Obama faces Capitol Hill revolt after gutting welfare reform work requirements

posted at 6:01 pm on July 19, 2012 by Rob Bluey

A coalition of Republicans in the House and Senate vowed to preserve the work requirements at the heart of welfare reform after the Obama administration announced last week it would illegally gut the 1996 law. Lawmakers could vote in the coming days on a plan that prohibits the administration from implementing its unilateral action.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued a policy directive on July 12 that grants waiver authority for the work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The new directive give states the authority to waive work requirements, “opening the door for activities like bed rest, smoking cessation and exercise to be counted as work,” the lawmakers warned. Congress specifically excluded this action when it adopted the law in 1996 to prevent abuse.

The administration’s move provoked a swift reaction on Capitol Hill. The new legislation, Preserving Work Requirements for Welfare Programs Act, was spearheaded by House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), Education and Workforce Chairman John Kline (R-MN), Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), ranking member of the Finance Committee.

Camp promised quick action in the House:

The Obama Administration has once again overstepped its bounds, this time to the detriment of those struggling most under their failed economic policies. The Administration’s unprecedented efforts to undo welfare reforms that resulted in higher earnings and employment for low-income Americans cannot be allowed to stand.

This legislation, which I expect the House to consider in the coming days, simply reaffirms what the law already says — that the work requirements at the heart of welfare reform may not be waived. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting and passing this important bill and bringing a swift resolution to this matter.

The 1996 reforms, a signature achievement of the Clinton administration, have helped millions of Americans escape poverty. They were also a key step to reducing dependence on government. Child poverty rates in female-headed households are lower today than before the reforms, according to the lawmakers.

In addition to being questionable policy, the Obama administration’s action is also illegal, according to an analysis of the HHS memorandum by The Heritage Foundation’s Todd Gaziano and Robert Alt. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has yet to respond to a request from Camp and Hatch explaining the legal justification. She has ignored their July 16 deadline and has refused to answer. Now, through legislation, they will attempt to block any action on her part.

Looking beyond the current controversy, Obama appears to have created an opportunity to refocus the country’s attention on the growing welfare state. Jordan, who leads the conservative Republican Study Committee, introduced the Welfare Reform Act of 2011 to require recipients of food stamps to work or prepare for a job, disclose the costs of total federal, state, and local welfare spending, and return welfare spending to its 2007 level once unemployment hits 6.5 percent.

TANF, the program Clinton and Congress reformed in 1996, is just one of 77 welfare programs run by the federal government. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector, who played an instrumental role in the 1996 reforms, puts the total cost at nearly $1 trillion for taxpayers. It has skyrocketed under Obama (emphasis added):

Obama has increased federal means-tested welfare spending by a third since taking office. Last year, combined federal and state spending on means-tested welfare hit $927 billion. (Social Security and Medicare are not included in this total.)

Welfare spending amounts to $9,040 per year for each lower-income American. If converted to cash and simply given to the recipients, this spending would be more than sufficient to bring the income of every lower-income American household to 200 percent of the federal poverty level (roughly $44,000 per year for a family of four).

Remarkably, Obama plans to increase spending on means-tested welfare spending further after the current recession ends, spreading the wealth through a dramatic, permanent expansion of the welfare state. The President’s own budget calls for a permanent increase in annual means-tested spending from 4.5 percent to 6 percent of gross domestic product. Combined annual federal and state spending would reach $1.56 trillion in 2022. Overall, President Obama plans to spend $12.7 trillion on means-tested welfare over the next decade.

Rob Bluey directs the Center for Media and Public Policy, an investigative journalism operation at The Heritage Foundation. Follow him on Twitter: @RobertBluey


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

The Obama Administration has once again overstepped its bounds

Oh really?

Anyone keeping a tally?

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Except Republican governors called for such waivers just a few years back.

in 2005, a group of 29 Republican governors sent Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist a letter arguing for state welfare waivers more expansive than those being issued by the Obama administration. The letter (pdf) is signed many party notables, such as Mitch Daniels, Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and, of course, Mitt Romney, who just the other day declared that the new waivers will “fundamentally undermine” welfare reform.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:04 PM

The Obama Administration has once again overstepped its bounds

Oh really?

Anyone keeping a tally?

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I wasn’t aware that he was ever within the proper bounds.

We are just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States!”

Exactly what did the 52% think he meant by that?

turfmann on July 19, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Of course Barry wants to expand the welfare state. “Once you’ve got ‘em by the economic balls, their hearts, minds and VOTES will follow!”

GarandFan on July 19, 2012 at 6:08 PM

What’s the point, Harry Reid will just stuff it in his desk with all of the rest of the bills passed by the House.

Get back to me when someone has the ballz to impeach this moron.

JPeterman on July 19, 2012 at 6:08 PM

I wasn’t aware that he was ever within the proper bounds.

“We are just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States!”

Exactly what did the 52% think he meant by that?

turfmann on July 19, 2012 at 6:05 PM

I really don’t know…I know Obama voters…I have yet to figure out what they were thinking. From what I’ve been able to gather, they find politics and news boring, so…

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 19, 2012 at 6:11 PM

…that’s odd!…Democrats were involved in passing that law that Clinton took credit for…and none are involved now?

KOOLAID2 on July 19, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Obama’s opponents are just clinging to their old fashion morality and work ethic and outdated independence and outmoded sense of dignity. Don’t worry about that kind of old stuff anymore. Just reelected Barack Obama and you won’t need any of that. Everything will be free! Everything you want, yes everything, he will provide it. And remember, I said free, all free! Thank Obama all might, everything free at last!

VorDaj on July 19, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Why does Kathleen Sebelius have authority to alter the work requirements for welfare? That’s not her department.

What does this have to do with Obamacare?

That’s right, we had to pass that bill to see what was in it, remember?

What other Trojan horses are waiting to be opened?

Corporal Tunnel on July 19, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Overall, President Obama plans to spend $12.7 trillion on means-tested welfare over the next decade.

Wow!

That is a startling figure!

KMC1 on July 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

But but I thought the GOVERNMENT made it so easy to be successful, anyone could do it??? Why do we need welfare at all!

aniptofar on July 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Remarkably, Obama plans to increase spending on means-tested welfare spending further after the current recession ends, spreading the wealth through a dramatic, permanent expansion of the welfare state.

Shut the front door! I thought the 2008 republican candidate for president said Obama was a nice guy and that he would follow the constitution! And, what is that bag of bile doing today? Attacking another republican for questioning infiltration by the Muslim Brotherhood. Too late, they got a debt relief package and they’ve been to the White House. But, please tell us how historic Obama is, candidate!
I’m so glad Romney actually has onions.

AllahsNippleHair on July 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

And of course, once the Dem controlled Senat passes it, and President Zero signs it, he can ignore it like he did the existing statute.

Three reasons, right there, to do something more useful.

2ndMAW68 on July 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

The Obama Administration has once again overstepped its bounds

Oh really?

Anyone keeping a tally?

Dr. ZhivBlago on July 19, 2012 at 6:03 PM

I wasn’t aware that he was ever within the proper bounds.


“We are just five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States!”

Exactly what did the 52% think he meant by that?

turfmann on July 19, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Just wait and see if enough people are foolish enough to see a continuation of the Downgrading of the country and he’s able to exert some ‘flexibility’.

Chip on July 19, 2012 at 6:14 PM

End it, don’t mend it.

de rigueur on July 19, 2012 at 6:14 PM

Is everyone here insane??? Do you even know what the waivers do?

The Department is providing a very limited waiver opportunity for states that develop a plan to measurably increase the number of beneficiaries who find and hold down a job. Specifically, Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance. States must also demonstrate clear progress toward that goal no later than one year after their programs take effect. If they fail, their waiver will be rescinded. And if a Governor proposes a plan that undercuts the work requirements established in welfare reform, that plan will be rejected.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I personally knew this girl that was on state assistance, and the limit/restrictions that were put in place motivated her to get a job and start providing for her family.

Had the limits not been in place, I am POSITIVE she would have continued to stay on the dole.

bbordwell on July 19, 2012 at 6:16 PM

It should be quite clear that all of you hard woking, productive citizens are working to support Obama’s parasitic underclass and other assorted social freeloaders. You can also rest assured that to accomplish this end he will tax you until it hurts. Thank you enlightened voters, you really stuck it to us this time.

rplat on July 19, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Why does Kathleen Sebelius have authority to alter the work requirements for welfare? That’s not her department.

Because Congress wrote it into the law?

The exercise of waiver authority contemplated in the July 12 Information Memorandum is clearly authorized by section 1115(a)(1) ofthe Social Security Act. Section 1115(a)(1)allows the Secretary to “waive compliance with any of the requirements of section … 402[of the Act] … to theextent and for the period [s]he finds necessary to enable [a] State …to carry out” an approved experimental, pilot, or demonstration project that will assist in promoting the objectives of the TANF program.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:16 PM

I personally knew this girl that was on state assistance, and the limit/restrictions that were put in place motivated her to get a job and start providing for her family.

Had the limits not been in place, I am POSITIVE she would have continued to stay on the dole.

bbordwell on July 19, 2012 at 6:16 PM

The limits will still be in place! The only difference is that if a state thinks they have a system to put more people to work, they can try it. That’s the beauty of federalism.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM

We are in the hands of hard core leftist loons.

pat on July 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM

But but I thought the GOVERNMENT made it so easy to be successful, anyone could do it??? Why do we need welfare at all!

aniptofar on July 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Winner. Great point!

AllahsNippleHair on July 19, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Turning the ‘safety net’ into a hammock.

Welcome to Greece America.

ajacksonian on July 19, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Overall, President Obama plans to spend $12.7 trillion on means-tested welfare over the next decade.

So he already has plans to be King for life?

JPeterman on July 19, 2012 at 6:19 PM

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I know you’re posting something, but your moniker tells me it’ll be misleading and meaningless.

AubieJon on July 19, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Remarkably, Obama plans to increase spending on means-tested welfare spending further after the current recession ends, spreading the wea

He won’t be here when that happens.

Rio Linda Refugee on July 19, 2012 at 6:20 PM

Fundamentally transforming the Country……..unilaterally.

antipc on July 19, 2012 at 6:21 PM

The OBOZO campaign – using our tax money to buy votes (fraudulent or otherwise) from every slug, slacker, deadbeat, liar, freeloader, loser, taxpayer-leech, cheat, ILLEGAL and pothead in the country.

TeaPartyNation on July 19, 2012 at 6:21 PM

Won’t matter what Congress passes. Barry will only enforce those laws that benefit……..Barry………..

On a cheery note: If the Republicans take the House and Senate, perhaps they’ll DE-FUND the executive branch.

GarandFan on July 19, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I know you’re posting something, but your moniker tells me it’ll be misleading and meaningless.

AubieJon on July 19, 2012 at 6:19 PM

Go read the waiver for yourself!!! I swear, you’ll be shocked at what you see. Obama actually supports Federalism. I know it’s hard to believe, that’s why I encourage you to read it yourself.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:22 PM

I think that Ezra Klein needs to read that pdf referenced letter from the Republican Governors’ Association a little more carefully. Essentially those governors were asking for more stability, rather than the multiple extensions/revisions (9) that did not allow them to plan their state budgets more effectively. Furthermore, the letter did not identify specific, silly examples of waiver-worthy exceptions to work.

onlineanalyst on July 19, 2012 at 6:22 PM

0 is done!

Bmore on July 19, 2012 at 6:22 PM

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them

Tyrant

rbj on July 19, 2012 at 6:24 PM

Go read the waiver for yourself!!! I swear, you’ll be shocked at what you see. Obama actually supports Federalism. I know it’s hard to believe, that’s why I encourage you to read it yourself.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:22 PM

That’s amazing! I read your post and in my head I hear the voice of that poor stockbroker schlub who keeps calling me, wanting me to invest in some oil company that absolutely about to strike it rich. Amazing!

AubieJon on July 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM

But but I thought the GOVERNMENT made it so easy to be successful, anyone could do it??? Why do we need welfare at all!

Because in BarkyWorld, getting something for nothing, especially if taken from someone else who worked for it, is his idea of success.

natasha333 on July 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Is everyone here insane??? Do you even know what the waivers do?

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:14 PM

The limits will still be in place! The only difference is that if a state thinks they have a system to put more people to work, they can try it. That’s the beauty of federalism.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:17 PM

Then why is this “coalition of Republicans in the House and Senate” complaining about it? Either they’re missing the real meaning of the waivers, or you are.

KS Rex on July 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Go read the waiver for yourself!!! I swear, you’ll be shocked at what you see. Obama actually supports FederalismCommunism. I know it’s hard to believe, that’s why I encourage you to read it yourself.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:22 PM

Fixed for accuracy.

JPeterman on July 19, 2012 at 6:26 PM

Obama actually supports Federalism. I know it’s hard to believe, that’s why I encourage you to read it yourself.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:22 PM

And a broken clock is right twice a day. Nice straw man though. Oh I am not sure if I have ever told you this but: FO.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:28 PM

Overall, President Obama plans to spend $12.7 trillion on means-tested welfare over the next decade.

Rather than try to pass a bill in the House that will go nowhere in the Senate, why doesn’t the House refuse through its budgeting power of the purse to permit the expansion of what Obama promises?

It’s obvious that Obama doesn’t expect the economy to grow (nor does he appear to be encouraging such growth) if he is cultivating a $12.7 trillion dependency allocation for the next decade.

onlineanalyst on July 19, 2012 at 6:29 PM

Then why is this “coalition of Republicans in the House and Senate” complaining about it? Either they’re missing the real meaning of the waivers, or you are.

KS Rex on July 19, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Because they want to attack Obama and they think you’re too dumb to check it out for yourself?

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM

“The 1996 reforms, a signature achievement of the Clinton administration…” Rob Bluey

WHAT???? $$4##@@@@

Newt had to pass this Contract with America promised legislation THREE times – the first two times Clinton vetoed it.

Then Dick Morris convinced Bubba to sign it, whereupon Clinton apologized for signing it at the 1996 Dem ocrat Convention!!!!!

No, Rob, this was a signature achievement of Newt Gingrich.

fred5678 on July 19, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Directly from the waiver:

HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. Therefore, HHS is issuing this information memorandum to notify states of the Secretary’s willingness to exercise her waiver authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to allow states to test alternative and innovative strategies, policies, and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:31 PM

More from the waiver…

In exercising her broad discretion for waivers, the Secretary is interested in approaches that seek to improve employment outcomes

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is interested in more efficient or effective means to promote employment entry, retention, advancement, or access to jobs that offer opportunities for earnings and advancement that will allow participants to avoid dependence on government benefits.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:34 PM

Camp promised quick action in the House:

HAH!! Quick action, my backside!

Dave Camp is this country’s worst enemy on illegal immigration. Lamar Smith’s HR2885, the mandatory and nation-wide E-Verify bill, has been stalled in his committee for almost 9 months, and he instructs his staff to LIE about who is to blame.

The Judiciary committee passed it along party lines about 9 months ago, but Camp, Boehner, et al, refuse to even schedule a hearing in Camp’s committee.

SHAME on you, Camp!

fred5678 on July 19, 2012 at 6:36 PM

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has yet to respond to a request from Camp and Hatch explaining the legal justification. She has ignored their July 16 deadline and has refused to answer.

This seems to be a pattern with the Obama administration. Just ignore or change existing laws, then stonewall when Congress attempts to get answers about what they’re doing.

And Congress does nothing to punish or stop this lawlessness. Their “oversight” is a joke.

AZCoyote on July 19, 2012 at 6:36 PM

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has yet to respond to a request from Camp and Hatch explaining the legal justification. She has ignored their July 16 deadline and has refused to answer.

That’s simply a lie. The response is right here.

When is AP coming back? These guest bloggers are the worst.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:38 PM

It’s just another distraction to take up News Cycles where the Dems will use this to screech “See Republicans hate the poor !!”

moc23 on July 19, 2012 at 6:39 PM

n exercising her broad discretion for waivers, the Secretary is interested in approaches that seek to improve employment outcomes …

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:34 PM

And you’re buying that? You’re dumber than you appear.

This is about paying people off so they vote Obama. Pretty simple.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:40 PM

And you’re buying that? You’re dumber than you appear.

This is about paying people off so they vote Obama. Pretty simple.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:40 PM

Who’s getting paid off? What in the world are you talking about?

Governors can institute new programs that they think are more efficient at getting people back to work!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:41 PM

The should also help drive the U-3 numbers just in time for the election.

Red Creek on July 19, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Red-herring is a water carrier and wrong.

Section 1115 states that “the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements” of specified parts of various laws. But this is not an open-ended authority: Any provision of law that can be waived under section 1115 must be listed in section 1115 itself. The work provisions of the TANF program are contained in section 407 (entitled, appropriately, “mandatory work requirements”). Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in section 1115; they are not waiveable.

In establishing TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from the section 1115 waiver authority. They did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats. Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115. This is section 402.

http://blog.heritage.org/2012/07/12/obama-guts-welfare-reform/

Ed please ban Red herring and get some good trolls.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:42 PM

This is where Team Mitt has to hit Ocommie hard on the campaign trail. The candy man IS going uber radical to fire up his base and diminish American Values – whether it be through marxist ideas of business success and work ethic, or institutuing an International Food Stamp program.
WTF ?
This Occupier of the WH will do anything to buy a vote and energize his base.

I’d like to hear an ad that asks Mr Omarxist-

“Who said you were allowed, Mr. President, to give away America?”

FlaMurph on July 19, 2012 at 6:44 PM

When is AP coming back?

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:38 PM

7/24 iirc

Kataklysmic on July 19, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Interesting the herring supports this imperial president. Loser.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:46 PM

Herring scurrying after getting his arse handed to it. FO SB.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Ed please ban Red herring and get some good trolls.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:42 PM

Sebelius answers the legal question directly in her letter to hatch (which the blogger somehow claims was never sent!)

Your letter maintains that the Secretary’s section 1115 waiver authority does not extend to the requirements described in the Information Memorandum because those requirements are set forth in section 407 rather than section 402. But, as explained above, the plain text of section 402 incorporates the requirements of section 407 by reference. Moreover, the Department has long interpreted its authority to waive state plan requirements under section 1115 to extend to requirements set forth in other statutory provisions that are referenced in the provisions governing state plans. This interpretation has been consistently applied throughout the history of section 1115

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:50 PM

Herring scurrying after getting his arse handed to it. FO SB.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Still here!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:50 PM

She’s incorrect but keep carrying that water…you’re good at it.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM

7/24 iirc

Kataklysmic on July 19, 2012 at 6:45 PM

That seems like forever!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

red_herring (aptly named) keeps referencing Sebelius’s generic letter, rather than the specifics of her waiver policy. FAIL

Sebelius is notorious for giving herself lots of wiggle room to expand federal power. Get with the program, fishy.commie.gov.

onlineanalyst on July 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

Herring scurrying after getting his arse handed to it. FO SB.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:48 PM

Still here!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM

You do realize dimwit you scurried to get your answer? So predictable SB.

Notice the time stamps. Comprehend ?

This is pathetic.

You would make a good nazi.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

My own sister was on welfare when she died, because she was too sick to work and none of us had the money to support her and her family. I have nothing against welfare recipients with legitimate claims. What I do object to … and she did too … are the second and third generations of able-bodied welfare recipients who see freeloading on taxpayers as an acceptable way of life, an “entitlement” because of some perceived disadvantage having nothing at all to do with the ability to work for a living.

Now I see Americans making questionable claims for Social Security disability because they can’t find jobs. And I see a President who, instead of doing the kinds of things that would help generate jobs, and even doing things that actually block job creation, extending food stamp and welfare programs instead.

Who, black or white, in their right mind would vote for such a President?

RebeccaH on July 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

red_herring (aptly named) keeps referencing Sebelius’s generic letter, rather than the specifics of her waiver policy. FAIL

Sebelius is notorious for giving herself lots of wiggle room to expand federal power. Get with the program, fishy.commie.gov.

onlineanalyst on July 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I wrote TWO comments quoting directly from her waiver policy!!!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:54 PM

You do realize dimwit you scurried to get your answer? So predictable SB.

Notice the time stamps. Comprehend ?

This is pathetic.

You would make a good nazi.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I’m sorry that I take breaks from hotair commenting for 10 minutes at a time. I’ll work on that!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:55 PM

You do realize dimwit you scurried to get your answer? So predictable SB.

Notice the time stamps. Comprehend ?

This is pathetic.

You would make a good nazi.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

What does SB mean btw?

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:56 PM

I don’t get it: If Obama’s intention to gut the work requirement was illegal, what good would another law do? Wouldn’t he just ignore that one as well?

Socratease on July 19, 2012 at 6:57 PM

You would make a good nazi.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I actually do have blond hair and blue eyes.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:57 PM

What does SB mean btw?

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Think about it.

You’re the perfect dupe for an imperial President. You should be ashamed.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 7:02 PM

I’m sorry that I take breaks from hotair commenting for 10 minutes at a time. I’ll work on that!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:55 PM

Yet you still posted what you thought would make you look so smart and in effect it proved me right. Funny how easy you are.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Think about it.

You’re the perfect dupe for an imperial President. You should be ashamed.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 7:02 PM

stylish beau?

That’s the only sb combination I can think of to describe myself.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM

But but I thought the GOVERNMENT made it so easy to be successful, anyone could do it??? Why do we need welfare at all!

aniptofar on July 19, 2012 at 6:13 PM

How much more successful could Won be than to get others to pay for their fornicatin, even pay ever increasing amounts for each spawn of these professional baby makers. Only needs to get to the post office box to gets the cards or checks or walla auto deposit just sit at home get paid to git laid!

Only work required is to vote to keep the gravy train rollin!

I weep for my formerly great nation and detest the Rats, the Liberal professors and teachers, the professional baby makers using the cell phones I am paying for and obama, who will use those phones to incite the vote and rock the republican voters.

ConcealedKerry on July 19, 2012 at 7:05 PM

…you’re good at it.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 6:51 PM

Not good, mildly entertaining in a moron trying to act smart sort of way.

cozmo on July 19, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Hey as long as we gut our military to get this done what could go wrong?

He is not an American in anything I know an American to be.

jukin3 on July 19, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Yet you still posted what you thought would make you look so smart and in effect it proved me right. Funny how easy you are.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 7:04 PM

Please elaborate.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:07 PM

What a ridiculous headline! How do innefectual whines from a couple of Republicans (Orrin Hatch? Really?) objecting to something the president did constitute a “Capital Hill Revolt”?

And since when does reprinting press releases from squishy sort-of-Republican politicos qualify as posting material at HotAir? Get back to me when some Democrats suddenly join in, and I’ll agree you have a revolt brewing.

MTF on July 19, 2012 at 7:07 PM

And since when does reprinting press releases from squishy sort-of-Republican politicos qualify as posting material at HotAir? Get back to me when some Democrats suddenly join in, and I’ll agree you have a revolt brewing.

MTF on July 19, 2012 at 7:07 PM

At least it’s better than Dustin “Women need to keep it in their pants cause men are weak and can’t” Struggs.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:09 PM

can’t” Struggs.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:09 PM

You keep proving yourself the idiot. Congrats Scum Bag.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 7:10 PM

You keep proving yourself the idiot. Congrats Scum Bag.

CW on July 19, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Ahhhh…scum bag. Thanks!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:12 PM

From the Heritage commentary:

Congressional Research Service: “There Are No TANF Waivers”
In a December 2001 document, “Welfare Reform Waivers and TANF,” the non-partisan Congressional Research Service clarified that the limited authority to waive state reporting requirement in section 402 does not grant authority to override work and other major requirements in the other sections of the TANF law (sections that were deliberately not listed under the section 1115 waiver authority):

Technically, there is waiver authority for TANF state plan requirement; however, [the] major TANF requirements are not in state plans. Effectively, there are no TANF waivers.

Obviously, if the Congress had wanted HHS to be able to waive the TANF work requirements laid out in section 407, it would have listed that section as waiveable under section 1115. It did not do that.

Obama just rewrites laws he doesn’t like and the fools cheer him on.

Red Herring …remember what goes around comes around…

CW on July 19, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Ahhhh…scum bag. Thanks!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:12 PM

You’re quick.
/

CW on July 19, 2012 at 7:13 PM

If he is breaking the law to do this, what good does it do to pass another one (assuming that Read doesn’t kill it…)?

Count to 10 on July 19, 2012 at 7:15 PM

The Surreal President.

1. Obama guts Welfare work requirements, illegally.

2. Obama advertises for illegals to get on welfare, via novellas on TV. Due out opposition ads are pulled.

3. Obama adversises Mexican citizens to get on welfare, via ads in Mexico.

Obama hates the USA and NO president has ever demeaned and diminished her people, with such malintent, as he did.

HOODINI and ROBBERHOOD, all in One, that is Obama!

All the while, the goon wants the idiots on welfare to believe that all good things come from HIM.

Swine have more character and love for America.

Schadenfreude on July 19, 2012 at 7:16 PM

What is so difficult about CUTTING THEIR DAMN FUNDING?

Mr. Arrogant on July 19, 2012 at 7:18 PM

Chavezrama

Schadenfreude on July 19, 2012 at 7:20 PM

Obama just rewrites laws he doesn’t like and the fools cheer him on.

Red Herring …remember what goes around comes around…

CW on July 19, 2012 at 7:13 PM

If you look at the Social Security Law, it says you can waive compliance complaince with Section 402 for experimental, pilot, or demonstration projects that will assist in promoting the objectives of TANF.

Section 402 has the requirement that “parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.”

Section 407 has all the work requirements.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:21 PM

When is AP coming back?

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:38 PM

7/23

Schadenfreude on July 19, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Wondering if this is Obama’s way of getting back at Bill Clinton.

If this welfare reform was a “signature achievement of the Clinton administration” and now Obama slaps it down…isn’t that kind of negating any claim of accomplishment by Clinton?

albill on July 19, 2012 at 7:23 PM

7/23

Schadenfreude on July 19, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Thanks!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:24 PM

Import something good from Switzerland – 9 months on welfare and you’re off, for good. Period.

No more moochers for life. God damn you all, the looters first and then the stupid moochers. Rabbits put more effort into their existence.

This excludes the truly handicapped, physically/mentally (no, idiocy is not a handicap), little children, orphans and related.

All else, survive or starve. To Hell with all of you utter fools. You are kept in modern day plantations by the looters, while they use you for votes, demean you, laugh at you, while they live like emperors. Wake up and pictchfork them.

If you’re not a looter/moochre, starve them.

Schadenfreude on July 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Governors can institute new programs that they think are more efficient at getting people back to work!

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:41 PM

So they need this new dikta to do that? Jiminy-cricket dude.

hillsoftx on July 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Why does this affect just the states in which Obama is in trouble, or c/b in trouble?

Fluke the Hoodini and Robbinghood, all in one, and all who brung him. YOU are the scourge of the land. May god punish you.

Schadenfreude on July 19, 2012 at 7:30 PM

So they need this new dikta to do that? Jiminy-cricket dude.

hillsoftx on July 19, 2012 at 7:27 PM

Yes. Before this they had to strictly follow the federal guidlines. Now they can create their own guildlines if they think they will be more effective.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:32 PM

Why does this affect just the states in which Obama is in trouble, or c/b in trouble?

Schadenfreude on July 19, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Where did you get that from? It affects every state that thinks it can do a better job of putting people back to work.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 7:34 PM

@Red_herring – That Republican letter you posted indicates nothing of the magnitude of undermining welfare reform like Obama is currently doing. Talk about a red herring…

HopeHeFails on July 19, 2012 at 7:34 PM

Except Republican governors called for such waivers just a few years back.

in 2005, a group of 29 Republican governors sent Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist a letter arguing for state welfare waivers more expansive than those being issued by the Obama administration. The letter (pdf) is signed many party notables, such as Mitch Daniels, Rick Perry, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush and, of course, Mitt Romney, who just the other day declared that the new waivers will “fundamentally undermine” welfare reform.

red_herring on July 19, 2012 at 6:04 PM

Except the governors requested legislative action, not illegal, unilateral, executive fiat.

besser tot als rot on July 19, 2012 at 7:41 PM

Most troubling is that Obama and HHS are moving to pander to his base in a way that is illegal and that illegality is made clear in the law.

They had to be aware that what they were doing was in direct conflict with the existing law.

I think that they did know it was completely illegal, but did it in a cynical ploy to make those on welfare believe that Obama was ‘fighting’ for their benefit…when in fact they knew that their action would never stand.

Not only is this a cynical election year ploy, it is costing the nation in that members of congress have to devote their time and attention to THIS issue, writing legislation to block this patently illegal action, when they could be working on something to benefit the nation.

Congress members GET PAID and every moment they are forced to engage in activity that could readily have been avoided had the president and the secretary of the HHS refrained from issuing illegal edicts, the nation loses these congress members productivity… and hence… money.

thatsafactjack on July 19, 2012 at 7:42 PM

Remarkably, Obama plans to increase spending on means-tested welfare spending further after the current recession ends, spreading the wealth through a dramatic, permanent expansion of the welfare state.

Cynical and disingenuous pandering; this should be considered a form of voter fraud. How is it helping poor people to have a permanent welfare state? Shouldn’t the objective be to eliminate the need for one?

College Prof on July 19, 2012 at 7:43 PM

We can debate the merits of welfare and immigration reform all day long, but the fact of the matter is that we have laws on the books for welfare and immigration requirements right now. Those laws have passed both houses of Congress and been signed by the President. The proper course of action for changing those policies is to enact legislative change, followed by Presidential signing. Who cares whether or not this is a good idea? The bigger point is that it is illegal.

besser tot als rot on July 19, 2012 at 7:46 PM

They can do all this, but wake me up when the bring him and his entire administration are brought up on charges on treason.

SouthernGent on July 19, 2012 at 7:59 PM

at the end of the day if he’s not voted out in November i’d hate to see what is to come the next 4 years. It’s just getting so boring reading about what the daily over reach or dictator ruling being issued by this jackass. And the republicans just make noise about how they’ll do anything they can to stop him. God Help us.

phatfawzi on July 19, 2012 at 8:42 PM

Comment pages: 1 2