For those of you who believe in leprechauns, mermaids, and the benevolence of the National Security Agency, here’s another addition to your list of the unreal: the Republican Party’s desire to help millions of poor Americans.

And why, you could wonder, is the GOP being mentioned in the same breath as anti-poverty programs? Politics. Just politics. Republicans in Congress don’t believe the government’s efforts to help the poor over the last 50 years has yielded enough benefits. Presumably they mean benefits to the poor, but being Republicans, you can never be sure. According to The New York Times, the Republicans want to cast themselves in a more caring way (never mind their continuing efforts to take money away from food programs for the poor, to keep the unemployed from getting more benefits and to abandon fuel assistance funding for cold Americans).

Over the next few weeks, we seem likely to hear some Republican proposals to help the poor. These will be — surprise! — market based, according to the Times. Translation: if the proposals actually help the poor, great, but the focus will be on cuts in a lot of different programs, some of which will surely impact low-income Americans.

Here’s one clear example of why these proposals almost certainly won’t provide any serious of seriously intended help to the poor. Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah — the state that continues to demand its right to discriminate against gays seeking legal marriage — would like to give states more control over Medicaid money and over Head Start funding for early childhood education. What a ghastly idea. Already, you may recall, the federal government offered states millions of dollars for Medicaid programs, only to find a number of governors (Republicans, by the way) who rejected this free money to help their own citizens. Let’s say that one more time so you’re clear: some states refused to accept free money to help their poorest citizens. And Sen. Lee wants to give the states control of funding for a variety of programs to help the poor? It doesn’t take a PhD to figure out that’s going to be a no-win for people with no money.

The number of people officially described as living in poverty has declined from 25% 50 years ago to about 17% in 2012. That’s an improvement if hardly cause for rejoicing. And it has happened in spite of the opposition of many Republicans over that half a century. Moderate/Progressive Republicans in the 1960s and ’70s (they went the way of dinosaurs) supported the anti-poverty programs, but since the 1980s it has been unfettered opposition by the GOP to one degree or another. And when it comes to the Tea Party Republicans, it is total opposition. It would truly be refreshing if the party desired to help the poor with serious proposals, but I’d suggest you listen carefully to what you will hear in the coming weeks. My guess is they will be more self-serving that serving the needs of the poor.