Tell John Carney to support the WORK Act, so every mother in American can make the same choice Ann Romney did.

Filed in National by on April 18, 2012

Now that Republicans have flip-flopped on their decades-long denigration of mothers and decided that staying at home to raise children is work—or at least, it’s work when Ann Romney does it; poor mothers, not so much—House Democrats are telling them to put their money where their mouth is. Ryan Grim at Huffington Post reports:

A handful of House Democrats, encouraged by the recent bipartisan agreement that stay-at-home moms should be considered just as hard working as anyone in the workforce, will introduce legislation to apply that standard to mothers on welfare as well.

Under current law, raising children does not count toward the required “work activity” that must be performed by recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, the federal program that emerged from the 1996 welfare reform. Some states make an exception for mothers with children less than a year old.

The Woman’s Option to Raise Kids (WORK) Act, a copy of which was provided to HuffPost in advance of its introduction, would allow mothers with children ages 3 and under to stay at home with their children and continue receiving benefits.

Tell John Carney to support the WORK Act.

About the Author ()

Jason330 is a deep cover double agent working for the GOP. Don't tell anybody.

Comments (7)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. nemski says:

    This is great. Though I would have like the name to The Dignity of Motherhood Act (DOMA).

  2. Rockland says:

    Democrats support another handout – Real Shocker…

  3. Liberal Elite says:

    @R “Democrats support another handout – Real Shocker…”

    Yea, but it’s a nice tiny one… Not like the giant corporate welfare we pay for oil companies and big Ag.

    In fact, we pay FAR more to oil companies and big Ag than we do for ALL the social programs you whine about.

  4. Jason330 says:

    It isn’t even a give away. It is treating mothers as though being a mother of an infant is a job. last week republicans were all over it.

  5. anon40 says:

    Sorry, but I don’t buy the “stay at home mom is a job” bullshit. My mother went back to work when I was 10 years old. She worked 2 part time jobs & still managed to have a home cooked meal on the table by 6pm every night, did the laundry for a family of 5 and kept the house clean, bills paid, etc.

    My paternal grandmother managed to work a full time job, a part time job & take on upholstery and sewing jobs while raising a family of 6 in the late 1920s-early ’60s.

    I’m disgusted by the modern middle class mom who claims to do the “hardest job in the world” while texting on her iphone & sitting in her 5000 sq. ft. air conditioned home equipped w/ the latest & greatest appliances. Bitch, PLEASE!

    Try packing snuff in a shitty brick factory in Yorklyn for 8-12hrs/day 5 days a week, then coming home & cooking dinner on a wood fired stove (gas in the later decades), doing laundry in a fucking wringer washer (until 1969)& getting maybe 4 or 5 hours of sleep if you’re lucky, only to repeat the same routine the next day. Oh, you get the privilege of working at a sandwich shop Friday nights & Saturday and maybe doing some sewing or upholstery or hanging some fucking wallpaper on Sunday after church for some “extra” money.

    Cry me a fucking river & tell me how hard your life is, Ms. Modern Mom.

  6. Liberal Elite says:

    @anon40 “She worked 2 part time jobs & still managed to have a home cooked meal on the table by 6pm every night, did the laundry for a family of 5 and kept the house clean, bills paid, etc.”

    And you think this was fair?? The whole point, is that it SHOULD have been easier for her. Why wasn’t it???

    You make your case very poorly.

  7. Dave says:

    Considering the cost of child care, the concept has merit. There are obviously financial considerations for the state and federal governments, such as where the money comes to pay for it, which depends on the cost, which we do not know at the moment.

    Since the bill amend title IV of the Social Security Act to permit States to exempt single parents with children under 60 months of age from TANF participation rate requirements. I will have to go and research that before I jump on board.

    Even though this may have merit, fairness needs to be considered in light of the choices people make. Attempting to level playing fields by adjusting the field for every choice that is made means the field is constantly changing because individual choice is infinite and resources are finite.

    How about choices where someone decides to have a child every third year? Or adopt children, or foster children, (all worthwhile endeavors).

    Why age 3? Is there something magic about that age? Every child is unique. Some 3 year olds are very independent, some eight year olds are barely out of diapers. So why 3? Why not 5 or 2 or 8? Is there some social study that says that 3 is a magic number or does someone think the states won’t grumble too much about 3?

    Why just single parents? What about grandparents who are raising their children children? Or any number of other permutations of child raising.

    I can jump on board the concept that those who are raising children have a full time job. But jumping on board the bill before any analysis of the objectives, probable outcomes, resource requirements, and scope of the problem goes against the standard I have set for myself in my attempt to be a good citizen.

Switch to our mobile site