It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Guts Welfare Reform

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
from The Foundry
July 12, 2012

Obama Guts Welfare Reform
 

This story says that the U.S. Department of Human Services (HHS) has now "exempted" the "work" requirement from TARP. Correction:[color=cyan]that's TANF not TARP --sorry

TARP TANF is essentially the family welfare program.


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.



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.


link to HHS memo details


What is the "Target" with this ??

Votes ????






edit on Jul-12-2012 by xuenchen because: corrected "TARP" to "TANF"

edit on Jul-12-2012 by xuenchen because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by xuenchen
from The Foundry
July 12, 2012

Obama Guts Welfare Reform
 

This story says that the U.S. Department of Human Services (HHS) has now "exempted" the "work" requirement from TARP.

TARP is essentially the family welfare program.


TANF, not TARP... There was absolutely no work requirement attached to TARP as evidenced by the fact that it neither worked nor kept Americans working after the money was cherrfully passed from the tax payers to the bankers.

Otherwise, no surprises here... I honestly believe that Obama is strongly depending on the welfare recipient vote as his main demographic come November. Seems like the only logical reason he has strived for 3 and a half years to increase the numbers in that group by as much as possible.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I wonder of this skews the numbers collected for people out of work/unemployed. Does anyone know. If it does, I can see him doing it to make the jobs numbers look better for election.

Des



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


TANF, not TARP... There was absolutely no work requirement attached to TARP as evidenced by the fact that it neither worked nor kept Americans working after the money was cherrfully passed from the tax payers to the bankers.


thanks for the correction....

OP is "corrected"

I am a little slow today



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
reply to post by xuenchen
 


It would appear, at least based on this section of the article you linked in your OP, that the general purpose of this exemption is to give the states the power to try and find a better way to improve the stated goal of getting the unemployed, re-employed.


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. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.


Sounds to me like even when they attempt to return some of the power to the states, you still want to bitch about it. I beginning to think your threads have more to do with who done it, as opposed to what was actually done.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
Is there a lawyer in the house?? (gets up on table and shouts) Is there a lawyer in the house??

I can't make heads, tails or morons out of that friggen rule change and I'm not normally so challenged about making sense of them. That one is gobblygook. If someone can ever make plain sense of what this actually changed, please DO share.

One aspect of TANF, at least in some states, that isn't talked about that I see is how it's also used to replace Child Support and supplement for mothers getting stiffed by fathers the state knows the location of and is just building a mountain to drop on. They get the bill for every dollar...but part of the reform cut that along with everything else for the limits and conditions. I know more than one mom suffering hard right now with a dead beat dad and a state basically shrugging and saying 'So?'. I wish this was clearer for how it might effect women in that position.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
It's kicking the economy into the states lap,rather than solving it at the federal level.They are easier to blame and when they fail you can send in help.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
It's kicking the economy into the states lap,rather than solving it at the federal level.They are easier to blame and when they fail you can send in help.


States are supposed to have more power than the fed's. It's better that way why should someone that my state didn't vote into office be able to tell my state what to do?



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


I agree also, he is betting on the welfare recipients and those that live on government assistance to win the elections, I also agree that this group of society has grown bigger during Obama administration and packaging attractive propaganda like free health care and promises of checks in the mail without any productivity is selling like hot cakes.

But as usual nobody ask where the money is coming from as long as they are the recipients, while somebody else gets screwed in the process.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 09:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


It's actually like a "LOAN" in TX. Once the other parent starts paying child support, the state drops the amount of tanf. Within 6 months? To zero. And takesall the child support except like 50 bucks and thats what the family gets until until the tanf is paid off.

Also with tanf, say I get tanf for jimmy but not Sarah. (Different fathers ).
I put Sarah's father on child support, and he pays on time, everytime.
the state takes Sarah's child support to pay for Jimmy's tanf.

So you have an honest father paying for a child that's not his. And taking from a child whos father is providing.

I was on tanf for 3 months just to get on my feet. But got off asap. Supposedly there is a 5 year limit that extends to the children. In other words, if I use a 5 years, and later on my daughter needs tanf, she can't get it. So I made sure I got off just incase my children ever needed it.



posted on Jul, 12 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Yeah it is about votes:

50 million Americans are on the program called welfare that same 50 million is on Government insurance called medicaid.

There is absolutely no incentive to make welfare reform when one combines/welfare,free housing,free educations,free cell phones

Why would anyone get off it?

Welfare reform from the left is never going to happen.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:12 AM
link   
I have posted this, and knew this would come up again today because I saw all the news articles about Obama "sidestepping the law" on Welfare Reform, oh noes!

The problem is, and so very few people even know this, is, Obama ended Clintons' Welfare Reform when he signed the Stimulus Act in 2009.

www.examiner.com...

The President has ended welfare reform as we know it.
September 18, 2009
By: D. Christian Moore



The massive $785 billion stimulus bill, passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, changes one of the basic principles which made the 1996 legislation so effective. Welfare reform, as signed and enacted by President Clinton, removed the incentive for states to grow their welfare rolls.



Rather than “encouraging” increased use of benefits, and thereby encouraging dependency, the goal of welfare programs would be to get folks back to work so they no longer would rely on the Government. This was seen as a proper balance between helping those who really needed it, and de-incentivizing a dependency culture. This is what the stimulus bill changed. In fact, states will now receive more funding under the stimulus by expending all manner of aid programs.




Clinton Welfare Reform worked amazingly well at getting people off the Government dole and back to work by having limitations on how long someone could get benefits, and by encouraging return to work and having return to work programs. This was, in fact, considered one of the biggest successes of Clintons' carreer, and was considered a glowing example of bi-partisan policymaking between Clinton and Gingrich.

Source: boards.medscape.com...@226.Y7UzagPUeq0@.2a32a75e!comment=1
The National Review, 2009


Pres. Barack Obama vowed to correct the mistakes of the Bush administration but instead is determined to undo one of the great successes of the Clinton years: welfare reform. Democrats have inserted provisions into the catch-all stimulus bill that will reverse Clinton-era welfare reform, re-establishing the wasteful, incentive-killing system whose transformation was the bipartisan pride of the 1990s.


Amazingly, it was the National Review, today, that came out with an article bashing Obama for effectively sidestepping the law on Welfare Reform, knowing full well it had been all but redacted with the stimulus bill.

Quite a display of media bias, or did they just forget the little nugget was passed with the Stimulus bill? And they wrote about it already? I don't buy that.

Regardless, it's old news, and not many people knew about it. I have posted about it on ATS multiple times in several threads, but no one cared until it bloomed out of control.

Note the date above and the date on this article:
www.nationalreview.com...

Obama Ends Welfare Reform As We Know It

By Robert Rector & Katherine Bradley
July 12, 2012 7:00 P.M



This afternoon, President Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an official policy directive undermining the welfare reform law of 1996. The new policy guts the federal work requirements that have been the foundation of that law — one of the most successful domestic policy reforms in the 20th century.


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.


What? Really? But I thought they said that in 2009? So, which is it? The law no longer EXISTS under the Stimulus Law.

Other links:

www.washingtontimes.com...
www.humanevents.com...
www.fitsnews.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
It's kicking the economy into the states lap,rather than solving it at the federal level.They are easier to blame and when they fail you can send in help.


That is because the funding ran out, essentially, from the Stimulus Act, in 2010. The Act, actually, reads, until 2010 or until funds are depleted. Once the bloated state welfare rolls, which are only bloated because they got kickbacks from the Feds for every person they enrolled, runs out, then the burden to pay the bloat falls on the state.

It's kind of a bait and switch.

Here is the pdf file of the Act. Start on page 332. These are just some snippets.

www.gpo.gov...


H. R. 1—332
Unemployment Insurance Act, as added by subsection (a), to remain
available until expended.
Subtitle B—Assistance for Vulnerable
Individuals
SEC. 2101. EMERGENCY FUND FOR TANF PROGRAM.

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Out of any money in the Treasury
of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there
are appropriated for fiscal year 2009, $5,000,000,000 for
payment to the Emergency Fund.
‘‘(B) AVAILABILITY AND USE OF FUNDS.—The amounts
appropriated to the Emergency Fund under subparagraph
(A) shall remain available through fiscal year 2010 and
shall be used to make grants to States in each of fiscal
years 2009 and 2010 in accordance with the requirements
of paragraph (3).
‘‘(C) LIMITATION.—In no case may the Secretary make
a grant from the Emergency Fund for a fiscal year after
fiscal year 2010.

(2) REPEAL.—Effective October 1, 2010, subsection (c) of
section 403 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603) (as
added by paragraph (1)) is repealed, except that paragraph
(9) of such subsection shall remain in effect until October
1, 2011, but only with respect to section 407
(b)(3)(A)(i) of such
Act.

‘‘(ii) CASELOAD INCREASE REQUIREMENT.—A State
meets the requirement of this clause for a quarter
if the average monthly assistance caseload of the State
for the quarter exceeds the average monthly assistance
caseload of the State for the corresponding quarter
in the emergency fund base year of the State.


SEC. 2103. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY OF STATES TO USE TANF
FUNDS CARRIED OVER FROM PRIOR YEARS TO PROVIDE
TANF BENEFITS AND SERVICES.
Section 404(e) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 604(e))
is amended to read as follows:
‘‘(e) AUTHORITY TO CARRY OVER CERTAIN AMOUNTS FOR BENEFITS
OR SERVICES OR FOR FUTURE CONTINGENCIES.—A State or
tribe may use a grant made to the State or tribe under this
part for any fiscal year to provide, without fiscal year limitation,
any benefit or service that may be provided under the State or
tribal program funded under this part.’’.


edit on 13-7-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:36 AM
link   
reply to post by burdman30ott6
 




Otherwise, no surprises here... I honestly believe that Obama is strongly depending on the welfare recipient vote as his main demographic come November. Seems like the only logical reason he has strived for 3 and a half years to increase the numbers in that group by as much as possible.


The reason being is because the funding, as outlined in the post above, runs out in October, just before the election. Red States that either can't afford the bloated Welfare rolls, or stop the huge bloat in spending just prior to the election by letting Welfare "run out" on some folks, will be buying Obama the election.

This is his "October Surprise", planned for ever since the Stimulus Act was signed.

Pretty ingenious. Evil, underhanded, but ingenious nonetheless.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
It's kicking the economy into the states lap,rather than solving it at the federal level.They are easier to blame and when they fail you can send in help.


States are supposed to have more power than the fed's. It's better that way why should someone that my state didn't vote into office be able to tell my state what to do?


The problem is, before the states caught on to what he was doing, at least the Republican states, they were eagerly accepting the handouts and overbloating their welfare rolls. They unwittingly took the payouts, bloated their rolls, and now are going to bankrupt with being faced with no funds to pay union workers, retirees, Medicare/Medicaid, and Welfare without accepting Fed help.

It literally destroys any chance of any state ever becoming independent of the Fed again.

Hence, we see cities, much like those in California, going bankrupt. And that is just the start.

edit on 13-7-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 


Is a vicious cycle, but the ones that are hit the worst are those that never has been on welfare or any government assistance and then find themselves in the need.

Most of the people that are in need but once productive will try to do anything they can to get off of it because they have to be productive again.

Do to the economy we have right now that is all for profits and screw the working class it has become a way of life.

In my neck of the woods we have what is call the welfare legacy (GA) you are born into welfare and you will become a welfare recipient because that is the only life that is left for you passed on by the parents.

Those will never be out of the system and the few that are able to get off of it are call miracles or free will, hard work and opportunities.



posted on Jul, 13 2012 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by cavtrooper7
It's kicking the economy into the states lap,rather than solving it at the federal level.They are easier to blame and when they fail you can send in help.


States are supposed to have more power than the fed's. It's better that way why should someone that my state didn't vote into office be able to tell my state what to do?


The problem is, before the states caught on to what he was doing, at least the Republican states, they were eagerly accepting the handouts and overbloating their welfare rolls. They unwittingly took the payouts, bloated their rolls, and now are going to bankrupt with being faced with no funds to pay union workers, retirees, Medicare/Medicaid, and Welfare without accepting Fed help.

It literally destroys any chance of any state ever becoming independent of the Fed again.

Hence, we see cities, much like those in California, going bankrupt. And that is just the start.

edit on 13-7-2012 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


Excellent post

[color=cyan]*****



And thus furthers the agenda of ending State's Rights.

That is what the Ultra Liberals want IMO.

They will eventually "suspend" many parts of the U.S. Constitution.
One thing at a time.

The Marxist Collectivists can't stand any Individualism of any kind.
(except for their own that is !)

Individualism makes them look and feel "useless"



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join