Safe Mode: On
Obama's Attack on 'Workfare'

President Obama has created a firestorm by overturning the work requirements
of the popular 1996 welfare-reform law. Now his White House is bristling because
Mitt Romney dares to point out that fact on the stump and in a new campaign
ad.
Obama’s move is only the latest step in a long history of liberal opposition
to work requirements. The Left blocked welfare-reform efforts under both
Presidents Nixon and Reagan, for example.
In 1996, a Republican Congress drafted a welfare-reform law — Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) — that for the first time established
meaningful work standards for welfare recipients. President Clinton reluctantly
signed this legislation.
Ever since, Democratic leaders have attempted — unsuccessfully — to repeal
welfare’s work standards, blocking reauthorization of TANF and attempting to
weaken the requirements.
Unable to eliminate “workfare” legislatively, the Left now acts contrary to
the law and employs a bureaucratic maneuver to gut the work requirements. The
Obama administration claims authority to grant waivers that allow states to
skirt these requirements.
This hostility to workfare is deeply at odds with the public’s view. A recent
Rasmussen survey reveals that 83 percent of adults favor work requirements. Only
7 percent oppose them.
Recognizing such strong support for work requirements, liberals historically
used camouflage tactics: They publicly praised workfare while seeking to murder
it behind the scenes. The Obama administration has adopted this “talk right,
govern left” strategy.
Humorously, Health and Human Services secretary Kathleen Sebelius even
asserts that the administration abolished the TANF work requirements in order to
increase work.
This is false.


The Obama administration claims authority to overhaul every aspect of the
TANF work provisions (section 407), including “definitions of work activities
and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures and the
calculation of participation rates” — in other words, the whole work program.
Sebelius’s HHS bureaucracy declared the existing TANF law a blank slate on which
it can write any policy it chooses.
Because HHS granted itself total authority to change any aspect of the work
standards, the agency will not be bound by its state-by-state waiver approach in
the future.
Moreover, HHS has made it clear that it will not accept waivers for new
conservative policies. The agency’s guidance states that it will not approve
policy initiatives that are “likely to reduce access to aid.” Translation: HHS
will oppose any policy that reduces welfare caseloads.
Following the historic pattern, the Obama administration wrapped its
anti-work policies in pro-work rhetoric. Stung by criticism, HHS now claims that
states receiving a waiver must “commit that their proposals will move at least
20 percent more people from welfare to work compared [with] the state’s prior
performance.”
This sounds impressive, but a state can accomplish this merely by raising
monthly “employment exits” (people exiting welfare to take a job) from, say, 5
percent to 6 percent of its caseload. That kind of change will occur
automatically as the economy improves.
Liberals traditionally use sham “exit” statistics to pretend they are
shrinking welfare, while in reality they’re increasing it. Given the normal
turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of
individuals moving from “welfare to work” is to increase the number entering
welfare in the first place.
Bogus statistical ploys like these were the norm before the 1996 reform. TANF
curtailed the use of sham measures of success and established meaningful
standards: Participating in work activities meant actual work activities, not
“bed rest” or “reading” or doing one hour of job search per month; reducing
welfare dependence meant reducing caseloads. Now those standards are gone.
Obama’s goal is to “spread the wealth” by massively increasing the welfare
state. The federal government currently runs more than 80 means-tested welfare
programs. Roughly a third of the population receives benefits from one or more
of these programs. (These figures do not include Social Security or Medicare.)
Total welfare spending in 2011 came to $927 billion.
Last month, only three of these programs included any type of work
requirement. Now that number is two, since Obama ended welfare reform as we know
it.
— Robert Rector, a leading authority on poverty and the welfare system, is
senior research fellow in domestic policy at the Heritage Foundation.

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2012/08/obamas-attack-on-workfare


Added: Aug-10-2012 Occurred On: Aug-10-2012
By: GatewayMetalHead
In:
Politics
Tags: Romney, Obama, Foodstamp President, Liar, Thief, Traitor
Location: Washington, District of Columbia, United States (load item map)
Views: 2349 | Comments: 21 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 0 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 2
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Already proven to be bullshit,but you have no other chance.

    Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

    (3) | Report

  • LOL! Interesting that 2 of the 5 states that have requested to be able to submit their own welfare to work proposals so far have REPUBLICAN Governors (Utah & Nevada). Apart from that, MIT ROMNEY himself was one of 29 Republican governors who lobbied the Federal Government in 2005 to allow states to create their own workfare programs.

    We'll just chalk this up as a fail for you and yet ANOTHER flip flop for Mittens. Like most things, he was for it before he was against it.

    Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

    (2) | Report

    • @picklethepug This must be the "keep repeating the lie and people will believe it" trick.We've seen this bullshit story at least a couple dozen times over the last week.Funny thing is,it's no more true now than it was then.

      Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

      (4) | Report

    • @echo4250
      Yep...I wonder how long before the story about the guy in oregon with the illegal ponds will come up again.

      Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

      (3) | Report

    • @picklethepug All that and you can't refute anything thats being said in this article. Nice try. All you have is Obama's word ...like thats worth anything.

      Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

      (-2) | Report

    • @picklethepug I hadn't checked that out,I saw the names of the posters and figured it was some bullshit.Low and behold it was...imagine my surprise.This guy is lucky he didn't do that shit here in NJ.30 days in the pokey would only have been the beginning of his problems.I don't see a state being protective of waterways a bad thing.NJ made me get a permit for my garden well.

      Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

      (3) | Report

    • @GatewayMetalHead

      Because it wasn't Obama that changed the rules... Ask the Republican governors that wanted this changed...

      Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

      (1) | Report

  • Oh gawd, this again...

    Read the change... Read the legislature... Contact all the flippin REPUBLICANS that requested this... Then STFU!

    Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Comment of user 'Blue3tar' has been deleted by author (after account deletion)!
  • this again? pure bullshit nice try

    Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

    (0) | Report

  • I hope he takes his party and their left wing agenda with him when he goes down this November.

    Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

    (-3) | Report

  • Obama has already overseen the most dramatic rise in reliance on welfare in two generations. Now he wants to double down and make welfare even easier to obtain, cutting the work requirements that Republicans forced Clinton to pass in the 1990s, and which opponents like Ted Kennedy ultimately declared one of Washington's most successful enterprises. Kennedy and others had warned of doom and gloom if the reforms passed, but Republicans worked with Clinton to pass them nonetheless, and they worke More..

    Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

    (-3) | Report

    • @buzzardist

      Read before you post please... It will help make you look less stupid...

      Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

      (-2) | Report

    • @ILovePickles

      Did read the post, and have read various other articles from various sources on what Obama is attempting to unilaterally legislate for welfare. I'm not sure how anything I've said is contradicted by this article, except maybe on the point of liberals universally trying to undo the work requirements. Many have, but many others have begrudgingly had to admit that the reforms in the 1990s did fix many of the problems with the welfare system. Obama did remove the work requirement More..

      Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @buzzardist

      Well, first of all, this isn't the first time we've heard this... Secondly, you really DO need to read more about why this happened and why the Republicans chose to change the requirements... Obama really didn't have much to do with this...

      Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

      (-1) | Report

    • @ILovePickles Cept for the part where without his signature, voluntarily given, it went exactly nowhere. And yet, just as Clinton signed it into law, obama signed it out. Then claimed he didn't.

      *flopping fish sounds*

      Posted Aug-10-2012 By 

      (0) | Report

    • @ILovePickles

      Republicans and Clinton set those requirements back in the 1990s. Welfare spending was out of control, and many people on welfare were languishing there for years and even decades. Welfare was essentially paying them not to work. Republicans and Clinton put in place the work requirements over the heated objections of liberals, who declared that this was like putting a gun to the heads of the poor. And, you know what? None of the dire predictions of liberals came to pass, and More..

      Posted Aug-11-2012 By 

      (0) | Report