I didn’t think that most of these folks were “middle class,” unless we define that as anyone with a job. Most of the households make less than the median income and, in some cases, much less. The NYT does this all the time, redefining “middle class” to meet the needs of the ideological point.

Second, these are largely optional benefits. If you really don’t like the EITC, don’t take it. If you really don’t support free school breakfasts, don’t sign your kids up for them. And while it’s possible that we are leaving a debt to our children, these benefits allow families to spend money on extra-curricular activities for their children, a benefit both in the present and their future lives.

And I was particularly irritated by the man whose mother had worked three jobs to support him while he was growing up, and then criticized her for keeping her income sufficiently low to be eligible for Medicaid. Does he have any idea how much her care would cost without that? And, if it’s really that important to him, why doesn’t he agree to pay her medical bills?

Amazing that folks in other countries retire on a higher percentage of their wages and see health care as a minor expense all their lives.

Pity the American working class if it continues to accept such treatment and diverts its attention to issues that divide the middle and poor classes, as though differences in wool color have become more important than being shorn.