Socialist Obama ends work requirement for welfare

[ShootSpeeders]

As with illegal aliens, we once again see Obozo brazenly ignoring laws passed by congress. He should be impeached for this. The constitution says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

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

Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change

Published July 13, 2012

Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of unilaterally gutting welfare reform after the Department of Health and Human Services quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program's strict work requirements.

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.

"President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract" Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, said in a statement. He also called the move a "blatant violation of the law."

Mitt Romney on Friday spoke up on the change, saying: "President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare." He said "the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life."

 

[The T]

So much for Obama trying to get people employed. he has just flouted the law to keep people on welfare, and make it easier to get on it without working.

As I understand it? What he did was rid the law of the work requirement which is stipulated in the law.

 

[signelect]

Obama is insane, it is vote buying plain and simple and he doesn't want the worthless to have to prove who they are to vote either.

 

[The T]

Obama is insane, it is vote buying plain and simple and he doesn't want the worthless to have to prove who they are to vote either.

Yep.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

This is more racism. He wants to take from working whites and give to deadbeat blacks. It's NOT about getting votes since he has always had 95%+ of the black vote. Blacks are racist and always vote black but whites do NOT always vote white.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dictators never listen to Congress

 

[g5000]

It is against USMB rules to alter the quote of another user. Newby.

I did not alter anyone's quote.

???

 

[francoHFW]

Could the Pub propaganda machine lie, spin, and exagerate the the "Sky is falling" BS any more?

As usual, after 10 google pages of of BS Pub sites blaring "Obama guts welfare work requirement", you finally find some reality.

It;s a waiver that states could ask for (they won't) for experiments they could try, AND NEVER MENTIONS WORK REQUIREMENTS.

Pubs are totally FOS, so the dupes are too. Change the channel.

How bout ONE real jobs bill, "jobs, jobs, jobs" a-holes?


"Is there any information out there that refutes the apocalyptic Heritage take on HHS's new TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) waiver? Has the HHS "gutted" welfare reform?


It's at least cracked open the door for the people who might gut it. Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley write that section 1115 of Social Security law gives HHS limited waiver authority. "The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, 'mandatory work requirements')," they write. "Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115; they are not waiveable."

Section 115 allows waivers for any "experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the objectives of title I [education for the disabled], X [family planning], XIV [aid to the disabled], XVI [social security disability], or XIX [medical assistance], or part A or D of title IV [grants to state for child aid]." Nope, nothing there about work requirements.

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.
Mickey Kaus, who owns this beat, ponders what it all means. The only non-"gutting" theory I can come up gives HHS rather a lot of credit. It cites waiver memos from Utah and Tennessee for proof that the states are ready for more flexibility. Those states aren't likely to weaken the standards of TANF work programs, are they? But I want to see what other states try and do here, and how they interpret this.


The End of Welfare Reform

 

[g5000]

As with illegal aliens, we once again see Obozo brazenly ignoring laws passed by congress. He should be impeached for this. The constitution says the president "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed".

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

Republicans accuse HHS of gutting welfare reform with quiet policy change

Published July 13, 2012

Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of unilaterally gutting welfare reform after the Department of Health and Human Services quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program's strict work requirements.

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.

"President Obama just tore up a basic foundation of the welfare contract" Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, D-Ohio, said in a statement. He also called the move a "blatant violation of the law."

Mitt Romney on Friday spoke up on the change, saying: "President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare." He said "the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life."

The bolded part is what I quoted earlier that got modded. Fox News is saying the Republican Committee chair is a Democrat!

 

[swizzlee]

Sorry, but I must support HHS on this.......

If you read it carefully you would note that HHS "quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program's strict work requirements."

I would be willing to wager that several states have already requested a waiver and that this is in response to those requests.

When you consider the very high rate of unemployment in this country and that some states have been hit much harder, it is entirely reasonable for states to ask that "strict" rules be relaxed in one way or another.

Would you really expect those on welfare to be denied the means to survive because s/he was unable and beyond his control to abide by rules so rigid in a bad economy that they can't be met?

 

[8537]

HHS granted waivers for the 80% work requirement - just as was done the last time the waiver periods ended. This isn't rewriting the law, it's following the requirements of the law as written. Exactly zero states are meeting the requirement so we can either abandon the program completely or grant waivers.

You've been duped by Fox.

 

[Avorysuds]

Welfare nation!

 

[g5000]

Welfare nation!

That's a great catchphrase for those with the intellectual bandwidth of a bumper sticker!

 

[Jackson]

But how can the president via HHS or HHS arbitrarily change any law that was voted on by Congress?

What is the point of Congress if Departments are going to grant waivers to their laws?

 

[g5000]

For those who have more bandwidth: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/other_resrch/tanf_ccdf/reports/work_requirements.pdf


Basically, to collect welfare for a family, every work eligible person in that family must work an average of 30 hours a week.

If the state cuts its welfare load, that requirement can drop to as low as 20 hours.

What counts as "work"?

Until implementation of the DRA regulations, states were free to use their own reasonable definitions for the federally countable work activities. For example, the new regulations limited the circumstances in which states could count rehabilitation activities (including mental health and substance abuse treatment) to job-search and job-readiness activities. In the past, some states had counted rehabilitation activities as work and others did not. This distinction is particularly important because participation in job-search and job-readiness activities is limited to the hourly equivalent of 6 weeks per year (12 weeks in states that qualify as needy).

Look for a job counts as work. Getting mental health treatment does not.

Other things which count as work:

Unsubsidized employment
Subsidized private-sector employment
Subsidized public-sector employment
Work experience if sufficient private-sector employment is not available
On-the-job training
Job-search and job-readiness assistance
Community service programs
Vocational education training
Child care services for individuals participating in a community service program


Notice the word "subsidized". This is where states are now running into difficulty. Revenues are drying up, and federal grant monies provided by the stimulus spending is also drying up. Every state but Wyoming was receiving federal stimulus money for workfare programs.

So subsidizing work for people on welfare is becoming more and more difficult. They are not able to subsidize as many people, which means the rest are not working the necessary hours to qualify for welfare.

And, of course, the recession also greatly increased the number of unemployed, so you have a snowball effect.

During the recession, the majority of states faced severe budget shortfalls, higher TANF caseloads, and greater challenges in meeting work participation requirements. Some states cut work supports and services, thereby undermining their focus on work participa-tion.

 

[g5000]

But how can the president via HHS or HHS arbitrarily change any law that was voted on by Congress?

What is the point of Congress if Departments are going to grant waivers to their laws?

The waiver provision was probably written into the law by Congress. Obama is just exercising it.

 

[Conservative]

Could the Pub propaganda machine lie, spin, and exagerate the the "Sky is falling" BS any more?

As usual, after 10 google pages of of BS Pub sites blaring "Obama guts welfare work requirement", you finally find some reality.

It;s a waiver that states could ask for (they won't) for experiments they could try, AND NEVER MENTIONS WORK REQUIREMENTS.

Pubs are totally FOS, so the dupes are too. Change the channel.

How bout ONE real jobs bill, "jobs, jobs, jobs" a-holes?


"Is there any information out there that refutes the apocalyptic Heritage take on HHS's new TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) waiver? Has the HHS "gutted" welfare reform?


It's at least cracked open the door for the people who might gut it. Robert Rector and Kiki Bradley write that section 1115 of Social Security law gives HHS limited waiver authority. "The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, 'mandatory work requirements')," they write. "Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115; they are not waiveable."

Section 115 allows waivers for any "experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the objectives of title I [education for the disabled], X [family planning], XIV [aid to the disabled], XVI [social security disability], or XIX [medical assistance], or part A or D of title IV [grants to state for child aid]." Nope, nothing there about work requirements.

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.
Mickey Kaus, who owns this beat, ponders what it all means. The only non-"gutting" theory I can come up gives HHS rather a lot of credit. It cites waiver memos from Utah and Tennessee for proof that the states are ready for more flexibility. Those states aren't likely to weaken the standards of TANF work programs, are they? But I want to see what other states try and do here, and how they interpret this.


The End of Welfare Reform

prove they won't ask for it, dumb ass.

 

[Conservative]

Sorry, but I must support HHS on this.......

If you read it carefully you would note that HHS "quietly notified states that they may seek a waiver for the program's strict work requirements."

I would be willing to wager that several states have already requested a waiver and that this is in response to those requests.

When you consider the very high rate of unemployment in this country and that some states have been hit much harder, it is entirely reasonable for states to ask that "strict" rules be relaxed in one way or another.

Would you really expect those on welfare to be denied the means to survive because s/he was unable and beyond his control to abide by rules so rigid in a bad economy that they can't be met?

But Franco said no states would ask for waivers. Was he... lying???

 

[Stephanie]

Here's another warm fuzzy by this administration
LINKS in article at site

SNIP:
USDA uses Spanish soap operas to push food stamps among non-citizens, citizens [AUDIO]


Published: 12:39 AM 07/12/2012

By Caroline May

NEW YORK - OCTOBER 07: A sign in a market window advertises the acceptance of food stamps on October 7, 2010 in New York City. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

The government has been targeting Spanish speakers with radio “novelas” promoting food stamp usage as part of a stated mission to increase participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps.

Each novela, comprising a 10-part series called “PARQUE ALEGRIA,” or “HAPPINESS PARK,” presents a semi-dramatic scenario involving characters convincing others to get on food stamps, or explaining how much healthier it is to be on food stamps.

The majority of the episodes end with the announcer encouraging the listener to tune in again to see if the skeptic applies for benefits or learns to understand the importance of food stamps to their health.

“Will Claudia convince Ramon to apply for SNAP?” the announcer exclaims at the end of a standard episode titled “The Poet,” “Don’t miss our next episode of ‘HAPPINESS PARK.’”

Listen to “The Poet”:

Click here for English translation
While the United States Department of Agriculture encourages its outreach partners not to stereotype SNAP applicants, the agency’s use of novelas is notable. The USDA is not promoting an equivalent English-language drama series and telenovelas are a popular form of entertainment in Latin American countries and a culturally relevant way to appeal to potential applicants.

The radio novelas are available on USDA’s website for state and local outreach partners to use as public service announcements.

“Congress allocates funds to USDA with the mandate to conduct public education about the benefits of SNAP and how to apply to help reduce hunger in America,” Amanda D. Browne, a USDA spokeswoman explained in an email to The Daily Caller. “The radio spots were written and produced in 2008 and are targeted to communities most at risk for hunger.” (RELATED: USDA combats ‘mountain pride,’ self-reliance to boost food stamp rolls)

USDA does not provide translations on their website, but TheDC obtained the USDA’s English scripts, available below each novela.

Listen to “At the Supermarket”:

the rest at
Read more: USDA uses Spanish soap operas to push food stamps [AUDIO] | The Daily Caller

 

[The T]

But how can the president via HHS or HHS arbitrarily change any law that was voted on by Congress?

What is the point of Congress if Departments are going to grant waivers to their laws?

*POINT* ^ Exactly. Why pass laws if some weenie can just circumvent it?