New HHS waivers focus on job requirements in 1996 Welfare Reform Act
Even a blind person could see that this is nothing more than a cheap and cynical
ploy to buy votes from his career welfare recipient vote base. Coupled with
Obama's recent orders to halt deportation of illegal aliens, it proves that
he considers himself above the law, and that he will do ANYTHING to buy votes to
win reelection!Welfare, something that is nowhere even specified as
one of the functions of the federal government, has truly gone from being an
essential safety net for temporary emergencies for the most needy among us, to
being a lifetime hammock for the most lazy among us.And, to do this
at a time when we are basically bankrupt shows that he cares only about his
reelection, and desires the destruction of the economic and societal foundations
that made this country the greatest land of opportunity on earth."Socialism works well until you run out of other people's money to
spend." said Lady Thatcher, but the liberals refuse to admit the disaster
they are creating, nor lift a finger to delay, let alone prevent it.Obama MUST be defeated in November before his policies and appointments
Meanwhile, the National Park Service, administered by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, asks us to "Please Do Not Feed The Animals." They say that
this is because the animals may grow dependent on handouts and not learn to take
care of themselves.
We don't need Congress anymore.
And so we get more people who are content to sit home and raise children who
never see their parent do an honest days work.So he has pandered to the
gays, the hispanics, the blacks, and the welfare class.We are doomed as a
nation if we don't get rid of this administration.
I spent a couple year working in inner city Baltimore and Washington DC.
I've seen first hand what government programs do to society. They utterly
destroy the foundations of a free society.
I imagine former President Clinto is REAL happy with President Obama now !! It
will be interesting to see how much support he give the president now ??
While I would love it if the states were given more control over where and how
the welfare dollars are spent, that would only work if they all agreed to the
same principle of getting able bodied people back to work ASAP. I guarentee
that's not the top priority in many states. Obama is clearly purchasing
more votes with our tax dollars.
So, the states are getting more flexibility--aren't we all about
state's rights?Isn't that how Romney
justifies/differentiates Romneycare from Obamacare?How many states
are headed by Republican legislatures and Governors?29 states have
Republican governors. So, go for it. Let's see what you can do with more
If you are the president and you don't like a law, and you can't
manipulate Congress into changing it or pack the courts with judges who are
politically indebted to you to invalidate it, you simply ignore it.• Opening the country and all the benefits and opportunities enjoyed by
citizens and legal immigrants to young people whose parents entered the U.S.
illegally.• Trashing DOMA and DADT.• Now
this flagrant bid for the votes of people who won't pull their share of the
community burden because the rest of us have always done it for them for the
last 2 or 3 generations. How come I can't pick and choose the
laws I want to follow?
Remind me why anyone who: 1. Balances their own checkbook2. Pays any amount of taxesVotes for a socialist...? This is not
what the founding fathers had in mind I guarantee it.
He wants it all. He wants his government's claws into as many people as
possible. It's getting more and more oppressive. He's as socialist,
at heart, as it gets. He wants as much power as possible. How can liberals
call themselves 'liberal' and accept this kind of growing, intrusive
power? The Democratic party is the anti-liberty party.
Wow. Lots of conservatives on here complaining about the federal government
getting out of the way and letting states do their own thing! I don't get
it!Oh wait. I do get it. Obama did it, so now you're against
Also, I couldn't write a more editorially slanted headline if I tried. Yet
another "Let's pick through the news and find the stuff that agrees
with us" glorified blog post news "compilation" from the Deseret
Not surprising all of the right -wing publications paint a bad view of the
changes. I am surprised by all of the hateful comments posted, where is the
compassion for your fellow man /families who are struggling? When there are so
many still unemployed and companies are not hiring, unless you will work for
minimum wage with no benefits - which is impossible to survive on. Not
everyone is stealing/cheating to get a free ride, feeding one's family is a
big consideration. Even here in Utah I know of families who have lost work and
are unable to find work that pays enough to survive on . Helping people
struggling to stay alive is never bad. You haters should be ashamed of
I am curious what it will take for Clinton era Democrats to abandon Obama.
Hopefully they do it vocally instead of in secret in the voting booth in
Gullible people who think that government is the solution to all their problems
along with all the problems government created in the first place will have to
learn from their own decisions. What big government does is unsustainable? If
any one of us did what our federal govt is doing would be sent to prison for
running a ponzi scheme.
This is the only news outlet where I've seen this article... but I
don't read "Faux" so that maybe why. No one else is talking about
it, no one cares. The only thing I've seeing out of all the major networks
is how much trouble Romney seems to be in with all the various versions of when
he really left Bain, and all of his offshore accounts he seems to have no
recollection of. Oh but back to this story, I though Obama was a secret Muslim
socialist/Marxist/communist? This doesn't sound very "socialistic"
to me LOL. And I love the anecdotal post from the guy who did some
"work" in the inner city some place back east and saw first hand that
government handouts are terrible and destroy society. I love the disdain for
our fellow Americans on hard times under the guise of "these are all lazy
people looking for handouts" yea keep telling yourself that if it makes you
feel better about your political ideology.
Mitt Romney and a slew of other leading Republicans on Friday slammed the Obama
administration's decision to relax some welfare requirements, despite the
fact that Republican-led states sought the policy change.Utah and
Nevada were the states most aggressively seeking it, submitting detailed
requests to Health and Human Services. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch (R)
complained in a joint statement with Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) that the HHS
decision was a "power grab." The two are the top Republicans on the
committees that oversee welfare programs.In February of 2011,
Kristen Cox, executive director of Utah Workforce Services, testified to the
House Ways and Means Committee that employment programs could use greater
flexibility. "If unemployment is one of our largest issues, why not give
states more flexible options to help re-employ job seekers?"Just
two weeks later, the Obama administration ordered the executive branch agencies
to start looking for ways to help states identify and overcome barriers in
federal programs that prevent states from doing the best job.Utah
responded with a string of requests, including for flexibility in administering
the work requirements in the TANF program, better known as welfare.
Hmmm... the states requested changes to the Welfare policies and the Obama
administration complied. Yep, that outrages me too (not). Utah's
leadership is behind the changes. But, why let facts get in the way of an
opportunity to slam the Obama administration?
Conservatives tell us returning rights to the states is a good thing.Then we read..."...According to the memo, new waivers relating
to the work participation requirements will authorize states to "test
alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed
to improve employment outcomes for needy families."...".So,
authorizing states to test alternatives and innovative strategies is a gutting
the program?"..."States led the way on welfare reform in the
1990s — testing new approaches and learning what worked and what did
not," Earl Johnson, director of the Office of Family Assistance, said in the
HHS memo. "The secretary is interested in using her authority to approve
waiver demonstrations to challenge states to engage in a new round of innovation
that seeks to find more effective mechanisms for helping families succeed in
employment."...".Challenging states to engage in a new round
of inovation is gutting the program?"...According to The
Associated Press, states will not be able to escape the work requirements of the
landmark 1996 federal welfare reform law...".So, the feds are
asking the states for inovation which cannot escape the work requirements of the
landmark 1996 federal welfare reform law.Gutting the program?How?
I haven't done much research on this particular Obama decision yet, besides
reading this article but I do like the idea of more welfare authority being put
to the states. The big question I have, which if you know the
answer please respond, is with this decision, do states immediately have the
rights to reinforce all work related requirements to giving welfare and maintain
the status quo? If so, then I'm glad Obama released this responsibility to
the states. If not, then what can states actually tinker with in determining
the best welfare programs?