King Obama still at it

Status
Not open for further replies.

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/15/grossman-gut-check-obama-waiver-eviscerates-welfar/

Citing Heritage Foundation research, Mitt Romney’s campaign ran an ad accusing President Obama of attempting to “gut” welfare reform by waiving work requirements for recipients. The Obama campaign pushed back, claiming that waiving work requirements would “strengthen” reform by helping more recipients “prepare for work.”

So let’s take a look at the facts.

In 2006, Congress replaced the failed Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with TANF — the Temporary Aid for Needy Families program. TANF made two major changes: It gave states more flexibility in running their welfare programs, but second, able-bodied welfare recipients would have to work.

Section 407, entitled “Mandatory Work Requirements,” was the centerpiece of the legislation. It requires that states reduce or terminate payments to individuals who refuse to work without good cause.

But Congress knew well that states (or a work-hostile administration) might try to manipulate their regulations to skirt the work requirement. So it established a second requirement: To be eligible for federal TANF funds, state welfare programs “shall achieve” minimum work-participation rates for welfare recipients: 50 percent for all families and 90 percent for two-parent families.

Congress also defined what counts as “work” (so the bureaucrats couldn’t count Weight Watchers or smoking-cessation therapy) and how participation rates must be calculated. And it put a hard 30 percent cap on the proportion of a state’s welfare recipients who could participate in educational activities and still be counted as engaged in work.

When Congress was done, there wasn’t any room for gaming.

And that’s where things stood until last month, when the Obama administration announced it would grant waivers authorizing states to evade Section 407’s “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”So let’s take a look at the facts.

King Obama has developed a pattern. If he doesn't like a law he will not enforce it or change it by a mere stroke of a pen. This is what kings do. Where's the uproar? Wheres congress seeking impeachment?
 
Last edited:

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Most of the major welfare reforms came under President Clinton and a Republican House/Senate. They've proved to be pretty successful and I can't understand why Obama would gut the programs that Clinton worked so hard to pass.
 

Matt1970

Lifer
Mar 19, 2007
12,320
3
0
Why wouldn't Obama change it. It's not like it had overwhelming support from the House and Senate (both sides) and signed by the President......Oh wait
 

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
King Obama has developed a pattern. If he doesn't like a law he will not enforce it or change it by a mere stroke of a pen. This is what kings do. Where's the uproar? Wheres congress seeking impeachment?

Why does this surprise you? After Obamacare was passed he granted hundreds of waivers to its requirements. If even his signature legislation was not good enough...
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,645
0
76
www.facebook.com
If all Obama did was give the States some control over it, then that's a good thing. Correct me if it is not as follows...

The federal govt mandated work requirements that the States were required to follow.
Now Obama is lifting the federal mandate and not replacing it with another federal mandate.

I don't think the federal govt has the right to give any welfare, but if the States have more control over it,then that softens the blow.
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,711
6
76
If all Obama did was give the States some control over it, then that's a good thing. Correct me if it is not as follows...

The federal govt mandated work requirements that the States were required to follow.
Now Obama is lifting the federal mandate and not replacing it with another federal mandate.

I don't think the federal govt has the right to give any welfare, but if the States have more control over it,then that softens the blow.

So its ok as long as you see it as "good"? States having more control is a good thing in my book as well. However the president doesn't have the authority to remove laws (ignore) that congress has enacted solely on his own wishes. That is a dangerous precedent to set.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.