Recently, Barack Obama was accused of “gutting welfare reform” in some of Mitt Romney’s ads of which the following is an example:
This has been widely recognised as a distortion; PolitiFact calls it a “pants on fire” lie. In reality, Obama is allowing state governments to waive certain parts of the welfare reform’s performance measures in favour of alternatives, provided that there is evidence that the state is achieving the principle aim of the reforms–putting people on welfare to work.
That’s all widely known at this point. What I’d like to talk about today is why we really would be better off if Obama had in fact gutted American welfare reform. It’s a bold claim, and not a very politically popular one in the times in which we live, but hear me out. I propose that a welfare system with no demand or encouragement to reenter the workforce is in fact better for the capitalist system.