Re "Even Tougher Love for Welfare Moms," Commentary, June 11: Because welfare mothers have made chronically poor decisions in their lives (children out of wedlock, multiple children, teenagers having children, lack of education, drug usage), American taxpayers--who are already taxed to the hilt--will be expected to continually reward these poor decisions. UC Berkeley professor Bruce Fuller calls the Bush welfare initiative "radical" and states, "the president's plan would alter childhood as we know it."
Professor, would it be the president's plan or the mother's lack of planning that would alter childhood? It's also curious how the left continually champions the push for more child care and the merits of it, yet the professor calls 40 hours of child care "grueling." Which is it? How does the professor balance "advancing women's work opportunities while strengthening their parenting role"? In real life, you can't have both, one will always be shortchanged