Obama is the Braxton Bragg of the Left's #WarOnPoverty

Historical footnote, Braxton Bragg was the dubious Confederate general who had some successes, but mainly failures, and a petty penchant for fobbing off blame of failures onto others:

Even Bragg's staunchest supporters admonished him for his quick temper, general irritability, and tendency to wound innocent men with barbs thrown during his frequent fits of anger.

The left celebrated 50 years an $20 Trillion of LBJ's War on Poverty in which poverty seems to be winning, or at best, in a draw:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Obama waged war not on poverty but unconstitutionally on the 1996 GOP Congress/Clinton welfare to work reforms :

 

 

These historic reforms were passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. They ended the entitlement to welfare and replaced it with a more fiscally-sound block grant to the states. Known as "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families" (TANF), the grant program provided states with unprecedented control over welfare programs in exchange for meeting meaningful federal work standards.

 

There seemed to have been some pushback against gutting welfare to work reform in 2012, but it seems to have sputtered as purely an election year tactic.

 

 

.@RepDaveCamp, @SenOrrinHatch threaten #subpoena over #HHS welfare waivers http://t.co/DElcxSHj
— The Hill (@thehill) February 4, 2013

Or as The Hill commenter commented "Why would Dems want to get anyone off of welfare?  that's how they buy votes."

OH Rep Jim Jordan lobbied to streamline the 77 Federal Welfare programs to reduce overhead

The federal government has 77 different programs run by various agencies that provide benefits and assistance specifically to poor and low-income Americans. We should give taxpayers a clearer picture of total welfare spending at the state, local, and federal level by requiring the President to report these figures in his annual budget.




Since 70 ¢ of every tax $ goes to government administrative costs:

Government spends about 70% of tax dollars to get 30% of tax dollars to the needy. The private sector does the opposite, spending about 30% or less to get 70% of aid to the needy

it would seem logical to reduce public sector overhead to be more in line with its private sector counterparts, but since that would reduce government union/Democrat party slush funds, it probably won't happen, either.

 

as Limbaugh corroborated in his commemoration of the 50 year loss in war on poverty:

 

 

The Democrat Party claims to want to help people. What they actually do is grow government. What they're really interested in is expanding government, not helping people.

In addition to promoting the concept of work, Heritage promotes the concept of encouraging intact families, which seems to be just as taboo of a subject:

In addition to promoting work, any serious effort on behalf of those in need must get serious about restoring marriage, America’s most important inoculation against child poverty. Children born and raised outside of marriage are more than five times more likely to experience poverty than their peers raised in intact families.

However, I'll end on a glimmer of hope from Ronald Reagan's son, Michael:

The best exit strategy [on the War on Poverty] would be one that stopped emphasizing welfare, which only increases and perpetuates dependency, and start emphasizing marriage, responsibility, and jobs.