In the coming days, Jason Chaffetz will resign from Congress. Among the reasons he gave to The Hill for leaving public service after almost a decade in the house was the surprising confession that he didn't think he could afford to continue in Congress from a financial perspective, saying, “Washington, D.C., is one of the most expensive places in the world, and I flat-out cannot afford a mortgage in Utah, kids in college and a second place here in Washington, D.C." This is understandable. College is expensive. Housing is expensive. But what's less understandable is Jason's proposed solution to this problem.

“I really do believe Congress would be much better served if there was a housing allowance for members of Congress...” “I think a $2,500 housing allowance would be appropriate and a real help to have at least a decent quality of life in Washington if you’re going to expect people to spend hundreds of nights a year here."

Now look, I don't necessarily disagree that a housing stipend for people serving in Congress makes sense. When Chaffetz goes on to say that you shouldn't have to be among the richest Americans to be able to afford to serve in the legislature? That's a fair point. The problem is that there are other words for this "stipend" that Chaffetz is proposing legislators should receive. Words like "welfare" and "entitlements." And that's not an issue for me. I'm all for people getting welfare. A social safety net is a key part of any society. Unfortunately, you know who it is an issue for? Jason Chaffetz.

You'll recall that Chaffetz went on TV and made the argument that if poor people want health care, they should maybe not buy that new phone they want. Beyond the insulting notion at the root of that comment, that poverty is a choice, Chaffetz was arguing against entitlements and for that GOP staple "personal responsibility." What changed between then and now? Easy. Who was getting the handout.

You see Chaffetz, and many rich white people for that matter, believe that the major difference between them and the poor is how hard they've worked. This isn't to say that rich people haven't worked for what they have or "earned it," it's just to say that they can't imagine that the poor are working just as hard as they are only to run up against institutional disadvantages, overt racism, or even just plain old bad luck. So when people like Chaffetz, who have found success and wealth, still end up in a position where they're struggling, they feel like it's unfair. After all, they worked hard and did everything right! Unlike the poor, they "deserve" help. Hence they request not welfare but a "stipend."

Here's the truth: Americans by and large supported the social safety net until people of color gained access to those programs in the 1960s. Then white people conveniently forgot that coming out of the Great Depression, those programs kept us all afloat and got us back on our feet (while excluding black people from most of their benefits), and instead began believing a narrative built on the false idea that we did it all on our own. And as that false narrative took hold, we began to resent those who were using the same types of programs to stay afloat. They were called "lazy." They were called "welfare queens." They were told if they wanted health care, maybe they shouldn't buy a phone.

So I have no problem with Jason Chaffetz and members of Congress getting a little extra help to pay for their housing, but then they better stop fucking over say, single mothers in Ohio who needs help with theirs. And maybe let them have health insurance while we're at it.

Watch Now:

The Amazing New Trump Defense