I just expected some explanation in the article from the governor explaining why he did it even though he didn't want to because the democrats and activist judges made it his only option.

I'm in a couple welfare programs now. I'm aware of the trap that's created in our current system where it can make more sense to underachieve to keep welfare rather than work your way out of it and lose eligibility by taking a slightly better job. The system should be reformed. But the standard republican solution is to take a machete to it because fuck the poor, these programs don't work at all, burn it to the ground. The rational solution to me is to ease people out and roll back benefits slowly as their income increases after they're accepted so they aren't caught in a catch-22 as they advance.

But I don't make policy and conservative policy for thirty plus years has been "fuck the poor and be angry at your neighbor for his $192 a month in food" because when you can divide the poor as a voting bloc, you got carte blanche to exploit single issue voters who will give up welfare inadvertently to "save the unborn" or "send back the illegals".

Are Republicans playing checkers against the Democrats playing chess? Bowknow. They're winning with a very simple strategy for now though