Before leaving my house today to join in the North Carolina “Moral Monday” demonstration in downtown Raleigh, I saw MSNBC correspondent Craig Melvin do a story on the protests.  He interviewed Jotaka Eaddy, NAACP Senior Director for Voting Rights, asking her opinion about the interesting demographics of the arrestees.  


The crowds at these rallies have been overall fairly diverse, and people of a variety of races and cultures have joined the smaller group of hearty souls volunteering to be arrested.  But by the numbers, the latter group – the arrestees – has been a remarkably white, older, middle- or upper-middle class set.  During the news segment, video footage of Moral Monday arrests ran on a split screen opposite the interview.  Melvin observed that while the protests have been led by the NAACP, an organization created to support people of color, a lot of white folks have joined in.  Viewers were shown arrests of a few of them; a 60-ish, carefully-coiffed lady in a tailored silk blouse; a woman in her early 30’s in business attire; an older, bearded professorial-looking gentleman, who, incidentally, was wearing a grey hoodie to signify his allegiance to Trayvon Martin’s cause. 

Eaddy’s answer to the question about this profile of demonstrators was perfectly fine.  She explained how the new voting restrictions will affect voters across demographic lines; not just minority and poor voters, but young voters, seniors, and the disabled as well.  College students will have a harder time voting under the law, and elderly and disabled people of any race or economic status are statistically less likely to possess one of the strictly defined, government-issued photo ID’s required under the bill.  Indeed, injustice aside, the law is poorly conceived logistically, and may impact all voters.  Early voting days are well-used in North Carolina.  If we eliminate them, we will see longer lines on election days. 

But truth be told, many of the people volunteering to be arrested at the General Assembly building during these demonstrations are among those least likely to be affected by the pending bill.  They are professional, educated, employed or retired.  They likely already possess a valid North Carolina driver’s license.  If not, they are likely able to obtain the official documents they need to apply for a state ID.  In fact, it’s their ordinary access to resources and services that allows them to choose to go to jail for political reasons.  They are likely to have some professional, civic, or academic familiarity with the workings of the justice system, as well as access to money for bail and legal fees, free time or flex-time, and support networks. 

That doesn't mean it isn't hard to do this; it takes guts for anyone.  Some arrestees risk professional or familial censure.  Some of them are facing down fears of panic that can arise from sitting in a jail cell.  All of them are agreeing to an utter loss of freedom.  And nobody is making them do it.

So why are they there?  Why do they put their bodies on the line; offering their wrists up to be cuffed, climbing on a prisoner transport bus, staring into the glare of the mugshot light; fingertips inked for prints, and file into a jail cell to await release on to a downtown street in the wee hours of the next morning? 

They go to show allegiance to fellow citizens who will be affected by this bill.  They go in solidarity with those who will soon learn that although they are eligible, registered voters, state lawmakers have chosen to proactively and tangibly discourage them from voting.  

These arrestees exemplify an impressive combination of compassion, insight, and rage. Realize, the oldest of them have witnessed a better way than this.  They have been here during a time - over the last half-century - during which their country learned in fits and starts how to improve access to the polls.  They have seen, over these decades, legions of leaders from both parties strive to make it more possible for everyone to participate in the democratic process.  They have seen both conservative and liberal politicians say, this is critical.  Everyone must have a part in selecting their representatives.  It is essential to the integrity of our system.

Now our arrestees see something very different - something sinister – taking hold in powerful places.  They see conscious efforts to dismantle those decades of good work.  They watch public servants making cynical, short-sighted, and destructive policy decisions.  And they are wise enough to know the damage will be real, and it will hit hardest those who are least able to stand up to power. 

Understand what our arrestees understand: that strict voter ID requirements and reduced voting hours serve no legitimate purpose, and could potentially affect over 300,000 NC voters.  Understand that there will be folks who have counted on expanded voting hours in past elections, who will struggle to make it to the polls, or will be unable to wait hours on Election Day for their turn to vote.  Understand that there will be registered voters who will arrive at the polls on Election Day without possession of an accepted form of ID, who will be turned away.

Understand that there is simply no justification for strict ID requirements.  We have years of evidence showing that protecting the ballot from fraud is simply and effectively done without such requirements.  The threat of voter fraud has proven to be insignificant.  Of course, to the legislators currently in office in North Carolina, "insignificant" is too high a risk.  They have made it clear that they would rather see a number of eligible voters turned away from the polls than a single fraudulent vote cast.  Even still, a higher level of ballot security can be achieved without disenfranchising anyone.  The threat of fraud is so low that high-enough security standards are easily met by requiring voters to provide more readily obtainable forms of ID, such as voter registration cards, medical cards, work ID’s, bank cards, student ID’s, nursing home residence papers, even utility bills or other official mail.  It would be hard to even quantify how low a risk there is that someone would determine to impersonate another voter, arrive at the right polling place at an opportune time, present any card or document in their victim’s name, be handed a ballot, and cast a fraudulent vote. 

It is an understanding of this undemocratic solution to a non-existent problem that has infuriated and mobilized our arrestees.  They see that despite having been presented with copious research and personal testimony on such hazards to be faced by legitimate voters, our state legislators are stubbornly voting this bill into law. 

Our arrestees are standing up in the name of those who can’t.  They are saying with their actions that if these lawmakers want to marginalize some of the very people they represent; people who can’t afford to go to jail to prove a point, then they themselves will go.  Enthusiastically, they will go. 

Think about that.  How does it make you feel, knowing there are those whose own right to vote is not threatened by this bill, who are carving out space in their lives to be arrested protesting it?  I’ll tell you how it makes me feel.  It makes me feel teary.  It makes me feel awe, and gratitude.  It gives me a lump in my throat, and hope.  Today it made me think about a piece of music I cherish; the plaintive and stirring U2 song, “One”.    

Some of the lyrics of the song could be said to reflect on how things go wrong between people.  Listening to it today, the first few verses made me think about the mentality leading to the creation of the malevolent legislation we're seeing.  I hear the way these guys talk about the constituents they don’t care for.  I see how they choose to govern those who have so little - by starving them of support, tampering with their rights - while expecting them to participate as fully and effectively as anybody else in American society.  From the song: “Will it make it easier on you now, you got someone to blame… You act like you never had love, and you want me to go without…you ask me to enter, then you make me crawl… Did I ask too much?  more than a lot?  You gave me nothing and that's all I've got.”

Of course, most of the song is explicitly about who we as a people should be.  It’s about how we are different from each other, but we share "one love, one blood, one life."  And that "we get to carry each other."  

We get to.  
We get to carry each other.  
We get to carry each other, people.

*************************************************************************
One

Is it getting better?
Or do you feel the same?
Will it make it easier on you now?
You got someone to blame
You say

One love
One life
When it's one need
In the night
One love
We get to share it
Leaves you baby if you
Don't care for it

Did I disappoint you?
Or leave a bad taste in your mouth?
You act like you never had love
And you want me to go without
Well it's 
Too late
Tonight
To drag the past out into the light
We're one, but we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One

Have you come here for forgiveness?
Have you come to raise the dead?
Have you come here to play Jesus?
To the lepers in your head

Did I ask too much?
More than a lot.
You gave me nothing,
Now it's all I got
We're one
But we're not the same
Well we hurt each other
Then we do it again
You say
Love is a temple
Love a higher law
Love is a temple
Love the higher law
You ask me to enter
But then you make me crawl
And I can't be holding on
To what you got
When all you got is hurt

One love
One blood
One life
You got to do what you should
One life
With each other
Sisters
Brothers
One life
But we're not the same
We get to
Carry each other
Carry each other
One.  One.

Try this one:
Poor people just want a hand up,
not a hand out.

Conservative pundits are very stressed right now, fretting about how to position themselves on Mitt Romney's comments at a May fundraiser in Florida.  In a just released video, recorded by a hidden camera, the Republican presidential candidate is seen wringing his hands, convinced that almost half the country is belligerently dependent on the government. 


His supporters don't know how to spin it.  Not because they disagree with what Romney said, but because they're afraid he won't get elected and put his ideas into action. 

Some think he got the numbers wrong.
Okay...so if it's not 47%, what's the right number?  It doesn't matter.  It wouldn't matter if he said 37%, or 27%.  He mis-characterized the group of people he's talking about. Who cares if he got the head count wrong?

Some think he sounded mean and stupid. 
That he could have found a more graceful way to phrase it.  But it's the idea, that liberals want people to stay dependent, that is mean and stupid.  It's the idea that people receiving public assistance are happy with their lives, and want to reelect this President so he can keep their checks coming in while they do nothing, that is mean and stupid.  It's better that he said it in such an ugly way.  It's ugly.

Some think he didn't really mean it. 
Mitt Romney doesn't really mean this?  "... there are 47 percent who are with (Obama), who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it."

If Mitt Romney doesn't mean that, it's only because he doesn't "mean" anything.  It's because he doesn't think deeply about anything, and doesn't care much about who we are in this country. That's the only way that excuse works; if he didn't mean what he said in that videotape, it's not because he means something more hopeful, caring, and respectful of his fellow citizens.

The best Republican response is from the irrepressible Grover Norquist. 
Not surprisingly, he's in the I-like-what-Romney-said-just-not-how-he-said-it camp. He merely wants the campaign to get their wording right. He was relieved to talk to an operative who assured him they had sorted out their responding rhetoric. "I went up to the campaign and I said, What’s your take on this? And I got back the perfect answer: 'We’re working to provide opportunity, while the other team is trying to teach dependence.' And (Norquist chortles,) we win that fight in America.  If this was Bulgaria in 1957, I’m not sure we’d win the debate. In the United States, we win that debate."

Thing is, though, the other team is not "trying to teach dependence."  What we are trying to do is give people a hand up, not a.. well, you know the saying.  We try to explain this over and over.  And yet, here we are again.  Now it's Communist Bulgaria.

To review: 

• Believing that government must play a role in guaranteeing that people have food and shelter, when they otherwise wouldn't, is not teaching dependency. 
• Believing the government should play a role in providing for its citizens' education, health care, and infrastructure, is not teaching dependency. 
• Believing government can play a role in teaching illiterate adults to read, so they can get jobs and pay taxes and support their families - is not teaching dependency.
• Believing government can play a role in helping ex-convicts re-enter society - so they can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting - is not teaching dependency.
• Believing government can provide job-training to low income youth - so they can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting - is not teaching dependency.
• Believing government can contribute funds to agencies that teach budgeting, treat addiction, and counsel the homeless - so that more people can get jobs and pay taxes and be self-supporting is not teaching dependency.

These things have nothing to do with teaching dependency.  Quite the opposite.  To use Grover's words, we're working to provide opportunity.

Mitt Romney has made plain what we've always presumed his dark fantasy to be: he believes nearly half of this country comprises a maladjusted, useless, huddled mass. 

Mitt, you have so much to learn about the country you love and want to lead.  Let me see if I can help you down your path of discovery.

• Actually, each and every person on this earth is "... entitled to health care, food, and housing." Applying that to everyone on earth, that's my opinion. But at least for those who live in the US, it's settled law. It's the "life" part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

• Even if this imaginary group - this mass of whining, irresponsible parasites - existed, rest assured, you and your fellows at that fundraiser would be the last folks on earth we would turn to for help.  You aren't at any risk of misleading "dependent" people into thinking you would throw us a crumb.
• It doesn't exist, this scary group you describe.  Mitt, you patriot, you celebrator of the American people, you don't know your own country.  And you're missing out.

Your vision of the poor people in this country embarrasses you.  Shouldn't you know, at your age, and with your breadth of life experience, that there are whiny, irresponsible parasites at every income level.  Yes, sir, there are individuals who walk around feeling entitled to be handed something they haven't earned.  One can find them living as inner-city thugs, middle-management loafers, and, well, high-level corporate predators. 

But the underclass you envision as dependent is made up of the hardest working people you'll ever find.  You are actually talking about the backbone of the country, Mitt. 

I would have thought a finance guy would take a look at the numbers before making such proclaimations: If you had stopped to compare the number of people on some kind of assistance with the number of people hunting for work, holding down part time jobs, holding down several jobs, working jobs and going to school, working jobs and raising kids, you'd have realized the only way it adds up is when working people still aren't making enough to eat.  They don't stop working when they get food stamps, Mitt. 

You're talking about the people that wait for the bus and catch rides and go to their service industry jobs and hospital jobs and day care jobs and maintenance jobs and food service jobs.  

Think about what you're saying, Mitt - that half the country is sucking off the other half.  You don't know what you're talking about.  But you're talking about us, and we're offended.

I will try to assume that GOP Senator Jeff Sessions, (R - AL), doesn't understand that the specter of the hungry child is real. 
He can't knowingly accept the existence of actual hunger in this country, and still say that it is a colleague's proposal to end that hunger that is immoral.

I'll try to assume that those who decry the rising cost of the federal food stamp program as the problem, rather than the rising need for food stamps, are simply confused.

I have to believe that they truly aren't processing the fact that they are trying to reduce the deficit by forcing desperate people who come to agencies looking for help to literally go away hungry.

Here are just three ways we could adjust the tax code to save more than enough money to make up for what Republicans are suggesting we rob from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, (SNAP), a.k.a. food stamps. 

•  1. Get rid of the rule that allows stock holders to "lease" their holdings to banks for several years, avoiding capitol gains taxes on those funds.  This costs the Treasury billions of dollars a year, far more than the amount we supposedly are being forced to glean from the food stamp program.

•   2. End the practice of allowing corporations to use one value for their stocks for tax deductions and use another value to sell.  This is sort of like the Blue Book value vs the market value of a used car.  You report one to the IRS, and one to potential stock holders, and can actually come out ahead by showing the loss.  Billions lost to the treasury.

•   3. Close the loophole that allows huge, profitable corporations to pass out massive numbers of stock options to executives then claim those as losses to lower their taxable net profits, and even go into a loss, meaning future taxes are plunged even lower.  More billions.

 
These are just three quick examples to show that there is money that can be moved around without touching food stamps.  I know this is a simplistic way to look at it - it's almost silly to set up my argument this way,  I do it to illustrate a point, and there are surely countless easier and more immediate ways to shift funds to avoid cutting spending on a program that literally keeps people from dying. 

There is no better way to ensure we feed the hungry in this country than keeping SNAP funded.  There is no more direct, efficient way to cause people to have food in their mouths.  This is a matter of giving people who don't have enough to eat a debit card they can use to purchase food.  This is about beans, apples, ground beef and milk - it is not theoretical, it is not a legitimate question of policy. 

The program isn't intended to replace efforts to help people get back to work so they don't need food stamps.  Feeding people should not be questioned in discussions about how to improve the economy over time.  I have no problem debating the merits of closing tax loopholes.  I understand there is an argument to made by some on the Right that reducing benefits and advantages enjoyed by the wealthy could stifle investment.  My point here is that there is no legitimate reason to suggest that the only way to reduce the deficit would be to take it out of the food stamp program, or that it would be okay to do so if even if there was no other way.  What could be more urgent than this? 

Let's be fair and assume that conservatives and liberals agree on this; we should feed the hungry.  And that we all look forward to a time when fewer will face hunger.  The axiom "give a man a fish, he will eat for a day; teach a man to fish, he will eat for a lifetime" resonates with people from all political persuasions.  The majority of us even agree that the government has some role in providing that initial fish, if you will, so while we do argue about the scope of programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and Social Security, you don’t hear many calling to shut them down completely.

Most of us would also concur that in the long run, we’d rather teach someone to fish, allowing as many folks as possible to participate actively in our social and economic systems. 

You wouldn’t know it by listening to the zealots of any ilk, but most of us, across parties and ideologies, want the same things.  For example, you don’t find mainstream Republicans rejecting interstate roads, safety standards for pharmaceuticals, or a federal court system.  You won’t find most Democrats claiming they don’t enjoy material comforts, appreciate the entrepreneurial spirit, or want young people to aspire to their highest goals, whether that means becoming an artist or a wealthy CEO. 

Most of us, left or right, are neither radical socialists, or robber barons.  

It's when we we turn to the question of how to lift millions of poor-but-able adults out of poverty, our viewpoints do start to diverge.  What should we expect of the individual, despite their circumstances and external barriers to success?  What role should government play?  We know that escaping really tough beginnings is statistically unusual.  And I would hope most people know that many, many people in living in poverty labor hard to improve their lot - research bears that out as well.

Again extending the benefit of the doubt, I truly believe that most of us, left or right, want as many folks as possible to be happy, healthy, and productive.  There is plenty of altruism among every political sector, and there is also a healthy self-interest in seeing the country thrive.  So how do we get there?

The conservative “bootstraps” ideal clashes with the liberal “intervention” ideal, and, stoked by opportunistic punditry and entrenched suspicion, animus has flourished.  It’s a complex area, and stereotypes have evolved to the point of of mythology.  We default to lashing out, with “why can’t these people just get a job??” versus “why do you people hate the poor??”  We fall prey to cynical voices, shrieking that heartless conservatives want to eat caviar while hungry babies cry, or that smarmy liberals want feckless thugs to revel in lives of state-sponsored ease.  

In reality, it is possible for well-meaning people (to paraphrase the old saying) to differ on how to best teach someone to fish.

Some of the misunderstanding may come from of a lack of awareness about the differences between the kind of “situational poverty” that has come out of the recession, as opposed to the more prevalent “generational poverty” that has existed in the US for well over a century.  The most promising remedies to these two very different problems are not the same.  Add that to the fact that poverty is an emotional issue, and that our vocabulary about it has been ravaged by cable news and talk radio, and you have ordinary people with opposing viewpoints seeing each other as immoral lunatics.  

If we could tone down the demagoguery, we could learn to apply the best aspects of both approaches:

• An authentic emphasis on job-creation and recovery could be applied to help those devastated by the economic collapse. 
  
• Robust federal investment into ravaged communities could ease suffering from chronic poverty, and provide a way out.

While Republicans have been forced by a few into espousing radical theories, support for their classic ideas is widely distributed across ideologies.
Eliminating pointless and outmoded regulations allows businesses to use increased revenue to hire more people.
Tax breaks for small business encourage new ventures and expansion of existing operations. 
Federally-funded social programs should be accountable and transparent, and evaluated for effectiveness. 
Without the right formatting, ample assistance programs run the risk of encouraging dependency.

Democrats have been pushed to fight tooth and nail to protect basic entitlements, so their demands may have come to sound strident and one-dimensional.  But the desire is not to simply truck in endless supplies of free goods and services to poor communities, achieving nothing but stasis.
The desire is to provide training, skills-building, support services, encouragement, and access to opportunity, to people who aren’t getting it elsewhere. 
The idea is that people naturally want to better and support themselves. 
That social programs are an investment. 
That by funding the teaching of literacy, job skills, effective parenting, family-budgeting and health management, the country will profit from a stronger and more productive citizenry.  

In any case, we’ll need to re-learn how to work together as soon as possible, because the country can only afford so much fish.

_And who would think otherwise?  Well, recently in a comment on another post, I was asked for the liberal viewpoint on this question: "When it comes to poverty, is all suffering bad? Why or why not?"

I don't know that there's a liberal viewpoint on this, but it's an easy question to answer. 
Yes.  When it comes to poverty, all suffering is bad.

_Legions of people throughout time hold their humble beginnings as one of the best things that could have happened to them.  Many have found poverty be a circumstance that forced them to fight for survival and success, to appreciate what they have now, and to be able to see others with more compassion.  One of the most adaptive character traits a person can have is the ability to grow stronger from suffering.

But while overcoming the barriers set up by living in poverty can be empowering if certain variables are present, such as a strong family system, a helpful mentor, success in school, or an exceptional individual vision; it must be remembered that it's the act of overcoming hardship that promotes confidence and further success, not the hardship itself.  When the means aren't there to convert hardship into fuel, overcoming it is not always a realistic expectation.  The hardship itself, and the suffering it causes, cannot be viewed as a good thing.

_ One of the most important concepts explored in religion, philosophy, and psychology is the value of transcending suffering.  This is a process supported by society when people face any kind of suffering, whether it be from dealing with cancer or grief, from violence or sexual abuse, from the loss of a job or a divorce.  But is the same process possible for the suffering that comes from watching your kids go hungry?  What if a violent event is not an extraordinary but a daily occurrence?  What if the loss of a job leads very swiftly to the loss of a home?  Being laid off may challenge a middle-class person to reevaluate their career or go back to school.  For a low-income person, it could mean moving into a shelter.

People in poverty suffer from everything everyone else does, but with fewer resources.  It is much harder to take a hit when you are already down.  Lower-income people are more severely impacted by things that can strike anyone, like a natural disaster or the loss of a loved one, because there is often more financial devastation that occurs in the wake of these events.  For example, a middle-class person who is in a terrible car accident is more likely to have auto insurance, medical insurance, paid sick time, a comfortable environment to recuperate in after leaving the hospital, and adults with flexible schedules and transportation who can help out.  If you've gone through something like this yourself or with someone close to you, you know what enormous obstacles are faced at such times for people in any economic circumstance.  Insurance doesn't come close to covering all the costs.  There are things like physical therapy, co-pays and deductibles, lost work time not covered by benefits, and the many incidental expenses that rear their heads in a crisis.  People without insurance, without a strong family structure, without any paid sick time, living in a small or ill-equipped home, may not ever fully recover.  Injuries can become permanent disabilities.

There is always the potential for someone who has experienced any type of suffering to eventually learn to use it as fodder for growth.  But I see absolutely, positively, no value whatsoever in allowing poverty to exist anymore than we can help it.  It is simply much less possible to find meaning in being hungry or cold, especially over many years, without hope, than it is to find meaning in suffering on an existential level.

Moments of grace can take place when light is seen at the end of a tunnel.  If one keeps trudging, it is possible to one day feel oneself to be the better for having walked through it.  But if the tunnel only stretches further at each turn, or grows darker from additional burdens, how often can that transcendence occur?

So, when it comes to poverty, is all suffering bad?  For me, the most fundamental answer lies in the philosophy that inspired the framework for this website, Abraham Maslow's theory of the Hierarchy of Needs. 

Only when people have food to nourish their bodies should they be expected to turn their suffering into food for the soul.

I stumbled across the clip below late yesterday, and it stayed with me all night.  I woke up and watched it again to make sure it wasn't a bad dream.  What bothers me so much about it is the forthrightness of these people's prejudices, and the unapologetic effort of this government official to encourage them.  The clip encapsulates the ugly mythologies and willful ignorance that define the conservative side of the class war.  


It's a video clip of NC Speaker of the House Thom Tillis, (R-Mecklenburg County) speaking recently to supporters, advocating for entitlement reform.  

On its face, reform is a worthwhile endeavor.  While I oppose Tillis' proposals for drug-testing of people on welfare, and required volunteer work for people on unemployment, he has every right to suggest policy changes and make a case for them.  He also has a right to his own philosophies about what it means to be on public assistance.  I appreciate his... clarity about the fact that he thinks there is one type of person on assistance who is "respectable" and one type who isn't.  The former, according to Tillis, would be a woman in a wheelchair with cerebral palsy.  The latter would be a woman "who has chosen to have 3 or 4 kids out-of-wedlock."   Respectability is subjective, and as voters, we do want to hear such sentiments stated, loud and clear.  In his position, Tillis has a responsibility to form opinions about government provision of welfare, officially called Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).  While I find his opinion to be simplistic and callous, at least his honesty lets me know where he stands.

And he is honest.  According to Tillis, what we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance.  We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy, and had no choice in her condition - that needs help, and that we should help - and we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government.  And say: at some point, you're on your own.  We may end up taking care of those babies, but we're not going to take care of you.

Wait, wait.  Hold on.  I'm being unfair to Tillis; I've put his ideas into such crude and judgmental terms that I'm bordering on being disrespectful   No public servant could be that obtuse about the complexities of poverty and public assistance.  That's probably not exactly what he meant, and I shouldn't put words in his mouth.  Let me go back and listen again, and transcribe exactly what Tillis said, word for word.  Then you can compare it to what I wrote above.  

According to Tillis, "what we have to do is find a way to divide and conquer the people who are on assistance.  We have to show respect for that woman who has cerebral palsy, and had no choice in her condition - that needs help, and that we should help - and we need to get those folks to look down at these people who choose to get into a condition that makes them dependent on the government.  And say: at some point, you're on your own.  We may end up taking care of those babies, but we're not going to take care of you." 

Okay, so I was quoting him directly.  But again, as unsettling as this is to listen to, Tillis has a right to a point of view.  

What he doesn't have a right to do though, is lie, through statement or omission.  He doesn't have a right to knowingly exploit the trust of his constituents and assist them in maintaining an untrue vision. 

Tillis has been a North Carolina State Legislator for over five years.  He has claimed entitlement reform as a personal cause.  It's perplexing then when he demonstrates less than a layperson's understanding of the difference between disability, welfare or unemployment.  But much more disturbing is observing him moving artfully, deceitfully, from presenting proposals and points of view to suggesting and reinforcing falsehoods.  Tillis cannot have been a legislator this long, identifying himself as an advocate for change on this very issue, without knowing the basic facts about our state's version of TANF; NC Work First.  It would be inexcusable for him to be this ill-informed about the program, and unconscionable for him to be this proactively misleading about it, so there is no acceptable explanation for what he presents here.  

The myth of the able-bodied young woman hanging out on welfare, answering to no one, having more babies to increase her benefits was never realistic, but it became less than possible nearly two decades ago.  Massive federal welfare reform laws were signed into effect in the mid-nineties by President Bill Clinton.  The most important aspect of this reform was to solidify work requirements and establish stricter time limits.

Tillis knows this.

While the work requirements and some other aspects are defined at the federal level, a lot of responsibility for program design and administration was turned over to the states.  So it's possible that somewhere in the country, there is a state that has found a way to be more lenient in its application of federal standards.  Considering the reforms were expressly designed to rectify weaknesses in the welfare system that seemed to encourage generational poverty, it's unlikely.  And certainly in NC, since well before Speaker Tillis was elected, these programs were transformed into time-limited, employment-focused programs, providing subsistence-level monies, requiring participation in job training and budgeting counseling, with a focus on moving towards independence, and a clock on eligibility that is not restarted with the addition of new family members.  No one is bringing darling little bundles of dollar signs home from the hospital.  A newborn baby can add roughly $90 a month to benefits, which are calculated partly by family size, but that amount only offsets the additional expenses a baby brings.  In most cases, benefits will still remain under $1000 a month.

Tillis knows this.

So when one gentleman in Tillis's audience raises his hand to suggest that there should be some modicum of follow-up on the county level when people are given government money, some kind of system in which government officials could at least take a look at beneficiaries, and ask them some questions from time to time, Tillis knows but does not say that in fact, NC Work First goes much further than that.  Program oversight is very structured and strict.  It relies on much more than a once-over by staff to assess whether beneficiaries are keeping their nails clean and their shirts ironed.  The gentleman with the concern said, "The county - DSS in each county - ought to be required to bring the people in periodically and see what they're doing and question them, see if they're trying to find a job, what kind of shape they're in.  You can look at somebody and find out a lot about them."  Tillis's inscrutable response; "I don't understand it... everybody says it's because they're all looking for jobs.  Folks..." whereupon he launches into a bizarre proposition that people on unemployment have plenty of time on their hands and ought to be required to do 15 hours of community service a week.  

At the end of the clip, there is a moment of humor for the discerning viewer as Tillis squirms away from the suggestion by another audience member that all state employees, (which would include Tillis) be drug-tested.  But most of it is grim, as this state representative uses populist fabrication to encourage class distrust.  Does Thom Tillis want to solve problems in North Carolina?  Does he even misguidedly want to "create a sense of responsibility and obligation on the part of people receiving welfare" as he says at one point, or does he just want to push buttons and inflame people, who will then look at him as a hero?  

You be the judge.