Might fuck around and spend the day reading old news clips on workfare
glad to see Mr. Robert Sirico, the Libertarian Catholic, setting things straight in 1997, workfare is good and hey if you don't like, quit!
It's the same exact debate even to the point of making clearly empty and conceptually muddled promises not to replace regular public sector work
To sell the program, you say "this is real work that is important and real skills" but you also need to insist they won't do existing public sector work (real work) and the work needs to be able to go undone (not important) and able to be done by anyone (minimal skill building)
You can sort of make this work so long as those digesting it never get their head around the implications of having to follow all of the constraints simultaneously. Or you can make it work by violating some of the constraints, such as replacing public sector workers.
Most obvious way to talk about JG would be to say that workfare was a good idea but it was badly administered and then explain how things are going to be different. Instead the move is to say it is not workfare at all but is FDR stuff as if workfare people didn't also say that.
I somehow missed this in 2018 when Victor Orban did the trick where you tell the bean counters to count workfare participants as employed in order to assert that unemployment is low
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/world/europe/viktor-orban-hungary-economy-election.html?searchResultPosition=210
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/03/world/europe/viktor-orban-hungary-economy-election.html?searchResultPosition=210
letters to the editor is how people used to do posting, interesting point here about how it's like the WPA!