Another Dictate by the Imperial President

[Nanker]

The President nullifies part of the Welfare Reform Act of 1996.

 

Under the guise of providing states greater “flexibility” in operating their welfare programs, the Obama Administration now claims the authority to weaken or waive the work requirements that are at the heart of welfare reform. But Congress intended that those requirements be absolutely mandatory in all instances and specifically withheld any authority to weaken or waive them. Waiving the work requirements that are at the center of the 1996 welfare reform is not only terrible policy, but also a violation of the President’s constitutional obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

 

Even after President Bill Clinton twice vetoed welfare reform legislation, Congress refused to budge on the core requirement of Section 407, insisting on strong work incentives to discourage abuses and to help lift recipients off of welfare and out of poverty. And it worked: Employment surged, caseloads dropped, and child poverty plummeted.

 

Say what you want about Welfare reform, but if BO wants something and he's denied it by law - he does it anyway.

[WorldTraveller]

Romney has a pretty hard hitting ad that is set to hit the airwaves on this topic. I believe on his bus tour thingy he's got lined up for this weekend he's gonna hit this theme often.

 

[DC Tom]

Romney has a pretty hard hitting ad that is set to hit the airwaves on this topic. I believe on his bus tour thingy he's got lined up for this weekend he's gonna hit this theme often.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F4LtTlktm0

 

Would have been harder hitting, I think, if he'd played up the whole "Arbitrarily changing the definitions of laws" angle.

 

Romney's welfare "reform" (or any thing else he runs on) isn't going anywhere, for the same reason Obama's didn't: Congress won't let it. But what a missed opportunity to say he'll work with Congress, not arbitrarily ignore them when they're inconvenient.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Would have been harder hitting, I think, if he'd played up the whole "Arbitrarily changing the definitions of laws" angle.

 

Romney's welfare "reform" (or any thing else he runs on) isn't going anywhere, for the same reason Obama's didn't: Congress won't let it. But what a missed opportunity to say he'll work with Congress, not arbitrarily ignore them when they're inconvenient.

Why in the world we he attempt to illegitimize the full power of the imperial presidency when it's almost within his grasp? These massive over-reaches nearly never reverse.

[WorldTraveller]

Maybe, but when you say “Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job, They just send you a welfare check”

 

That stings.

 

Now, the only thing that one can question about this ad is that he says it as fact. That isn't the case, however it COULD be the case.

 

The Heritage Foundation has a good explanation on this as well does

 

 

"The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 stands as perhaps the most important entitlement reform in the nation’s history, chiefly because of its core requirement that able-bodied parents eligible for welfare assistance work, search for work, or train to work. Its centerpiece (and the most controversial provision at the time of its passage) is Section 407, “Mandatory Work Requirements,” which sets out an absolute requirement that state welfare programs achieve specific work-participation rates or forfeit federal funding.

 

Even after President Bill Clinton twice vetoed welfare reform legislation, Congress refused to budge on the core requirement of Section 407, insisting on strong work incentives to discourage abuses and to help lift recipients off of welfare and out of poverty. And it worked: Employment surged, caseloads dropped, and child poverty plummeted.

 

Under the guise of providing states greater “flexibility” in operating their welfare programs, the Obama Administration now claims the authority to weaken or waive the work requirements that are at the heart of welfare reform. In particular, it argues that Section 1115, which provides waiver authority for states to establish demonstration projects, authorizes it to approve state programs that “test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407,” including different “definitions of work activities and engagement.” In this way, states could evade Section 407’s work-participation requirement without sacrificing federal funding.

 

But the Obama Administration’s claim that it may weaken or waive work requirements is contrary to law. Section 407 establishes a stand-alone requirement for state welfare plans that brooks no exceptions, befitting its status as the core component of the 1996 reform. It is also absent from the list of requirements that may be waived under Section 1115. Indeed, to eliminate any possible ambiguity as to whether the work requirements could be waived immediately following passage of the 1996 reform, a separate provision specifically states that waivers “shall not affect the applicability of section [407].”

 

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/08/welfare-reforms-work-requirements-cannot-be-waived?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Heritage%2BHotsheet

 

 

 

 

Mickey Kaus from the Daily Caller:

 

"Congress . . . put a lot of effort into resisting efforts by governors (including GOP governors), bureaucrats, paleoliberals, and non-profit softies to water down the work requirements (by allowing, for example, extended “job search” or BS-type activities like self-esteem classes, and more generally by emphasizing what will help “place” existing recipients in “good” private jobs instead of deterring possible future recipients from making the choices that land them on welfare).

 

The authors of the law thought they’d restricted HHS’ authority to undermine the work requirements. Comes now HHS secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius to claim she has broad authority to dispense with all those requirements through waivers, subject only to her opinion as to what is “likely to assist in promoting the objectives” of the welfare law. TNR‘s Ed Kilgore loyally declares ,”The Obama administration has not changed the architecture of the 1996 welfare reform law at all.” But that’s wrong. The legal architecture of the work requirements has been altered dramatically. Old system: Congress writes the requirements, which are … requirements. New system: Sebelius does what she wants — but, hey, you can trust her!"

 

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/08/the-case-for-romneys-welfare-attack/

 

Now you are seeing a fervent defense from the liberal media and their left leaning fact checkers such as Politifact (who btw is a sham of a fact checking source)

 

The reason why they are coming to a strong defense on this issue is two fold.

 

a) It's a potent issue that certainly hits liberals at their core

 

b) They see it as a race issue, one that implies Obama a black man (I know that goes without saying, but it provides context in this particular case) being the champion of welfare a perceived black persons form of handout.

 

From what I'm reading, this is a real issue, one that Romney should hammer away.

[kota]

Obama gets my vote.

[....lybob]

"Under Obama's plan, you wouldn't have to work and wouldn't have to train for a job," a Romney ad claimed. "They just send you your welfare check, and 'welfare to work' goes back to being plain old welfare."

PolitiFact gave this attack a "pants on fire" rating on Wednesday, saying it ignores the fact that the waiver will only be extended to states that seek to increase the percentage of welfare recipients engaging in work.

 

...“The truth is that the president is giving states additional flexibility only of they move more people from welfare to work – not fewer,” said Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith, adding Mr. Romney requested similar leeway during his tenure as the governor of Massachusetts. “By falsely attacking a policy that both he and his Republican allies have supported for years, Romney is once again flip-flopping on a position he took in Massachusetts and demonstrating that he lacks the core strength and principles the nation needs in a president.”..." WSJ

 

Sure a number of Republican governors including Mitt seemed to want the increased flexibility on the issue.

 

Meanwhile, Romney's own signature on a 2005 letter advocating for more flexibility has been a sticking point. On a conference call, Romney's campaign said that though he signed on with other Republican governors to support more flexibility on TANF, the governors were also in favor of increasing the overall welfare work requirement. The 2005 letter, which Gov. Rick Perry also signed, touted "increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs."

 

 

but now I realize now that Republicans want rigid rules and regulations coming from Washington and I hope Obama will oblige them in his second term

 

 

 

As for the ad I think it will be effective, an updated Southern strategy if you will - Rush Limbaugh make the strategy clear "The Objective is an expanding welfare state. The Objective is to take the nation's wealth and return it to the nation's Quote....."Rightful Owners" Think reparations. Think forced reparations here if you want to understand what actually is going on."

[WorldTraveller]

Except that's not what he did. He requested more flexibility not to waive the worker requirements. That's the main distinction between the two - And see post #5 that debunks Politifacts findings.

Edited August 9, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[Rob's House]

Except that's not what he did. He requested more flexibility not to waive the worker requirements. That's the main distinction between the two - And see post #5 that debunks Politifacts findings.

Politifact is a joke.

[....lybob]

Except that's not what he did. He requested more flexibility not to waive the worker requirements. That's the main distinction between the two - And see post #5 that debunks Politifacts findings.

Magox you already know what I think of your character- and the Heritage foundation is a Koch right-wing propaganda spew factory- so I give your post#5 zero weight.

[Rob's House]

 

Magox you already know what I think of your character- and the Heritage foundation is a Koch right-wing propaganda spew factory- so I give your post#5 zero weight.

I'll give you tha Heritage isn't the beacon of objectivity like the highly respected arbiter of truth that is Politifact, but they do their homework.

[WorldTraveller]

Magox you already know what I think of your character- and the Heritage foundation is a Koch right-wing propaganda spew factory- so I give your post#5 zero weight.

 

So in other words, you got nothing, as usual...Hey, I gotta give you some credit, at least this time you were able to communicate a thought without having to post a youtube video

Edited August 9, 2012 by WorldTraveller

[Koko78]

Say what you want about Welfare reform, but if BO wants something and he's denied it by law - he does it anyway.

 

Much like when he ignored the federal courts and kept implementing illegal drilling bans, he just disregards those pesky congressional mandates when they become inconvenient.

 

Ignoring the other two branches of government? It's the right thing to do.

[B-Man]

Clinton’s Deceptive Defense

By Robert Rector

 

 

President Obama has announced his intention to issue waivers that would exempt states from federal welfare-to-work requirements, overturning the foundation of the successful welfare-reform law of 1996. And now former president Bill Clinton, who signed that celebrated measure into law, has rushed to Obama’s defense by confusing his own record.

 

In proclaiming the authority of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to unilaterally waive federal work standards, Obama clearly is violating the law. After a campaign ad for Mitt Romney attacked Obama for gutting the core work requirements of welfare reform, Clinton issued a statement attempting to defend the legality of Obama’s move.

 

Clinton’s statement declared that, as president, he “granted waivers from the old law to 44 states to implement welfare to work strategies before the welfare reform passed.”

So Clinton seeks to use waivers he granted in the early 1990s to justify Obama’s effort to use waivers to overturn the 1996 law.

 

Clinton does not actually lie. He rightly says that the waivers he granted applied to the old law and program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), not to the new law and program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). Although AFDC had permitted HHS to waive provisions relating to work, the TANF reform did not permit such waivers.

 

Clinton was in the White House for four and a half years after the passage of welfare reform, but he never once suggested he had authority to waive the work standards in the new TANF program — although he had vetoed an earlier version of the bill. It was obvious that no such waiver authority existed.

 

{snip}

 

The left wing of the Democratic party adamantly opposed federal work requirements in 1996. It sought to repeal these requirements entirely during the TANF reauthorization debate in 2002. Now, since the Democrats have been unable to abolish workfare legislatively, the Obama administration has overthrown the work provisions through bureaucratic action. It has staged a coup d’état in welfare.

 

Americans, however, are extremely fond of the concept of requiring able-bodied welfare recipients to work for their taxpayer-funded benefits. Hence the Obama administration’s desperate attempts to blur the difference between Obama’s waivers and Clinton’s.

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/313563/clinton-s-deceptive-defense-robert-rector

[IDBillzFan]

Ignoring the other two branches of government? It's the right thing to do.

 

Fired up. Ready to go.