This is a smart column. If Romney is nominated, Obama will have a field day with that gaffe. To counter it, Romney should offer substantial plans to improve the system of welfare that we currently have. It serves its purpose, but, as Ed said, someone as smart as Romney could vastly improve it. That would be a serious counter argument to the coming attacks that Obama will bring on this issue.

But he really doesn't care about the poor. We already knew that.

Romney would be smarter if he laid out his vision of what needs fixing and how he'll do it. Saying 'but I ran Bain Capital' isn't enough.

Professor you seem to think that sponsorship of various programs in different agencies cause a failing safety net system. Failure results from being underpowered and underfunded. If any one truly cared about people not having enough to eat, in the world's most productive farming country, the problem would be solved, and not by building large food banks in Boston or other urban enviroments, but by providing food. If we cared about the homeless, we'd build housing to end the problem.

I wish presidential campaigns consisted more of technocratic debates about how we can make programs more efficient. But I'm not holding my breath. Elections unfortunately aren't won that way.

This of course assumes Romney cares about the poor, has a program to outline, and is a substantive candidate. He does not care, has no program, and is vapid.