• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Romney hits Obama move gutting welfare reform

GPS_Flex

DP Veteran
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
2,726
Reaction score
648
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Romney hits Obama move gutting welfare reform | WashingtonExaminer.com
“President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare,” Romney said. “The success of bipartisan welfare reform, passed under President Clinton, has rested on the obligation of work. The president’s action is completely misdirected. Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”

Here we go with another abuse of the executive branch’s power. Obama has no respect for the Constitution of the United States. If he doesn’t like a law, he simply tries to change it via executive order. We must remove this man from office before it’s too late.
 
I don't understand the motivation behind removing the work obligation. While I think it does too little, having no requirement is even worse.

Has there been any release from the WHPC or Obama directly regarding this move?
 
Here's another article about the Obama Administration attempting to remove the work requirement from welfare:

Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change | Fox News

HHS made the announcement in a policy memo Thursday, news that slipped well below the radar amid a raucous day on the presidential campaign trail. But a few prominent GOP lawmakers on Capitol Hill picked up on the change, and accused the administration of overhauling one of the most important bipartisan agreements of the past several decades.
 
Has there been any release from the WHPC or Obama directly regarding this move?

Seems the news is just breaking and it was done on the lowdown so no, nothing from the White House yet.
 
Here's the letter. I don't understand all the legal jargon, but it doesn't seem like it's encouraging a removal of the work requirement, but more a revision to how we encourage employment among TANF recipients...

TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03
 
Most people on welfare work anyway.
 
Here's the letter. I don't understand all the legal jargon, but it doesn't seem like it's encouraging a removal of the work requirement, but more a revision to how we encourage employment among TANF recipients...

TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03

It clearly removes the requirement and changes it to “encouragement”. It basically says, try some creative stuff and report back to me.
 
If as described, this would constitute a slap in the face of Bill Clinton.
 
And this justifies Obama's move how?

I don't see the move as requiring justification. Allowing waivers is not the same thing as removing the requirement. Sometimes there are circumstances in which a waiver would be warranted, wouldn't you say?
 
While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.

I'm not seeing the problem here.
 
I'm not seeing the problem here.

Obama Guts Welfare Reform
In establishing TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from the section 1115 waiver authority. They did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats. Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115. This is section 402.

In other words, HHS/Obama do not have the power to do this. It is an attempt to waive the work requirement, plain and simple.
 
More Obama vote buying with tax money in an election year. Yes he can!
 
Obama Guts Welfare Reform


In other words, HHS/Obama do not have the power to do this. It is an attempt to waive the work requirement, plain and simple.

So we've gone from the Washington Examiner to a blogger from the Heritage Foundation. You seem to be taking their interpretations at face value.

His interpretation are entirely speculative. The requirement doesn't go away, but this guidance clarifies that states have the authority to grant waivers to section 402 which discusses how to go about meeting those requirements. The idea that this will result in people on Weight Watchers counting as "working" is wildly speculative. The goal is still to get people to work. That is explicitly stated.

But have fun with the tinfoil hat. It must be true because those darned liberals want to just give all your money away for no reason, right?

Don't you support states' rights? Shouldn't they be allowed to be flexible and test ways to improve things on their own?
 
Last edited:
So we've gone from the Washington Examiner to a blogger from the Heritage Foundation. You seem to be taking their interpretations at face value.

His interpretation are entirely speculative. The requirement doesn't go away, but this guidance clarifies that states have the authority to grant waivers to section 402 which discusses how to go about meeting those requirements. The idea that this will result in people on Weight Watchers counting as "working" is wildly speculative. The goal is still to get people to work. That is explicitly stated.

But have fun with the tinfoil hat. It must be true because those darned liberals want to just give all your money away for no reason, right?

Don't you support states' rights? Shouldn't they be allowed to be flexible and test ways to improve things on their own?

For starters, this is federal money and federal law so it isn’t a states’ rights issue.

Second, whether you agree with the conservative positions the Heritage Foundation takes or not, the explanation/link I posted in response to your comment makes sense. Obama’s/HHS’ view on the legality of this move is even more speculative however because no one has ever questioned whether congress intended to allow HHS to waive the work requirement because it was so obviously written in a way so as to prevent exactly what Obama is trying to do.

Any provision of law that can be waived under section 1115 must be listed in section 1115 itself. The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, “mandatory work requirements”). Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115; they are not waiveable.

Now, if you are making the claim that HHS is only waiving the "reporting requirements" within Section 402 and section 1115, I’m interested in knowing upon what basis you make such claims.
 
Last edited:
For starters, this is federal money and federal law so it isn’t a states’ rights issue.

Not so fast there, Slick. Medicare is federal money and federal law and yet Republicans constantly argue that states should have more freedom as to how it's implemented. Romney's whol health care plan seems to be to block grant Medicare funds to the states and let them decide how to spend it. But now you're arguing that states should NOT have the ability to grant exceptions under TANF? :lol:

You think the fact that we have 8+% unemployment might have something to do with it?
 
Last edited:
So we've gone from the Washington Examiner to a blogger from the Heritage Foundation. You seem to be taking their interpretations at face value.

His interpretation are entirely speculative. The requirement doesn't go away, but this guidance clarifies that states have the authority to grant waivers to section 402 which discusses how to go about meeting those requirements. The idea that this will result in people on Weight Watchers counting as "working" is wildly speculative. The goal is still to get people to work. That is explicitly stated.

But have fun with the tinfoil hat. It must be true because those darned liberals want to just give all your money away for no reason, right?

Don't you support states' rights? Shouldn't they be allowed to be flexible and test ways to improve things on their own?

Oh...it's about State's rights now, eh? Somehow I doubt that. If you want it to be up to the States, then repeal all federal law concerning welfare and let the States create their own.
 
Not so fast there, Slick. Medicare is federal money and federal law and yet Republicans constantly argue that states should have more freedom as to how it's implemented. Romney's whol health care plan seems to be to block grant Medicare funds to the states and let them decide how to spend it. But now you're arguing that states should NOT have the ability to grant exceptions under TANF? :lol:

You think the fact that we have 8+% unemployment might have something to do with it?

Slow down there, Sloppy. At this rate you and Deuce will destroy the world’s supply of strawmen.

My point was simple: Federal law doesn’t permit HHS to grant exceptions to the work requirement. HHS didn’t even call it a states’ rights issue. Only you and Deuce are calling this a states’ rights issue.
 
Slow down there, Sloppy. At this rate you and Deuce will destroy the world’s supply of strawmen.

My point was simple: Federal law doesn’t permit HHS to grant exceptions to the work requirement. HHS didn’t even call it a states’ rights issue. Only you and Deuce are calling this a states’ rights issue.

Well, that wasn't actually the point you made that I was responding to: "this is federal money and federal law so it isn’t a states’ rights issue."

So it seems pretty clear to me that you're making at least two points: 1) Obama doesn't have the authority to give the states this power, and 2) the states SHOULD not have this power. It SHOULD be dictated to the states by the federal government.

According to the administration, the move was made in response to complaints by state officials -- both Republicans and Democrats -- that he rules were too rigid and actually made it harder than necessary to place welfare recipients in jobs.
 
Last edited:
I don't see the move as requiring justification. Allowing waivers is not the same thing as removing the requirement. Sometimes there are circumstances in which a waiver would be warranted, wouldn't you say?

Not the same in a legal sense, but he same result. Now you know why Bill Clinton doesn't like Obama.
 
Upon further examination, the changes hardly seem sinister, nor do they "gut" the law as it currently stands. As other posters have previously mentioned, these changes were made in part due to the suggestions of state leaders of both political affiliations.

Currently, states have to have 50 percent of their caseload meet certain work participation requirements, though there are ways around that as many states fall short.
The latest department directive suggested alternative plans could "combine learning and work" to fulfill the work requirement, or let "vocational educational training or job search /readiness programs" count as well.

George Sheldon, acting assistant secretary for the Administration for Children and Families, said states will be held "accountable" for their alternative plans. He pitched the changes as a response to states burdened by current rules and guidelines.
"The new steps we have taken will give states more flexibility in how they operate the Temporary Assistance to Need Families program. And the steps we have taken were specifically requested by states led by officials from both parties," he wrote. "When the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program was established as part of welfare reform in the 1990s, it was intended to give states flexibility to design effective programs to help parents move from welfare to work. Today, however, Federal rules dictate mind-numbing details about how to run a welfare-to-work program. Most States and experts agree that these aren't helpful."
 
Last edited:
So it seems pretty clear to me that you're making at least two points: 1) Obama doesn't have the authority to give the states this power,
Correct, although we aren’t talking about “power” here, we are talking about amendments to a federal law. You might recall in your Government 101 class that the President doesn’t have the authority to pass or amend laws on his own.

and 2) the states SHOULD not have this power.
Again, this isn’t about power, this is about federal law that grants money to states for their welfare programs. If the states want the money, the states follow the requirements in the federal law. As for whether the states SHOULD have the option to wave the work requirement for federal welfare money, I say no, they shouldn’t. Many do it with their own state money which is fine.

It SHOULD be dictated to the states by the federal government.
It is a block grant for states to use for their welfare programs. Conditions and restrictions on the way that money can be used is only logical.


According to the administration, the move was made in response to complaints by state officials -- both Republicans and Democrats -- that he rules were too rigid and actually made it harder than necessary to place welfare recipients in jobs.
Guess what? We already have a process in place that allows for any changes to any laws we might deem necessary. You can learn more about how this works by reading this: Constitution of the United States
 
Upon further examination, the changes hardly seem sinister, nor do they "gut" the law as it currently stands. As other posters have previously mentioned, these changes were made in part due to the suggestions of state leaders of both political affiliations.

Go read your constitution. Just because some states desire a change doesn't mean the POTUS has the power to change the law on his own. It takes an act of congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom