tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post2002304346580688593..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: Hard cases and bad lawRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-53709823533001165242007-06-26T20:36:00.000-05:002007-06-26T20:36:00.000-05:00Ricksince you seemed to be saying a couple weeks a...Rick<BR/><BR/>since you seemed to be saying a couple weeks ago that you're the kind of conservative willing to spend money to help those truly in need . . .this seems to be the quintessential case where you should be on the side of the W-2 applicant.<BR/><BR/>Poor women, with minor children, who try hard and through no fault of their own can't find work . . . and you object to the state giving them a grant (a measly $673/month - or about $150/week) while they search for work?! <BR/><BR/>Do you know how many of these families - including one of the ones in this case - end up homeless? how many children get pulled into foster care, because of state imposed barriers like this? <BR/><BR/>These are not women with "cultural deficiencies" - they are women who have tried, hard, to deal with the limited opportunities available to them. They deserve some meaningful help to keep their families together. <BR/><BR/>(I also think you're wrong on the law - a strict constructionist reading easily gets you where the court of appeals ended up. and folks who have advocated in the W-2 system - as I have - know that).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com