Success is getting off welfare « Hot Air: Agree?

In 1996, Republicans forced through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) bill, also known as welfare reform. It incentivized states to create welfare-to-work programs, trying to transition Americans from government dependency to financial solvency. But states quickly acted to poke holes in that legislation, calling the following activities “work” for purposes of the statute: bed rest, personal care activities, massage, exercise, journaling, motivational reading, smoking cessation, weight loss promotion, participation in parent-teacher meetings, or helping friends or family with household tasks and errands.
This was idiotic. So in 2005, Congress closed the loophole, over the objections of then-Senator Obama.
Now, Obama has walked back the 2005 legislation, using his Department of Health and Human Services to unilaterally waive those work requirements. “This Administration is unbelievable,” said Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT). “Green-lighting new regulations to change bipartisan welfare reform without consultation from Congress is an outright abuse of the federal government’s system of checks and balances and an insult to American taxpayers.”
A high-ranking Republican staffer commented, “Only someone with a religious faith in government would change the rules such that ‘journaling’ now qualifies you for welfare assistance.”
But this is Obama’s new definition of work: anything that allows you to receive government assistance. After all, welfare, unemployment benefits, and all other payouts forward the economy, according to our magnificent president.

Sorry your spin does not hold water
CAROL COSTELLO: With high unemployment and other issues, why would the Romney team release this type of ad now?

Sen. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON (R-Tex.): Because it is a major change in the work requirement that has been such a good reform. In fact, it's one of the best reforms that has worked. Five million people were on the welfare rolls in 1994. And in 2010, at the end, it was about two million. So it's really put people to work, given them a pride in themselves. There are so many good stories about welfare reform that families now with working people have more income, and their children grow up not in poverty, but seeing a work ethic. And to have guidelines that are now coming out to soften that, Carol, is a very bad thing.

COSTELLO: Well Senator, the only problem with this ad, and I'm sure many people would agree with what you say, but we fact-checked that ad along with PolitiFact, and it's just not true. Two Republican governors asked for these waivers, and the waivers don't remove the requirement that welfare recipients find work.

HUTCHISON: It lessens the requirement and it allows self-help-type programs to be substituted for either job training or the work requirement. And the work requirement is 20 to 30 hours. So it's not a full-time work requirement, but it is a modest work requirement. And Carol, that's the foundation of the bill.

COSTELLO: Well, Democrats say they even have this letter signed by Mitt Romney when he was governor of Massachusetts. He appealed to Congress for increased waiver authority in the program for the sake of moving recipients from welfare to work, because the requirements coming down from the government have just made it difficult for states to help these people find jobs. And as you might expect, in these tough economic times, it's hard for everyone to find work.

HUTCHISON: Well, what is important is that the work requirement be in place. Even if it is, in many states they have a state requirement that they can do things for the state that the state can't afford to do right now. Why wouldn't an innovative state be able to say, gosh, we have got all these things that need to be done, but our coffers are strapped. So we will take people who are willing to work. And they are taking welfare and we'll put them to work and we'll give them the opportunity to be disciplined and go to work every day and learn maybe a new trade or a new job.

COSTELLO: But even Mitt Romney, back when he was governor of Massachusetts, wanted these types of waivers because he found it difficult to really truly help people on welfare. He wanted his state of Massachusetts to figure out how to do that best.

HUTCHISON: Well, I think we are talking about the Obama record here and the federal requirements. And I don't think Mitt Romney meant to have self-help programs be substituted for work training and really making the effort to give people the opportunity to earn more and get a job training skill.

And I think we are talking about an Obama overreach. There was no warning that he was going to try to change the rules. It would never have gotten through Congress, what he is trying to do. So whether it's Republican governors who are asking for waivers, I don't think any of them are looking at putting reading and self-help exercise classes in place of work training that will give people an opportunity to be a part of a productive society.

COSTELLO: In fairness, at the time – and going back to when Romney was governor of Massachusetts, he defended a state program that provided automobile insurance and AAA plans to welfare recipients because they had donated cars and they needed to drive to work. And some of these regulations, issued down by the federal government, prevented them from doing that. So I think maybe these Republican governors who requested this of the White House wanted those types of help programs.

HUTCHISON: And I would agree with that. You want to make it easier. That's why there are also capabilities for people to get good child care when they are on welfare and in a work program. That's something that we all support. We would support making it easier to get to work. But I think the welfare reform is one of the most successful that we have had in this country. And I really applaud Mitt Romney for standing up and saying we don't want to, in any way, lessen the work requirement, because it's had a good impact on the standards of families and children who now don't live in poverty.

COSTELLO: Even if that's not really true?

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/...