The New York Times’ welfare reform editorial suggests caution in jumping to praise the success of the changes signed into law by President Clinton back in 1996.
While asserting that the numbers are better than expected, Douglas Besharov maintains that a number of other factors may have contributed to the outcome. These factors include a resurgence in the economy and the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Everyone knows someone in all class that would like to get paid for doing as close to nothing as possible. Former SEC chair Dick Grasso springs to mind. His lawyers modified his retirement benefits (typically based on life expectancy) and drew down additional millions. Grasso basically claimed his life expectancy should be based on only 50% of that of a healthy male – the other 50% should be for a woman. Why? Because women live longer than men – and Dick would be entitled to more money. The paradox of a Dick posing as half a woman is sensational enough, but the moral of the story is that morality and wealth remain strangers in a foreign land.