In 2006, Bill Clinton wrote this in a New York Times op-ed:

On Aug. 22, 1996, after vetoing two earlier versions, I signed welfare reform into law. At the time, I was widely criticized by liberals who thought the work requirements too harsh and conservatives who thought the work incentives too generous. Three members of my administration ultimately resigned in protest. Thankfully, a majority of both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill because they thought we shouldn’t be satisfied with a system that had led to intergenerational dependency.

The last 10 years have shown that we did in fact end welfare as we knew it, creating a new beginning for millions of Americans.

In the past decade, welfare rolls have dropped substantially, from 12.2 million in 1996 to 4.5 million today. At the same time, caseloads declined by 54 percent. Sixty percent of mothers who left welfare found work, far surpassing predictions of experts. Through the Welfare to Work Partnership, which my administration started to speed the transition to employment, more than 20,000 businesses hired 1.1 million former welfare recipients. Welfare reform has proved a great success, and I am grateful to the Democrats and Republicans who had the courage to work together to take bold action.
The 1996 Welfare Act shows us how much we can achieve when both parties bring their best ideas to the negotiating table and focus on doing what is best for the country.

People were getting off welfare and getting back to work. Great news… unless you feed off dependency in order to stay in power.

Fast forward to this week:

The Department and Health and Human Services announced the agency will issue waivers for the federal work requirement of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program — considered a central facet of welfare reform in 1996 — Thursday.

The “Information Memorandum” states that the agency will be issuing waivers for TANF’s work participation requirements for parents and caretakers as a way to find new approaches to better employment outcomes.

“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,’” the memo, signed by HHS Director of the Office of Family Assistance, Earl Johnson, explained. “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.”

“New approaches to better employment outcomes”? The first thing that comes to mind to accomplish that is to vote this bunch out in November.

Of course, in defense of Obama, having a federal work requirement after he and the rest of the Dems have trashed the economy could be considered cruel and unusual punishment. It’s like having a “go find a gallon of water” requirement for people being released into the Sahara Desert.

Members of Congress are pointing out that the administration can’t legally do what they’re doing:

The American Thinker reported Friday that House Ways and Means Chairman Dave Camp and the Ranking Member on the Senate Finance Committee Orrin Hatch sent a letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius Thursday expressing “deep concern” about the memo and demanding a legal reasoning behind the guidance by Monday.

“Simply put, if Congress had intended to allow waivers of TANF work requirements, it would have said so in the statute,” the pair wrote. “Instead, Congress did the exact opposite and explicitly prohibited waivers to section 407 work requirements among other sections of the Social Security Act.”

Legal reasoning? Since when does Obama need to legally justify his decrees?

Romney responded:

“President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare,” Romney said. “The success of bipartisan welfare reform, passed under President Clinton, has rested on the obligation of work. The president’s action is completely misdirected. Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life.”


21 Responses to “Obama Admin. to Issue Waivers From Federal Work Requirement in Welfare Program”

  1. SignPainterGuy on July 13th, 2012 3:16 pm

    As I recall, Billy Jeff Clintonionni had to be dragged kicking and screaming to the signing. But BOY, did he take credit for it later !!

    pResidente E.O. certainly is enjoying his HISTORIC pResiduncy !

  2. Marshall_Will on July 13th, 2012 3:18 pm

    "Ranking Member on the Senate Finance Committee Orrin Hatch sent a letter to HHS Secretary Sebelius Thursday expressing “deep concern” about the…"

    Never to soon to start PACKING Orrin!? Don't know where TF you've… been over the last FOUR freaking years but in case you hadn't noticed "deep concern" isn't going to CUT IT with these thugs.

    Any letter that doesn't start with: Dear Scumbags; if you think this campaign which never officially ENDED and constantly taking HEAT over this engineered DISASTER of an 'economy' have been making your life miserable, just wait and SEE what we have in store for you if you don't back TF down ASAP..!

    Only finds its way into the circular file. Unless you're threatening 'them' and their job directly it's all just laughable to them.

  3. SignPainterGuy on July 13th, 2012 3:39 pm

    I`m beginning to detect a wee bit of irritation and dissatisfaction with the status quo. Could it be that you are implying that some degree of modification needs to occur in our approach ? ;-)

    I too am totally fed up with these mealy-mouthed wimps !! FORGET DECORUM !! I want some more blatant Joe Wilson moments, "You Lie !"

  4. Marshall_Will on July 13th, 2012 4:22 pm


    ( If I 'may' Sir? )



    Yeah YEAH that's what I'M talkin' about! If the GOP thinks they can continue to do nothing but sit back, draw indignant gasps of horror as if to say; "Can you BELIEVE the Progs we have to deal with!?" in grand flourish, and that will be enough to 'satisfy' us, they've got another thing coming!

  5. SignPainterGuy on July 13th, 2012 7:12 pm

    I "edited for content" to be more family friendly ! ;-)

    Dangit, I want to see our reps yelling, "You lying !" or "You`re wrong " immediately and playing the vids or audio to prove it or reading from the laws on the books. Forget decorum, STAND UP AND FIGHT HAAAARRRRD !!! Our country is lost if we continue to be the side with the amber stained shorts !!

  6. Marshall_Will on July 13th, 2012 8:24 pm

    Great ABO t-shirt idea!

    "This t-shirt may be 'amber' ( but my shorts AIN'T! )"

    Vote NObama in 2012!

  7. Truesoldier__ on July 13th, 2012 9:22 pm

    No kidding. I think we are far past deep concern. When are the GOP actually going to do something about it. I know they cannot impeach Obama (due to the Senate), but they sure as hell can drag all these different issues before a judge to get an injuction ordering these departments to not obey the illegal E.O.'s while they await a hearing.

  8. Truesoldier__ on July 13th, 2012 9:26 pm

    Sounds like the Romney camp needs to take that Op-ed piece from Clinton and turn it into a commercial telling the public just what Obama has done. I have a feeling that the vast majority of Americans would be pissed off to know about this.

    As Rick Santelli said on the floor of the Mercantile Exchange to the traders present (when he kicked off the idea of the Tea Party) "Do you want to pay for your neighbors mortgage?" The answer was a very loud NO!

  9. Truesoldier__ on July 13th, 2012 9:28 pm

    Of course all of these E.O.'s are just trial balloons to see just how much he can get away with before someone puts a stop to the madness. The sad thing is, I don't think there is enough backbone in Congress to take the matter up through any legal actions.

  10. Truesoldier__ on July 13th, 2012 9:29 pm

    O/T…but more Democratic outsourcing has come up…..This time it is the Olympic uniforms:

    Lawmakers were livid to discover that the United States’ Olympic team uniforms were made in China. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) even suggested “they should take all the uniforms, put them in a big pile and burn them and start all over again.”

    The company who designed the uniforms, Ralph Lauren, has received less scrutiny. Few outlets have noted that Ralph Lauren himself is a prominent contributor to President Obama and the Democratic Party.

  11. Marshall_Will on July 13th, 2012 9:31 pm

    There's half a thought. 90% of them are -lawyers- you'd think they'd have figured that much out?

    Yeah we'll write you a very sternly worded letter and uh… not LIKE you! WTF.

    Kinda' funny, I'm on an extension ( when -aren't- I? ) but the way FUEL prices have driven, my LEGITIMATE [conservative] and perfectly legal DEDUCTION prevented me from having to PAY this year. What idiots.

    Mileage Rate Changes

    Rates 1/1 through 6/30/08
    Rates 7/1 through 12/31/08

  12. Marshall_Will on July 13th, 2012 9:38 pm

    Wasn't the Stand. MD only… .28 just a couple of years ago?

    At this rate we should open a travelling all-adult strip/? show in Nevada and cruise around the desert w/ strippers. The more the merrier. I mean c'mon. WTF?

    We should all just take to the Interstates and cruise and blog, day trade our Online accounts. Hell, half of SoCal LIVES in their cars anyway…

    No-no-NO… "I'll deliver it TO you! No, it's really no problem…

  13. SignPainterGuy on July 13th, 2012 10:54 pm

    I would expect no less than woosie looking uniforms from a fruity fashion designer with a woman`s-name last name !

  14. SignPainterGuy on July 13th, 2012 10:55 pm

    Cool idea, but, really, in what venue would YOU wear it ?

  15. Truesoldier__ on July 13th, 2012 11:48 pm

    And they wondered why the Olympic team had more women then men this year….

  16. SignPainterGuy on July 14th, 2012 12:08 am

    Is the Olympics a democracy where the majority wins, rules ……. gets berets ?

  17. jeffythequick on July 14th, 2012 12:59 pm

    What is this "Congress" you speak of?

    Are these the ones that:

    don't have the cajones to have someone they cited for Contempt of Congress arrested?
    just pass continuing resolutions and, in effect, are at least halfway responsible for the deficit (they pass it, PBo signs it.
    don't hold the President accountable for anything?

    I'd welcome gridlock. This is worse… this is b!tchlock, where the members of Congress and the President b!tch about each other, yet things continue the same way they have.

  18. ChapBix on July 14th, 2012 3:01 pm

    Where is the lawsuit challenging this? They won't impeach him because it would rile up his base and we sure don't need to sir up a nest of hornets approaching a major election now, do we?

  19. ChapBix on July 14th, 2012 3:03 pm

    Refusal to see that the laws of the nations are faithfully executed falls into that realm of "high crimes and misdemeanors" for which a president may be impeached. This president is certainly violating that standard.

  20. ChapBix on July 14th, 2012 3:04 pm

    Impeachment will have to take place at the ballot box by the voters who are fed up with his unconstitutional behaviors.

  21. SignPainterGuy on July 14th, 2012 3:20 pm

    There ya go again, ChapBix, makin` good sense …. thrice !

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.