• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obama Guts Welfare Reform

    Today, the Obama Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive rewriting the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that were the foundation of the reform law. The Obama directive bludgeons the letter and intent of the actual reform legislation.

    Welfare Reform under Clinton

    Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The underlying concept of welfare reform was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.

    The welfare reform law is often characterized as simply giving state governments more flexibility in operating welfare programs. This is a serious misunderstanding. While new law (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996) did grants states more flexibility in some respects, the core of the act was the creation of rigorous new federal work standards that state governments were required to implement.

    The welfare reform law was very successful. In the four decades prior to welfare reform, the welfare caseload never experienced a significant decline. But, in the four years after welfare reform, the caseload dropped by nearly half. Employment surged and child poverty among affected groups plummeted. The driving force behind these improvements was the rigorous new federal work requirements contained in the TANF law.

    Obama’s Trick to Get Around Work Requirements

    Today the Obama Administration issued a new directive stating that the traditional TANF work requirements can be waived or overridden by a legal device called the section 1115 waiver authority under the Social Security law (42 U.S.C. 1315).

    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.

    Section 402 describes state plans—reports that state governments must file to HHS describing the actions they will undertake to comply with the many requirements established in the other sections of the TANF law. The authority to waive section 402 provides the option to waive state reporting requirements only, not to overturn the core requirements of the TANF program contained in the other sections of the TANF law.

    The new Obama dictate asserts that because the work requirements, established in section 407, are mentioned as an item that state governments must report about in section 402, all the work requirements can be waived. This removes the core of the TANF program; TANF becomes a blank slate that HHS bureaucrats and liberal state bureaucrats can rewrite at will.

    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.

    Define “Work”…

    In the past, state bureaucrats have attempted to define activities such as hula dancing, attending Weight Watchers, and bed rest as “work.” These dodges were blocked by the federal work standards. Now that the Obama Administration has abolished those standards, we can expect “work” in the TANF program to mean anything but work.

    The new welfare dictate issued by the Obama Administration clearly guts the law. The Administration tramples on the actual legislation passed by Congress and seeks to impose its own policy choices—a pattern that has become all too common in this Administration.

    The result is the end of welfare reform.

    Posted in Economics [slideshow_deploy]

    157 Responses to Obama Guts Welfare Reform

    1. mike says:

      it will take years to undo all that this buffoon has done

      • Ray says:

        amen to the 10th power

      • Jeff says:

        If it can be undone at all, gonna be a close call

      • Elizabeth says:

        yes it will and believe me he isn't done ruining us yet, he has far to go with all his executive orders, like scorche earth giving us away to all foreign countries to rule us rather then our constitution, these freaks need to be hung up by the neck

      • FreedomGal says:

        He's not a buffoon…He knows EXACTLY what he's doing, which is to get as many Americans dependent on government as possible. He's a despicable, evil, poor excuse for a human being, and Americans are paying for their biggest mistake in their history.

        • voiceofreason says:

          Yep! He's been carrying out the Cloward & Piven strategy since day one. The last few months he has been pandering to every group except those that pay (significantly) into the system.

      • Edward Quinones says:

        I get the impression that this buffoon really believes that he can do anything he wants to do, cause no one is going to stop him. He thinks his ideas are better then any previous administration, he will stop at nothing at this time. He knows that November is around the corner. U have not seen anything yet, keep alert and watch the CHANGES come week by week. You won't recognize America when he gets done.

      • David says:

        First the republicans ask to give the states more leniency. Then they complain
        when the administration gives them what they asked for….
        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/13/mitt-romhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20120713

      • apieceofwork says:

        This was Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment, and Oblame-o just gutted it , remember " end welfare as we know it " ???

      • william says:

        good! what would be wrong with requiring welfare recipients to repay their cash gifts in a modest but timely manner

      • Truth for All says:

        Know your facts before you attack. Romney and his campaign will say anything regardless of the truth.Stop watching Fox news and get the truth.

      • Kevin S says:

        lol what? "Of the roughly 35 sections of the TANF law, only one is listed as waiveable under section 1115. This is section 402."

        Except… No.

        Sec. 1115. [42 U.S.C. 1315](c)(1)(b) directly mentions section 407.

        It also directly says: " If any State submits an application under this subsection for the purpose of conducting a demonstration project to test and evaluate the total elimination of the 100-hour rule, the Secretary shall approve at least one such application."
        http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1115.htm

      • janis says:

        You need to read the memorandum from HHS. It does not abolish work requirements at all. The above article is a blatant lie and manipulation of what the memo is really stating. In the original welfare reform flexibity was given to states and this memo is giving states further flexibility to create programs that will assist people in gaining and maintaining employment. The work restrictions will still exist. Quit listening to other people and read and think for yourself.

      • http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/05/24/
        Actually, the changes made were the same that the Republican Government Association requested be made in 2005.

    2. imom6i says:

      There will be some screaming from the Unions on this one. When the law was enacted there were a lot of so called special class of employees that were created to advise clients on work related issues. This is a shame because having been in Social services for 15 years I saw some changes for the positive with the people I worked with. I helped them to help themselves, and gave them support but no pandering to their needs. I had to tell some of them I'm not your mother, if your want to be mothered you have the wrong person. The reaction of these same people that I refused to baby was profound when I changed positions in the Agency. I was told that there were a lot of people calling and demanding I be brought back. That is what happens when you help people and don't just give to them. They develop a sense of dignity. It is sad because what they are not saying is this will cut the funding to the states which I think is the real issue here.

      • Terry says:

        Well your statement doesn’t mean squat because the welfare reform didn’t go away it just got easyer to enroll. So it doesn’t matter if it is or isn’t a con. What matters is it just got alot bigger.

      • cojoras says:

        I'm not understanding…how will this cut the funding to the states? If they cut work requirements, won't more people qualify, but yet there will be less funds? Please explain how this works. Thank you.

        • hahaha says:

          Because funding is capped, states cannot afford to create an "entry effect", or policies that encourage more clients to come into the system. These waivers are to help get rid of the beaurocratic layers that already exist. Two Republican states have already declared their intentions to use them. They'll probably have better results.

    3. Roger F. Gay says:

      Oh just stop, would ya! Welfare reform of the 1980s and 1990s was one of the biggest con jobs in a long history of political corruption. Costs skyrocketed (most of it in new pork-barrel overhead and crony capitalism) and long term dependents were exempt from the "requirements." It did nothing to reduce poverty, nothing at all. In addition, it injected the federal government so far into marriage and family policy that it legally destroyed the institution of marriage and led more rapidly to the downfall of Constitutional rule. By expanding welfare law to cover everyone rather than limiting rules to voluntarily accepted benefits, it broke the barrier of the traditional American welfare program and transformed the country into an arbitrarily politically controlled welfare state.

      • Charles Webb says:

        After reading your statement several times, I think I see what you are saying. Liberals want people dependent. That is the base of the Democratic Liberal Party. The Democrats have destroyed the family in order to buy votes. Where is all this money going to come from. Remember obama just opened our border; come one. Come all. Vote for obama and he will take total care of you for life! Welcome to the NEW SOCIALIST STATES OF AMERICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • Capitolguy says:

        This from another intolerant, entitlement loving, America-hating, lazy Democrat. Your comments confirm you dislike accountability, personal responsibility but like the endless dependency and slave culture (yeah, I went there), created by welfare. All of this creates a very dependable voting block for the Democratic Party.

        • Eric in ATL says:

          I do not think Mr. Gay deserves those titles. Please be respectful, and read what he is saying more carefully. He is pointing out teachings from Thomas Sowell, not Barack Obama. Those are very different men with very different views.

          Thomas Sowell, the conservative economist, in his book Economic Facts & Fallacies, has pointed out that current welfare policies are designed to pay more for single parent than dual parent families. Hence the direct financial incentive to stay unmarried or get divorced, which harms our society. And the way welfare policies are designed (in existence under Bush as well as Obama), a welfare recipient who begins working a part-time job loses more of their benefits in many cases than they make up in new salary, hence creating a financial trap that keeps them dependent on welfare.

          And as Mr. Gay points out, current welfare policy is too broad and covers too many people, not too few. These are not words of intolerant anti-patriot, but a wise man who believes in creating a LESS dependent society. Thank you Mr. Gay for your insight.

      • Michael frize says:

        Have to agree with Mr. Gay. If we are to clean up our system of government, we must move out of the politically controlled welfare and back to our constitutional rule.

    4. Jack Ewing says:

      The Obama administration continues its program of making individuals dependent on government welfare by
      rewriting the Welfare Reform Law of 1996 passed during the Clinton admnistration. This law reduced the
      wefare caseload by about 50% by establishing reasonable qualifications for welfare applicants. Anything to
      get a vote! The legality of this action is very much questionable as Obama continues to maneuver around
      Congress as though he were king rather than president.

      • BERYL says:

        NO ONE DARES TO CONFRONT HIM. WHATA BUNCH OF SPINELESS COWARDS.

      • Carl Lamm says:

        Would you please read the Informational Memo!

        What it says, contrary to the authors of this declaration, is that a state may waive the "work rule" if it experiments with increasing employment, but it must submit what it is doing and it must submit results which show that by waving the rule more people have come off the welfare rolls. And, if a state does not want to experiment it does not have to submit a proposal the waiver of the work rule will not apply to state. If all 50 states decide not to submit a proposal the work rule is not waived for anyone.

        There is such a bombardment of half-trughts, quarter-truths, and No-truths that you really can't believe anything coming from either side.

        Can we please have an intelligent discussion about the issues. Democracy is not easy, and Jefferson said it cannot exist without an educated populace. YOu have responsibility to do your own research and not just listen to all the blatherings from both sides and accept that as truth.

        • T. Whitney says:

          Carl, you are correct. I read the IM (there is a link in the first sentence of this article) and while it's true the secretary will waive the work requirements, she will do so only if there is a compelling reason to do so in order to get more people self-sufficient! Now, one could argue that this means she will grant any ol' request to waive the requirement regardless of estimated outcome (maybe that's understood in all the negative reaction), but on its face this IM seems rather reasonable. I'll grant you that her authority to grant work requirement waivers in tenuous at best, but again, if taken on its face, the idea is to be innovative to get more people self-sufficient!

          Also, since many "non-work" activities seem to be included as "working" in the current statute, couldn't a waiver be granted to narrow the definition of "work?"

      • EHH III says:

        The biggest welfare recipients are the members of Congress and the Senate. Maybe that's where we should start.

      • Bob W says:

        Gosh, I thought "Goverors/States" know best was an article of faith. The HHS memo says they will consider giving states a chance to deviate from the regulatory requirements if they make a case that their way would be more effective. So should the States be straight jacketed?

      • Steven Silverman says:

        you slobs with your brainless conclusory worthless posts repeating what you just read aren't intellectually fit to vote. read the underlying materials bofore spouting off. this is complicated, somewhat. so at leastread posts from your superiors here, like carl lamm, below, and try to better yourselves. dumb blowhards.

    5. L Wing says:

      Most of the welfare pts at our office have never worked.. The "occupation" blank remains blank. There is no sense of work only entitlement. ombamas changes just make it official. The USA is officially a Welfare State.
      Connecticut receipients make out better on welfare than actually working. They can afford vacations and smart phones.. I can't.

      • What a complete lie you are telling. The paltry amounts given on welfare barely allow people to pay rent. Any government worker makes enough to afford vacations and "smart phones." Even on this site your ludicrous comparison of yourself to poor people is laughable.

        • concerned tax payer says:

          Why should I pay for someone that doesn't work, or want to work to have the same things and benefits that I have worked hard for my whole life. I think that those on welfare should only be able to afford the minimum and if they want better, then go get a job and work hard for it yourself. I"m tired of paying for you to have the same things I do, or have more than I do for you doing nothing.

      • Fact checker says:

        Have you investigated everyones' work record? You have them to thank for your current job…so I would quit the complaining. The extent of welfare needed at this time to help the middle class recover from the Bush-era is necessary…even to keep your office afloat. Without Medicare and Medicaid, your menial, clerical job would probably be the first to go…even you depend on the government in a backdoor way for your own paycheck.

    6. BringbacktherealGOP says:

      Where was all this talk of "imperial presidency" and "subverting the will of congress" and "king" under Bush's 8 years? to date, one use of executive privilege versus how many? Not defending any of his actions, just curiously noticing as an independent that he's been much more compromising and moderate than his base would like him to be, especially when compared to the last administration. Just goes to show the power and effectiveness of propaganda machines with their buzz words and fancy graphics.

      • Stirling says:

        Bush was a progressive republican (when it came to spending), but thats where it ended, yes progressives are on both sides B. Bush did NOT want to turn this country into a Western European Socialist Wefare State though.. This president DOES… and his executive decisions clearly point to that end.

      • Lizsalander says:

        Obama has asserted executive privilege once so far, in the matter of the cover up of the Fast and Furious gun-running scheme documents. He has, however, used executive orders many, many times (too many for me to research all of them in such a short time) to circumvent Congressional authority and extend the power of the executive branch. Regulatory orders by EPA, HHS, etc leap immediately to mind, but there are many others in the last 3 1/2 years.

        • Jeanne Stotler says:

          Wrong, wrong wrong, he's alreay used EP more than Bush and all you need is to Google it an see how many he has, some will curl your hair.

        • doodledandy says:

          I think many people have forgotten those little items, EPA HHS etc. But the man has been working this for a long while now. We have to remind them often between now and November. ;)

      • Executive orders and "executive priviledge" are two completely different and unrelated things. The former is the topic if this article. The latter is to refuse to reveal information to Congress or the Judicial Branch based on the need of the President to be able to freely receive unhindered advice from his advisors. Both presidants have used executive orders excessively and improperly, and there was plenty of objection when Bush did so.

      • Obama's presidency is not 'imperial', it is a dictatorship. The Welfare reform of 1996 was duly approved by both houses of Congress and signed by a previous president, yet Obama, yielding his dictator's pen, reversed the reform to the original law. Now even taking hula classes counts as 'work'.

    7. Matt says:

      This president is undoing anything that any other president has tried to accomplish good or bad

    8. Margo says:

      This administration needs to go, and go fast. They will do anything just to get re-elected.

      • Lisa says:

        We are actually screwed with either one of them as president..so it is really not going to matter who gets in the office now.. Unless someone comes out of the woodwork and runs thats ALOT better than these two knuckleheads.

    9. @Solexander says:

      The Lord of Dependency wields his mighty tool; and behold, more free stuff for more potential freeloaders! Come unto me, all ye who are insufficiently laden, & I will give ya rope & chains!

      • Keith says:

        Nothing that this president does surprises me anymore! He is the anti bush, he is doing all he can to undo whatever Bush has done. This guy will do anything to get re-elected.

    10. Bobbie says:

      It's just terrible how little he sees in people and how he discourages self reliance and personal dignity through his wasting tax payer dollars, unconstitutional government operated, no qualifications necessary welfare handouts America wasn't built on or for. Look what he's doing to the vulnerable! Pure exploitation!
      Costing all wasteful, reckless expenses on tax payers to force them on board eventually, until we all fall down! Stop the undisciplined, unruly acts of this unconstitutional government!

    11. Beach Dawg says:

      Romney will set a new record for executive Orders in the first 30 Days. 160 or so of them will repeal aboutn 80% of the Orders Obama has mad in order to end run the Congress.

    12. cmm912 says:

      obama will SHRED our laws and make a MOCKERY of the Constitution as long as he is in office, because he KNOWS that this Congress will NEVER impeach him, because they will not want to go down in history as the Congress that impeached the first (half) black president. And we ALL WILL SUFFER FOR THEIR COWARDICE!

      • concerned says:

        That's what our government has come to. I can only imagine what else he will do before the end of his term. God help us all.

      • Grasshopper says:

        Based on what? Are you talking about warrantless wiretapping? GITMO? He's just following GW Bush's precedent on those counts. I don't agree with those two things, but he's gained us jobs, allowed more people to get insurance, banks are lending more, etc. Bush left him with an economy in such a hole that we knew from the beginning and were told from the beginning that it was going to be a long path to recovery. Be patient. Congress won't impeach him because they have no basis to do so. Spread your ignorance and impatience if you must, but hopefully most of us understand that you just want attention and ignore your hyperbolic rhetoric.

    13. Ray says:

      Obama is pandering again

    14. Guest says:

      When my husband lost his job and I was still looking for work we applied for TANF. In our state we learned that we were NOT eligible because we were NOT working AT THE TIME WE APPLIED or WITHIN 6 WEEKS OF APPLYING. This applies to able bodied adults with dependents. When we explained we could care less about receiving money we just wanted to join the classes and get help finding jobs we were actually ASKED TO LEAVE THE PREMISES. WTF? We just wanted work. What was worse was hearing during the "meeting" that anyone kept their job for a year after successfully getting one would CONTINUE TO RECIEVE BENEFITS FOR 12 MORE MONTHS AFTER THEY WERE ALREADY WORKING NO MATTER THEIR INCOME. It may just be me but instead of focusing soley on welfare, what about focusing more on the Dept. of Labor where it no one answers the phone and appointments, at least in our area and the six closest counties, are suspended indefinitely? It's just ridiculous and now he does this. What next?

      • Lisa says:

        I would like to know also how a family of 3 is only eligible for 50.00 in foodstamps… but a family of 4 is eligible for 600.00 in foodstamps and makes alot more money than the family of 3.. I know these ppl.
        I took someone to the welfare dept. one day a few years ago.. and while in there I seen some foreigners come out with a case worker and overheard them talking about how they were going to be getting over 1000.00 in food stamps a month… let me tell you I almost had a heart attack… When people that work can barely make it.. and other people that do not work can buy steaks and shrimp and whatever else.

        • Betty says:

          More importantly, I want to know why college students are on food stamps? Talk to some of the young folks who just got out of college. They'll tell you – Mom and Dad are paying for college but because the kid is over 18 and not working, the 'student' is getting a bridge card. All while driving newer cars than you and me…..drinking and partying their 'allowance' away. But they need food stamps to keep fromstarving???

    15. KAY says:

      How does Obama and his administration keep getting by with this? /Was this not a law passed by the House and the Senate and signed by clinton? He is writing his own rules and no one is questioning his authority to do it/ Heaven help us because our elected representatives are weak, spineless cowards.

      • voiceofreason says:

        Anyone that questions his majesty's orders will be publicly ridiculed, called a 1%-er, a racist and anything else that MSNBC can come up with on that day. It's sad. I am losing hope for this once great country….I cannot imagine 4 more years in this direction.

    16. musicmoney21 says:

      watch this music video to see what "America Street" really looks like post 2008 election of Pres. Obama http://youtu.be/PiPYv4NIOEg

    17. Pat says:

      Well a $970 billion farm bill was passed and 78% of the spending went for Food Stamps. One out of 7 Americans are on Food Stamps. They need Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Romney has proven he knows how to work with budgets, make out payroll, Hire and Fire. He is now a rich man but that only proves he was successful. I don't care if he is a Mormon or whatever ,if he understands business and that is what we need. We need someone to create conditions so that businesses will put people to WORK, not strangle them with promises, taxes and regulations. When Americans WORK, they are the hardest, smartest workers in the world. If Romney says he can do it then we should give him that chance, no matter if we like him or not. Worshiping and believing in promises not kept didn't pay our rent, feed our families and put our Moms and Dads to work. It is selfish to think if someone says they can do it that they are not given a chance just because of their Political Beliefs, or they do not send a tingle up our legs.

    18. peteywheatstraw says:

      He realizes that there will be no second term and he is doing all he can now to further transform the country into a socialst "utopia".

    19. Bill Fisher says:

      Welfare never had an effect on pverty except to ensure that the poor would remain that way because they are not incentivized to try and better themselves. The poor are enslaved to the government and Obama is just adding one more link to the chains that enslave them. When will the poor understand what is really happening to them? Generational welfare has become the norm.

      • Carol says:

        Have you ever experienced being on welfare or food stamps or government assistance? I have, and because I had the help from my government, I was able to get a college degree and begin my career as a public school educator. Becareful of how you judge. You are making large blanket statements that are just not true and the negativity is harmful to the world. People who are poor enslave themselves in lack because of their thinking and allowing themselves to be powerless. Change their thinking and they will change their world.

        • Well, how is the freaking president of the United States taking away their incentive to work "changing their thinking"?????

        • Jeanne Stotler says:

          I have and was made to feel that I was worthless. I hadto apply for food tamps when my husband died as I had to send back his checks and it took 3 mos. to get them replaced and my kids had to eat. The Goverment does not replace Social security checks quickly, and his retirement ended when he died, althoug he signed papers for reduced, so wecould have an income, but thn that is also a goverment run company.

      • Amber says:

        This is how Obama keeps everyone on the plantation. He has enslaved this nation and most people are not intelligent enough to realize it.

    20. elephant4life says:

      Buying more votes.

    21. Willy Brown says:

      What a progressive.

    22. Nikki says:

      concept of welfare reform was that able-bodied adults should be required to work
      I see alot of people taking advantage of USA WELFARE SYSTEM, SOME ARE CRIMMAL ACT
      AND THESE PEOPLE GET AWAY WITH IS , THE GOVERMENT NEED TO CRACK DOWN THESE PEOPLE. COST TAX PAYOR 50 MILLION A YEAR TO SUPPORT THE FREELOADER AND SOME OF THESE PEOPLE LIVE OFF THE SYSTEM FOR 15 TO 20 YEAR ,SOME OF THESE PEOPLE THEIR IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THEM , THEY JUST WANT TO FREELOADER THE SYSTEM.

    23. Jon-Paul says:

      By making individuals dependent upon the government for everything one does defines Obama actions as those of a dictator rather than a leader in the free world

    24. joy says:

      The sad thing is we r letting him do this when will we fight for our country

    25. Marie says:

      So….the English version of this is?
      Sounds to me like he's making it easier to get welfare, would that be correct?

    26. desirae500 says:

      I'm not understanding how this is legal – even if POTUS says so.

    27. sue pope says:

      I grew up when ther was no goverment give away we were poor but we made. All these welfare state started under Johnson

    28. Chris says:

      Ok, Enough!!
      How can this Treasonous Baffoon do this without Congress? He has no authority to change existing laws or enact new ones. When is SOME:ONE going to STOP him????

    29. vicki says:

      knowing how slow government bureaucrats are we can elect Romney/West and put a stop to it all.

    30. My head hurts just from reading all this bureaucratic mumble jumble.

    31. Kay007 says:

      So let's see.. Obama has pandered to the gays, pandered to women by creating an imaginary republican war on women, he has pandered to the Latino's and now he's pandering to the poor folks by telling them they can still collect their benefits and keep their feet up on the sofa.. nice. This guy is a clown.

      • Rural AR Mom says:

        Um –
        It wasn't welfare recipients who asked for these waivers – it was Republican Governors who asked that their state not have to meet the same standards/criteria and still be able to hand out the benefits to their constituents.

        In case you read that too quickly, let me repeat: These waivers were granted to REPUBLICAN GOVERNORS who requested them. It is not something that President Obama just took into his head to do all on his own.

        Even ROMNEY requested such waivers when he was Governor of Massachusetts.

    32. Cheryl says:

      Entitlements, Entitlements, Entitlements!! What poor family isnt getting at least 4 or 5 entitlements? How can they feel any dignity any more? This king has the subjects who dont want to work doing absolutely nothing now, of course as jobs become more scarce, this helps the unemployment numbers. They live off food stamp which now pay for anything at all, where they used to be only for nutritious food. Unemployment, disability for any one who is out of a job and doesn't have money–just find a form and apply for something and it will be given to you. It's no wonder King O doesn't believe America is exceptional–he is dumbing down our country in every way possible–one person at a time. The way out is to make these entitlements mean something–disability only for those who are disabled–and the tests stringent. No unemployment at the federal level. Work for welfare or preparation to work–it brings about dignity. Food stamps only for the truely poor and only for truely nutritious food. When will Americans rise up and overthrow King O??? He is the one who has changed all of this for the worse.

    33. Manrella says:

      Stop with saying welfare on the governments dime, IT IS NOT THE GOVERNMENT DIME its the working peoples dime. I really think the working people should have a say on things like this seeing its our hard earned money they are giving away!

    34. bluefatboy says:

      I'm sure there are "astute" and very "savvy" Politicos here making very convincing comments; the problem is many of them, if any have ever been on the Govt "tit"! I have for about 6mos. Just after the "work" for your supper rule was started. I met men from the Ukraine who had no problem with working for benefits, men from our USA who mostly complained why did they have to work for what they felt were entitled to? So you see folks, there is a real problem with changing again a rule that was a good change originally! I know of course those liberal bleeding hearts would say "Oh you are messing up the family or they are entitled to these , "freebies" why should they actually have to perform honest work for it?" Let me tell you Progressive secular socialists: don't you read the news? Greece, France, Italy? These countries are in trouble; why? Because they have entitlements they cannot sustain because the money is not there and the rules are way too liberal. We are a Country of compassionate people and we do have an obligation to to help those who are truly in need, as a Safety Net; but not those who live to live off ot the sweat of the people who work and provide through taxes for their needy. Those who don't see this I pity, you are delusional and have no grasp of reality; or you are hell bent on destroying this Country for ulterior motives. PS The work I did for my welfare check was one of three choices 1. Parks Dept 2. Sanitation Dept 3. Police Dept and all of the work was the same as the fully paid employees would have to do. Have A Blessed Day. Oh and I got a job ASAP to do something I wanted to do. Good motivation, NO?

    35. Yankee Dooddol! says:

      Maybe that is where he got all of his money!

    36. Guest says:

      He's buying his election, he's destroying the second ammendment so the poeple cannot fight for what's their's, plain and simple.

    37. Mary Renshaw says:

      Working at breakneck speed to destroy as much as he can before he gets the boot! Never say he wasn't successful in what he set out to do to us all. It'll take a long time to undo the damage and in the meantime, we have plenty of ignorant selfish voters who won't like the "discomfort" of turning this ship around. I only hope we can educate them and convince them that America really works when allowed to be free. Problem is , we really haven't been free for a long time! It's time to throw off all the shackles they've been putting on the American people since Woodrow Wilson to today!

    38. Jn says:

      Wow, next thing he will be flying across the country literally giving money for votes, actually I guess he already is doing that. Every Democrat should be voted out of office that supports this president, so work in your states to get this done.

    39. If there was ever any doubt that Obama is creating a nation of dependents, this efficiently lays those doubts to rest. For the life of me, I can't understand Obamanomics – looks more like Greece's economics to me. And the liberals? They're in the Dance Band on the Titanic. (Sorry Harry Chapin, you song title comes to mind. May you RIP)

    40. guest says:

      When does this take effect?

    41. guest says:

      When does this take effect?

    42. @snackboy says:

      If people would read what was actually done, this is merely HHS having the ability to grant waivers to States that want to try out new programs. Nothing more, nothing less.

    43. Larry White says:

      Impeach President Barack Hussein Obama II ! There are no mysteries to discover about Obama, no more records to find and no more documents to subpoena. Senator Obama on October 30, 2008 promised "…We are 5 days away from Fundamentally changing the United States of America". At the same event he also promised to cut taxes on 95% of working American families, to renovate the country's infrastructure and create 5 million new energy jobs. We now know what promises he intended to keep.
      Obama has 190 days to further damage our country. Few have any concept of how much more destruction Obama and the Left can do in that time!
      How can we STOP THEM NOW?
      I

    44. Steve says:

      I worked in the grocery store meat cutting business for 20 years and saw so many corrupted and illegal activity with food stamps made you sick. I was meat department manager watching lady's buy my t bone, and ribbeys helping carry them out to the Cadillac while ee and my 2 kids a single parent ate hamburgers? I dated several ADC moms almost all worked for cash, cleaned homes, strippers, hookers most sold or traded out part of their food stamps for cash all would work for cash mowed lawns, painted, cleaned homes some stripped and hooked all cash and yet were first to push our schools to give FREE lunch for there kids daily all summer while she set on her ass and sold the extra stamps and lets not forget the free dental braes, free $100 tennis shoes for school, free or very low rent housing I had one mad as hell when I told her she made more a year setting on yer ass with 4 kids than I could managing a meat department and proved it too here :-) what a life!!

    45. Guest says:

      This isn't a correct interpretation of the law…

      The way TANF works now is that states run their TANF programs, but they have to meet federal requirements. What this new law does is allow states to come up with their own tailored way of doing things, kind of like pilot programs, hopefully to improve the program and actually serve people in need. HHS has to approve this alternative though and make sure it's adequate. The law doesn't straight up waive the work requirement. What it does is allow states the flexibility to create tailored programs, and if they come up with a more effective measure than the current work requirements (not sure what the specifics are off-hand), they won't have to report the work requirement as is. They can't just not report it though-they have to present a viable alternative. This new law is largely because TANF is benefitting a smaller percentage of children/families in poverty than ever before, not because there are less children in poverty, but because, as this link (http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3700) states "States’ primary performance measure under TANF, the work participation rate, discourages states from assisting families in the greatest need. States are more likely to meet the rate if they assist families that already have some education, skills, and/or work experience and have the best chance of either securing employment or participating in a narrowly defined set of work activities. States can identify such families in various ways, and many states do so. As a result, the families that most need a safety net are the least likely to have access to it."

    46. jim says:

      We can change a law by edict now? Very interesting mein fuhrer

    47. guest says:

      does this take effect immediately?

    48. Sully says:

      Within 2 weeks of taking office he signed an executive order eliminating the time limits required under the 1996 reform. 5 years returned to lifetime. Then as part of the "stimulus" bill the Democrats codified this same provision.

    49. mtt1231 says:

      It is such an insult to people to make them dependent! We can't let obama get away with this!

    50. Dennis Terry says:

      Wow, It is simply amazing the amount of damage one egomaniacal ruler can do to a nation in just a few short years. I have been looking forward to November to finally put an end to the reign of economic and social war this stupid idiot has waged on our great country, but now I am worried if this damaged nation can wait that long.

    51. KTEE says:

      YES I ABSOLUTELY LOVE THE WAY THEY PUT ALL OF THE WELFARE SPENDING INTO THE "FARM BILL" AND NO FARMERS ACTUALLY GET ANY INCENTIVES GIVEN TO THEM FOR SUPPORTING THE LAZY BUTTS WHO DRAW THE CHECKS EACH MONTH. FARMERS WORK LITERALLY SUN UP AND SUN DOWN TO PROVIDE FOOD TO THIS NATION AND OTHER COUNTRIES, YET NO PLUSES FOR DOING SO!!! AND YET THE COUCH POTATOES THINK THEY DESERVE THIS!! AND THE BAD THING, THEY ARE ON IT, THEY GET THIER KIDS ON IT AND THE CYCLE JUST KEEPS GOING.

    52. Bev says:

      Ever hear of Birth Control? If it is against your religion, then it is also against your religion to have premarital sex. Just eliminate welfare. If you can't find work, there is unemployment if you can prove you are looking for work. At least that used to be the case and should be again. Nothing pisses me off more than someone having a kid and then expecting me to support them. I had to work and raise my kids. You can't have a kid with out two people involve so have both parents support their own kids like me & my husband did working opposite shifts for years so we didn't need daycare. It can be done.

    53. vote buying at the basic level and more of yours and my tax dollars, urinated away so this bum can stay in power and continue his destruction of America.
      vote like your kids and grand kids future depend on it; cause they do.
      once it's gone (democracy in America) it will never be gotten back.
      check out history and see how many countries which were over thrown, returned to their former form of government.

    54. blahdyblah says:

      he is shoring up votes … as usual …

    55. maam says:

      I would like to know the administration's rationale for their decision. They keep doing weird things and none of it is supported by statements that explain the "good reasons" for the changes. I don't know of any good reason for this. It sounds like it just moves us further into a Socialist, Government Program-based society. Welcome to the USSR!

    56. Richard L Walker says:

      One revision that might have helped give "pride in a job well done" to those on welfare and it gets yanked out from under them.

    57. Jane says:

      Just one more of Obama's tricks!! Wonder when we will hear repeated reports about this on CNN, Fox News, etc. All that can be reported today are accusations against Romney's associations with Bain Capital and Obama's attempt to smear him again.

    58. HE fails to show up at the NAACP convention & GETS SLAMMED BY THE MEDIA FOR 2 DAYS FOR "TAKING THE BLACK VOTE FOR GRANTED" And the 14.4% black unemployment rate

    59. raintyday says:

      I cannot believe he (who is to be a leader for US) would gut welfare reform. He's suppose to be working to get the people jobs and the USA going again. And again he is buying votes because he has absolutely no idea how to accomplish that. So he's making our world dependent on his party for life so he can rule. Are people so dense they would trade their freedoms for goodies and become like Syria is or Iraq was? Has our society been dumbed down that much by liberals interfering in our lives? And some thought Bush was bad! At least he stood for our country and liked our people and left us with our freedoms. Geez – our country has gone down hill fast under Obama! Are we going to let him finish taking us down? Republicans – get your backbone built up and take this guy to court for all his law breaking and his bully ways and get him out of our hair !!!!!

    60. David says:

      These waivers were originally approved between 2002 and 2009, with many being approved under the Health Insurance Flexibility and Accountability (HIFA) waiver initiative released by the Bush Administration in 2001. The fact that waivers have been extended when some states don't even have enough money to pay firefighters ( shouldn't ) surprise anyone. And it especially shouldn't surprise anyone when the word tax has now become a 4 letter word to some.
      http://www.kff.org/medicaid/upload/8196.pdf

    61. Bill C. says:

      he knows he's not going to get re-elected, so he is pulling out all the stops to cement his "legacy" whule he still can!

    62. Ima Hater says:

      Blame it on Lincoln.Line up your coins penny nickel dime quarter–why are all the Pres. facing away turning their backs on him?

    63. Eric in ATL says:

      A few weeks ago it was a unilateral decision by Obama to not enforce immigration laws. Now it is a decision to not enforce welfare laws. Looks like it is time to buy some votes for the election! Obama must be more scared of Romney than he is letting on.

    64. Daniel Araujo says:

      The 'annointed one' has spoken. Lest ye who are critical bow before him, thou shalt be ostricized, criticized, and suchicized. Let him do what he does best…destroy the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. He's a master architect in this field. November…. remember…. vote!!! If u side with the Master of Disaster Obama, vote for him, if not, vote for an alternative!

    65. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      It won't get past the House.

    66. masteredq says:

      God only knows how much more damage this sick man is going to cause before we get him out. I have read from numerous source that he is a Psycho caused by his unstable up bringing and influences. We are in trouble, I just hope the chaos he is going to cause doesn't end up in rioting and blood baths.

    67. Joe says:

      This appears to me to be a way to keep the voting group for the dems in line. If the pres really wanted his voting block to improve their lot in life, he wouldn't snatch the rug from under their feet.

    68. Tonie says:

      Can't we stop him from ignoring our current laws and stop him from changing them? Who does he think he is god? or can we override/change back his arbitrary bad works. How can he be allowed to do this? Why are the senate and congress wearing blindfolders and have their ears blocked? Does anyone have the ability to stand up for the American people against this demigod?

    69. John Higgins says:

      When I was growing up in the thirties welfare participation was a disgrace.If a person or family did go on welfare it was usually administered by the community and was paid for with community service. we had neighbors who worked for the street department,collected trash,distributed food etc.The depression was not over and my mother did custodial work and my dad dug basements until he could return to work as a machinist. I sorted bricks for one dollar per day and picked fruit and delivered papers. There is always work to be done but people will not work if they can get the government to support them. It's that simple John Higgins Lowellville Oh

    70. It was probably Slick Willie Clinton's idea. Fabian Socialist are no better than the Marxists.
      Now the welfare recipients get dropped from the BLS under-reported unemployment numbers. Magically, the unemployment rate will be under 8% n no time.

    71. @Nikechic619 says:

      I'm not a very intellectual person, all I know is that it feels good to work and make my own money and not rely on anyone including the government for survival. It's amazing that there are groups of people who think they are entitled to free money. I say work, make a paradigm shift in what you call success, and don't bite the hands that feed you.

    72. dianneL says:

      I just did a google search and could not find any major newspaper other than USA Today reporting on this. Further, I did not see ABC, CBS or NBC reporting on it either. So, when Governor Brandstad was on C-span this morning, I called the issue in to Gov. Brandstad and he explained it and pretty much blasted it. so, hopefully at least the C-span viewers heard about it.

    73. Grandpa Dave says:

      Civics 101 — Congress writes the law and the Administration enforces the laws… not the other way around.
      Oh, excuse me… I forgot. During BHO's second term he will become our dictator. After all he knows what is best for you. He is only practicing that role now.

    74. Andre Smith says:

      Heritage, as usual, isn't too bright

      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.

    75. @ignatzz says:

      So now conservatives DON'T want the States running programs.

    76. peter - chgo says:

      Far too many people are focused on the nearterm economic impact of the changes BHO has put in place and lost sight of the power he has wresteld away from the other 2 branches of government. Our Constitution clearly establishes THREE EQUAL BRANCHES each with balanced power so as to prevent the kind on monarchial and dictatorial power (abuses) that was detailed in the Declaration of Independence. BHO has circumvented that process through his use of "executive order" and is taking the country in a direction that is contrary to "the American Dream"

    77. SusanS says:

      This man has continually done the opposite of what our country needs. I am so beyond appalled at this move. And why is it – AGAIN – that congress does not get to vote on this? Oh.. because the man is a dictator and any American who truly cares about their country and their children's future should be ready to boot his butt OUT of the White house.

    78. guestgirl says:

      I read the memorandum and was saddened to learn that once again a right leaning article has overstated an Obama administration position. There are anecdotes in these very comments that illustrate that the "work requirements" hardly encourage work nor self-sufficiency. The HHS memo acknowledges that and gives states the option to formulate alternative ways to COMPLY with the work requirements ie. more flexibility/credit for those pursuing vocational credentials… This is hardly radical. It's hardly anything in fact. I agree that the welfare reform initiative did nothing to encourage 2 parent families, as many women applying for tanf must apply for child support in order to go through with the process. So an unmarried couple have a rift created between them in order to receive financial assistance. Also, a mom who gets 250 a month in public assistance in exchange for 120+ hours of her time doing menial chores at some random location or a series of endless job searches in a stagnant market is forced to part from her child, even infant just to make less than 2 bucks an hour.

      I am a huge believer in the golden rule. And those of you who can't seem to fit into the shoes walk the steps of the poor may soon enough find a pair made just for you :)

    79. In the 90's Bill Clinton and the Replublican led congress reformed welfare and beta requiring able bodied people on welfare to begin either working or preparing to work. The Barak Obama administration has just gone around congress and removed the work requirement from the law. Now , can any of you out there in Facebook land please tell me how you justify this action? Anyone?

    80. doyourdream says:

      Although issues are important, as a country, we can't let ourselves be distracted strictly by the issues…..We need to pay attention to the underlying process that a is going on. I agree with those that say that entitlement policies are not the answer. You don't' promote independence and self-efficacy by giving people things without working for it. Most people don't' value things that they don't have to work for. They tend to take them for granted and develop a sense of entitlement, not a sense of autonomy and independence, which our country was founded on. We are headed down a very slippery slope

    81. Todd says:

      Out of curiosity, is it possible he did this to try to drop the Unemployment rate? If people don't have to seek work for their welfare, they can drop out of the workforce pool and lower the unemployment rate by their numbers thereby making Obama look like he put more people to work when he actually put them on welfare. Just wondering.

    82. Kristen says:

      The divider in chief is ending the one big bipartisan reform effort of the 90's.

    83. Holly says:

      Has it occurred to anyone that people CANNOT live on $7.75 an hour? ALL those JOB CREATORS who pay people minimum wage result in people being forced to apply for welfare. Basically it's tax payers who SUBSIDIZE substandard wages so the fat can get fatter. That's $15,500 per year. THAT person DOES pay taxes – social security and payroll taxes at the federal level.

    84. Earlene says:

      We have an adopted daughter who lives off TANF and food stamps. She goes to college and takes dance classes, martial arts, voice lessons,etc, nothing in the way of getting a degree and collects the money she can get to live on. We are sick about it all but the Department of Human Services in Oregon keeps her on it and will not insist that she really work at getting a degree in something. In fact, they encourage her to do this and shows her how. Shh is just one stastic in thousands that do this kind of thing and as a result, they and their children live in limbo and poverty. All we need is the federal govt. making it worse and easier.

    85. Blair Franconia, NH says:

      Obama wants to end welfare reform as we know it.

    86. Kate's grandma says:

      Legal waivers for 407 are listed in SS Section 1115
      (c)(1)(A) The Secretary shall enter into agreements with up to 8 States submitting applications under this subsection for the purpose of conducting demonstration projects in such States to test and evaluate the use, with respect to individuals who received aid under part A of title IV in the preceding month (on the basis of the unemployment of the parent who is the principal earner), of a number greater than 100 for the number of hours per month that such individuals may work and still be considered to be unemployed for purposes of section 407. If any State submits an application under this subsection for the purpose of conducting a demonstration project to test and evaluate the total elimination of the 100-hour rule, the Secretary shall approve at least one such application.

      (B) If any State with an agreement under this subsection so requests, the demonstration project conducted pursuant to such agreement may test and evaluate the complete elimination of the 100-hour rule and of any other durational standard that might be applied in defining unemployment for purposes of determining eligibility under section 407. http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1115.htm
      Head of HHS clearly stated in letter to Sen. Hatch
      “no plan that undercuts the goal of moving people from welfare to work will be considered or approved.”
      "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." http://www.scribd.com/doc/100482692/Sen-Hatch-TAN
      Letter she mentions from 29 GOP governors (including Romney) requesting this type of state experimentation legally spelled out in above section of SS1115.
      (Link from from http://www.finance.senate.gov/) <a href="https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GDjbmFjHHLUJ :www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/download/%3Fid%3Dc6a46681-ee81-4a4e-a608-a1eabd1b2f90+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjt9cab3kfLlZZXJBGoH3Bs7opyrHbnH3BNP4grxp6TCX-P1LY-R57s-2pO4upIvsUexRcQ5WS1RrNv9h4ZDGLJY_eau2ZHz8CziI5NHeVub-BFQQjIMFBa7ztyHn1ICFLb6JBl&sig=AHIEtbST2qa1Cxaf66SKpjTjo_3-LWr7Gg” target=”_blank”>https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:GD…” target=”_blank”>:www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/download/%3Fid%3Dc6a46681-ee81-4a4e-a608-a1eabd1b2f90+&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjt9cab3kfLlZZXJBGoH3Bs7opyrHbnH3BNP4grxp6TCX-P1LY-R57s-2pO4upIvsUexRcQ5WS1RrNv9h4ZDGLJY_eau2ZHz8CziI5NHeVub-BFQQjIMFBa7ztyHn1ICFLb6JBl&sig=AHIEtbST2qa1Cxaf66SKpjTjo_3-LWr7Gg

      Library of Congress
      HB 3734 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996
      SEC. 407 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c104:1:./te…

    87. Aeroy says:

      Firstly, some Republican governors this year asked the Obama administration for some new flexibility on welfare standards — the governors had some ideas about moving folks from welfare to work and needed the White House to sign off. Obama agreed — existing work requirements would stay in place, but states, if they want to, can take advantage of new flexibility when it comes to experimenting with existing law. The waiver is for states that has their own work requirement tweaks or replacement, not for individuals.

      This is the sort of shifting-power-to-the-states policy that Republicans are supposed to love. All Obama did is agree to Republican governors' request for flexibility. That's it. Romney himself, during his gubernatorial term, asked for the same kind of flexibility on welfare law that Obama agreed to.

    88. Lowell says:

      People, please fact check this article (ABC is one such service, but there are others). This article is a "pants on fire" distortion you will learn. Romney distorts this even further, sadly for the GOP.

    89. Tank Richards says:

      A colored guy at my job who thinks he knows everything says that the Romney ad is a lie. Today he showed us a article where Clinton the well known liar said that the Romney ad was false. The colored guy was reading the Obama directive to us and it sounds like a bunch of voodoo mumbo jumbo. I think its another trick by Obama to give coloreds more welfare. Obama is a bigger liar than Clinton. I dont believe nothing Obama says. So if Romney says it must be true. Obama and Eric Holder are racist and want to turn this country into communist. Get out and vote for Romney other wise we will be doomed.

    90. Welfare reform may have been the most productive thing that Clinton did.

    91. Erich says:

      Makes you wonder how almost half of America's population have become so stupid. I guess if you line up all the typical Obama supporter you could pick them out easy enough,examples: brainwashed students "most think they know everything at eighteen", commie teachers, nude bicycle riders, stinky hippies,Atheist, Unions, hypocrites,deadbeats, gun haters, gooey eyed progressives,race baiters, ugly people,that would be shunned by society if they did not act "edgy", "uncool to be white now" race traitors,i.e (Tim Wise types), apologist, polar bear loving,me too!, baby killing, clipped hair feminist,men that kiss in public,..bloggers that reply by saying "your stupid". That's enough for now,please add your favorites to my list,great fun!

    92. Kevin Aslanian says:

      Kevin Aslanian, CCWRO. Sad that you folks cannot even read English and see what the HHS memo said – it did not repeal the racist and barbaric work requirement of 1996 – it keep that evil item – forcing parents to abandon their parental responsibilities, dump their kids in a Government run day care center, while they do unpaid labor or work for less than minimum wage for the American elite and government- is well and alive. The fact that poor parents are not allowed to parent should bring immense joy to those who despise poor families, like the Heritage foundation and their "poor kid and family hating" supporter. It also means more profits for the US elite by giving them forced cheap labor – welcome to the Soviet Union.

    93. Keith Wilson says:

      From Kathleen Sebelius, The Secretary of Health and Human Services, July 18, 2012, letter to The Honorable Dave Camp, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/Chairman%2

      "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."

      See also the letter from George Sheldon, Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, July 12, 2012, to State Human Service Officials, which accompanied the memos sent from the Administration to the states regarding the new waiver policy.

      PolitiFact rates the Romney ad, which claims that the work requirement is waived, as "Pants on Fire!". (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/)

      The Washington Post gives Romney's (and now Ryan's) claims "Four Pinocchios". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/spin-and-counterspin-in-the-welfare-debate/2012/08/07/61bf03b6-e0e3-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html)

    94. Keith Wilson says:

      From Kathleen Sebelius, The Secretary of Health and Human Services, July 18, 2012, letter to The Honorable Dave Camp, Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives. http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/PDF/Chairman%2

      "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."

      See also the letter from George Sheldon, Acting Assistant Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, July 12, 2012, to State Human Service Officials, which accompanied the memos sent from the Administration to the states regarding the new waiver policy. The letter to the states from George Sheldon can be found at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/collea

      PolitiFact rates the Romney ad, which claims that the work requirement is waived, as "Pants on Fire!". (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/aug/07/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obamas-plan-abandons-tenet/)

      The Washington Post gives Romney's (and now Ryan's) claims "Four Pinocchios". (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/spin-and-counterspin-in-the-welfare-debate/2012/08/07/61bf03b6-e0e3-11e1-8fc5-a7dcf1fc161d_blog.html)

    95. Dorothy Zink says:

      Politifact Ruling on this story:

      "Our ruling

      Romney’s ad says, "Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."

      That's a drastic distortion of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. What’s more, the waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs — HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.

      The ad tries to connect the dots to reach this zinger: "They just send you your welfare check." The HHS memo in no way advocates that practice. In fact, it says the new policy is "designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

      The ad’s claim is not accurate, and it inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance. Pants on Fire!"

    96. Jane says:

      The authors of the Welfare Reform Act specifically states " No Presidents can reverse the Welfare Act" read it yourself.

    97. Can says:

      It's painfully obvious, "Wake UP"!!! There are so many small business' in the state that I live, the owners hire people of all races, and pay them under the table. Some owners pay as little as possible for the employee on paper the rest comes in cash. You can see these employees at the unemployment office collecting, and most of them receive food stamps by the way, and all have cell phones! Republican employers, so take responsibility for the actions that got us into this mess.

    98. adam says:

      Thats why we have soo many illegals crossing the border because they get their kids supported by the goverment.they have children & get all the goverment benifts & they dont report they work.that why are Economy is the way it is.they have better cars & than most llegal citizens & they even get to buy they own house with the goverments money.obama made it worst by giving paers to illegals.

    99. stacy says:

      just a note on the hole welfare thing…. i think they should cut it completely because as long as its around people are making it a way of life and passing it to there children instead of it being a hand up its a hand out and i think its bull shit that people that are on welfare can eat steaks for dinner and own smartphones and have to gove pay for it when the ones that work 40 plus hours a week are eating hot dogs and struggling to get by.

    100. Castillian says:

      The liberal democrat – demagogue news is responsable for misleading citizens,
      What happened to fair reporting ? I want Walter Cronkite back.

    101. Mom2three says:

      The AARP does not agree with you. What makes you right and the AARP wrong? Who is running this website?? I just want facts, not fiction from a group of people who have something to gain for not telling the truth!!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×