It’s a lie born of one of those old, Reagan-era wars between the left and the right over whether to reform welfare. The “welfare queen” label persisted, prompting the left to recast the debate from “welfare queen” to “children.” A nation fed up with the entitlement mentality of adults could be coerced into expanding social programs so long as the beneficiaries were “children.”My first impulse is to write AJC Public Editor Matt Kempner, but frankly I'm tired of the "technically it's not inaccurate" spin. Also, he's now on twitter, so he'll see this soon enough.
Welfare as we know it wasn't switched to focus on children for political convenience - it has always been about children.
The first modern incarnation of welfare in the U.S. was Aid to Dependent Children. It was later renamed Aid To Families with Dependent Children. But children have always been there and no doubt will always be there.
Do not be fooled by Jim's insidious obfuscation, no one qualifies for what we know as welfare if they do not have children. Period.
An argument can be made against our social programs, but it should be made without resorting to falsehood.