Oh, Wisconsin. You would.

A big portion of this case was spent focusing on child care, and poor parents with children, so I am going to focus on that for this entry. I find myself sympathizing with the conservatives on this one, but only to a certain extent. There are a lot of programs out there for barriers to work such as substance abuse, and I don't think what they needed was a one-stop-shop type of welfare program. While I agree that the children do suffer to an extent, this is one case where I think the parents need to get it together at some point. New Hope can direct them where to go, but I don't think of it as New Hope's moral responsibility to deal with substance abuse quite so directly. Unlike the conservatives, however, I think it is morally wrong to take children away from their parents unless every option has been exercised. "taking the child away is a necessary evil," according to Riemer. I would think that the possibility of having your children taken away from you would be a disincentive to seeking out the help offered by this program. 

I'm typically some sort of a cross between a utilitarian and an egalitarian, but each social issue has its place, and I don't think that it is New Hope's responsibility to take on every social issue relating to poverty. Separation of these things can be OK, and I liked the overall principles set up by the cross of liberals and conservatives. New Hope was not taking away any of the current care offered, it was simply adding an additional service to allow people to work their way out of poverty, overall I liked the original idea/plan anyway. I'm interested to hear what other people think of the W-2 plan that was instated and discuss that more.