Ways And Means Targets Welfare Work Requirement

Expect renewed attention on the welfare debate as a bill to block President Obama's waivers goes to markup. Two House committees — Ways and Means, and Education and the Workforce — will consider the resolution Thursday morning, just a week after government investigators ruled that Congress could review the controversial policy. Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) said this week that he anticipates a floor vote soon, and predicted the Democrats would join Republicans in support of the bill.

Under the administration's revised policy, federal waivers would allow states to test new approaches to boost employment among low-income families. In exchange, states would have to prove that their new methods are effective, or lose the waivers, the administration says. The move comes in response to Republican and Democratic governors' requests for more flexibility under the landmark 1996 welfare-to-work law, but Republicans say waivers will "gut" the law's work requirement — a charge fact-checking organizations have questioned.

Click to expand...

The Obama administration circumvented federal law in announcing it would waive the work requirements in welfare, a GAO review found, saying that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should have submitted the new policy to Congress for review.

At issue is whether the policy falls under the purview of the Congressional Review Act (CRA) that requires all administrative changes of policy or regulation be submitted to Congress for review and possible disapproval.

The GAO, in a letter to House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Senate Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said that the July 12 change in policy falls under the CRA and should have been submitted to Congress for approval.

Click to expand...

tererun said:

Considering this is invisible Obama and his imaginary words again, I do not see what the big deal is. obama merely allowed these places to put in their own policies to get welfare recipients back to work. this actually increases states ability to operate their own DSS and enact their own policies. Not to mention republican run states are ones requesting this waiver. Even then obama has learned to make sure the policies work by requiring an actual plan to get people back to work, and results to allow for the waiver.

but don't let the facts get in the way, you keep attacking invisible obama while the real one continues to show the fail that is the modern republican party, and their Romtard glorious leader.

Click to expand...

I do not see

Click to expand...

tererun said:

Considering this is invisible Obama and his imaginary words again, I do not see what the big deal is. obama merely allowed these places to put in their own policies to get welfare recipients back to work. this actually increases states ability to operate their own DSS and enact their own policies. Not to mention republican run states are ones requesting this waiver. Even then obama has learned to make sure the policies work by requiring an actual plan to get people back to work, and results to allow for the waiver.

but don't let the facts get in the way, you keep attacking invisible obama while the real one continues to show the fail that is the modern republican party, and their Romtard glorious leader.

Click to expand...

Thrilla said:

speaking of facts... the GAO stated Obama circumvented the law.

you ok with that?

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

Do you really think your...and Obama's...rationalization trumps the law?

If so, that's a perfect example of why our country is in so much trouble right now.

Y'all think if you can rationalize it...it's okay.

Well...we'll let Congress be the judge, eh?

Click to expand...

tererun said:

I don't get why you guys are not Ok with giving the states the authority to adjust their welfare programs to fit with their local people. You guys are all supposedly about states rights, and a reduction of federal interference, but here you seem to be arguing the federal government is the be all end all of right and wrong.

OK, if congress is right then clearly obamacare is what is best for the country, after all they passed it first. This is your logic telling us all that when congress does it it is automatically right. You are going to either have to drop that and come up with a good argument, or admit obamacare is what is best for america. that is what is called a corner, and enjoy your time in it.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

The fact is, the law was quite specific in its wording and intent. Obama changed that intent with his order...and, he didn't run it by Congress first. It's a clear case of legislating by executive order.

Anyway, it seems Congress doesn't take lightly this kind of action and intend to do something about it.

So it goes.


btw, your attempt to deflect and connect this to Obamacare is pathetic...and a failure.

Click to expand...

tererun said:

So you do regard the actions of congress to always be in the right and obamacare is OK by you. I just wanted to get you to admit that.

Anyway, he can try to do things to help out. I am not seeing what your argument is with this, it is an attempt to allow the states more options to get people working and the idea that it somehow eliminates the work requirement is just false. There is a difference between saying don't require them to work or help us to get them back to work by trying ideas we have not thought of. You are intentially misleading people and trying to claim obama is trying to drop the work requirement when it does not do that at all. Oh, and it would be within the presidents power to implement the requirements of the act. That is a bit of the job of the executive branch. As long as obama is accomplishing the goal of the law to get people back to work this is just election year bull**** by republicans in congress.

Let me ask you, if obama is still trying to accomplish the goal of the law, and is just executing it in a way that is specific to the geographic location as he is saying, then is he actually changing legislation? You are trying to tell us he is changing the law when he is really just tweaking how they are going to accomplish the goal. in no case has he said the goal of the law is to be changed.

Click to expand...

Newt Gingrich argued today that the proposed changes to welfare reform should be seen as unacceptable.

“The fact is that secton 407 was written not to be waivable,” Gingrich stated in a conference call with reporters today sponsored by the RNC.

“The hardcore liberals like Barack Obama were deeply opposed to the bill,” Gingrich added, “and even after Bill Clinton agreed to sign the final version, half the Democratic party in the House voted no and if you go back and read what they were saying, there’s a deep, deep bitter opposition to work requirements on the hard-core left.”

He also had praise for Clinton, who signed the welfare-reform bill into law.

“In many ways, Obama is the anti-Clinton,” Gingrich remarked, saying Clinton moved the Democrats to the center, while Obama has moved the party leftward. “I hope every American when they watch Bill Clinton speak [at the convention] will realize how much weaker and less effective a president Obama is than the man who is nominating him.”
Gingrich: Welfare-Reform Act Shouldn’t Be Changed - By Katrina Trinko - The Corner - National Review Online

Click to expand...

tererun said:

Thinking of the alternative which is Romney, yup i am perfectly Ok that obama tried to give the states the ability to produce new local policies that may be succesful, and that reflect their locality in order to get more people on welfare jobs. Who knows, maybe one of these states might come up with another good way to get welfare recipients back to work?

Click to expand...

Just a small question, are you OK with the republicans trying to force local states to comply only with federal policies and not have the authority to do things to help their people locally? that doesn't seem to go along with that whole states rights thing. It would seem obama is trying to give the states authority to govern their welfare payouts themselves while requiring success.

Click to expand...

Mycroft said:

Instead of drinking the Obama koolaid you would be better served by listening to the man who got Clinton to pass the Welfare Reform Act:



Now...I'm sure, like a good little liberal, your first impulse will be to bad-mouth Gingrich because he's a Republican. Try to resist...because he knows more about this issue than anyone else...including Obama.

btw, this is what Obama thinks about the Welfare Reform Act:

Click to expand...

tererun said:

No, my first response is to say that did not address the issue. Obama is not removing the work requirement at all. He is just allowing it to be implemented as the states see fit. You have not said anything about why that is a problem, and why you are trying to deliberately say that Obama is stopping the requirement which is not true in any sense. You can put Newt up there all you want, but I want you to explain it to me. Explain to me how allowing the states to use their own ideas on how to get welfare recipients off to work is a bad idea. Obama even put in conditions so that they would have to have a plan and see results. I don't see what the problem with this is at all. It seems to me that obama did the right thing here, and you are just complaining because he did it.

Click to expand...

tererun said:

Considering this is invisible Obama and his imaginary words again, I do not see what the big deal is. obama merely allowed these places to put in their own policies to get welfare recipients back to work. this actually increases states ability to operate their own DSS and enact their own policies. Not to mention republican run states are ones requesting this waiver. Even then obama has learned to make sure the policies work by requiring an actual plan to get people back to work, and results to allow for the waiver.

but don't let the facts get in the way, you keep attacking invisible obama while the real one continues to show the fail that is the modern republican party, and their Romtard glorious leader.

Click to expand...