Once again Rep. Steve King shows how irrational ideology can make some people. According to King there are over 100 million people between the ages of 16 and 74 who simply are not in the work force. This number is arrived at by looking at the 88 million who are actually considered to not be in the work force and adding those who are part of the regular unemployment numbers.

He makes it clear that in his opinion every one of them is voluntarily not working while they should be and are capable of doing so, comparing them to children who refuse to do their chores and would find themselves being told to do their chores or they don’t eat. He does acknowledge that some of the younger ones are students but apparently they should be working part time to contribute to GDP. He justifies going up to the age of 74 because WalMart will hire people at that age.

What kind of people actually buy into this kind of “logic”? Students who don’t have to work shouldn’t focus on school and preparing for post-secondary education? People who can afford it shouldn’t retire at 65 for fear of being considered some kind of slacker? It does seem to fit in with the irrational belief that unemployment is a choice that some on the right seem to hold, given his decision to include those who are out of work but still looking for a job in his numbers.

Meanwhile, not everyone agrees with the direr interpretations of the decline in the work force participation rate. Business Insider tells us that Michelle Meyer from Bank of America thinks it’s a combination of secular reasons and the economic cycle. Advisor Perspectives has another expert whose take is that when you look deeper at what’s behind the numbers demographics play a big part and the numbers are actually not that bad if you are using them to help measure the economy.

Huffington Post had an article in April that just doesn’t jibe with King’s apparent belief that the ranks of the unemployed are mostly not working because they don’t want to work. I have to admit that I think HP’s take is much more accurate, especially since Rep. King is so out of touch that he can come up with this gem.

The Iowa Republican argued that “there’s not one person the world that’s memorized the names” of all of the welfare programs offered by the United States government, which he claimed “guarantee almost a middle class standard of living.”

First, I really want to know what kind of a mind it takes to think that the ability to memorize the names of welfare programs is some kind of meaningful metric. Given the maze of rules and the limited time frame that many of these benefits have I just have to doubt the claim that lots of people have managed to achieve anything close to a modern middle class lifestyle using government benefits. Facts, though, have little ability to persuade some people based on recent history.