HuffPo: Welfare Recipients = Stay-at-Home-Moms

Democrats continued their “war on moms” via the Huffington Post this weekend by equating stay-at-home mothers to welfare recipients. Their headline:

“Mitt Romney: Mothers Should Be Required To Work Outside the Home Or Lose Benefits.” 

They quote Mitt Romney from a January speech in which he stated that he felt that women who received federal assistance should be required to work in order to discourage dependency on government programs. HuffPo then clumsily argues Romney is anti-stay-at-home-moms because he doesn’t support those stay-at-home-moms who receive government assistance.  

HuffPo’s illogic is both horribly offensive and inaccurate. Stay-at-home mothers with an employed husband generally don’t live off of public assistance funds; in fact, they’re paying for the entitlements received by those on the federal assistance programs Romney describes. But that doesn’t stop HuffPo: 

Regardless of its level of dignity, for Ann Romney, her work raising her children would not have fulfilled her work requirement had she been on TANF benefits.

The proper word here is “duh.” Ann Romney wasn’t receiving government funds; her family paid its own way. What a silly analogy.  

HuffPo is angry at welfare reform requiring proof of work activity to receive benefits. Democrats simultaneously attack traditional stay-at-home mothers because their families are able to subsist without public help while at the same time demanding that those same families also pay for the welfare. 

It’s a clunky defense: those soaring entitlement costs that Dems defend have contributed to more women losing the choice to stay home to supplement their family’s income, thereby compromising Democrats’ faux concern for working families. Instead of making it easier for families, Democrats overburden them with regulation and excessive government spending. Democrats create policies which makes self-sustaining homemaking increasingly difficult.  

Democrats need to stop this idiotic “war on women” spin at this point. Their rhetoric grows more offensive with each attempt to defend anti-stay-at-home-mom radicals like Hilary Rosen.