Verma “defined community engagement as working, volunteering, going to school or obtaining job training,” The Times reported. (Conservative Tribune)

Before you start accusing Trump of robbing old ladies of their checks, think about it. When Obama entered the White House, the country was facing a recession. He used that crisis to weaken standards of government handouts. Of course, politics were involved in that move. It would make many recipients happy. Sounds great? Not really. Because in doing so, he was saying, “Hey, we know you’re too pathetic to earn things for yourself. So here, have a handout.”

That’s what is known as “soft bigotry.” The left is very good at it. When pretending to defend minorities, gays, or women, they create low standards for them. They are not interested in equality, but pandering to segments of our society for votes.

In the past, entitlement programs had certain requirements. People could get food stamps or Welfare, but they had to be working at least part-time. Or agree to a government-funded job training program. At the very least, they had to be looking for work. Most if not all of those standards are called discriminatory by the left. Why? Because it seems like they actually believe many Americans cannot even do the basics.

“Let me be clear to everyone in this room — we will approve proposals that promote community engagement activities,” she said.

“Every American deserves the dignity and respect of high expectations, and as public officials we should deliver programs that instill hope and say to each beneficiary that we believe in your potential.” (Conservative Tribune)

It’s not too much to ask to have people doing something with their lives. Listen, life can be hard. Bad things happen to good people. It’s nice to know that, should the worst occur, people can get help from the government.

But those same handouts can be abused by less-honest folks. Billions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to literally support households. After a certain point you have to ask, shouldn’t these people at least try to find work?

The economy is rebounding. Unemployment is at a seventeen-year low. More jobs are coming into the country. That means people can work to support their families. This is a good thing. When you work for your keep, you have the potential to earn much more than that government check.

Unfortunately, there will always be people who want to abuse the system.

To be clear, we’re not talking about harming the elderly, or people who are genuinely sick and cannot work. But that didn’t stop liberals from jumping on that tired argument.

“Not only will work requirements impede access to health care coverage for individuals who aren’t able to work, but they will also create difficult administrative hurdles for the vast majority of individuals on Medicaid who are already working,” Catherine McKee, a senior attorney with the National Health Law Program, told The Hill. (Conservative Tribune)

But as Zeal pointed out, that’s never been the case.

First, it’s worth noting that, much like other articles of entitlement reform, this would almost certainly apply to able-bodied adults without children who have the ability to work, but choose not to…

Kentucky, for instance, says it can save $2.4 billion over five years if able-bodied adults without children participated in either job training or other community engagement for five hours a week, which would increase to 20 hours after one year on the program without a job, according to The Hill. (Conservative Tribune)

Five hours a week, my friend. That’s hardly a burden. You mean to tell me there are people taking checks who can’t even bother to do that? I think the liberal argument breaks down at this point. Lazy butts need a swift kick once and a while. Trump’s reforms will do a whole lot of good for a large segment of our society.

And save the taxpayers cash and grief.