Welfare Reform

 

 

Waiving Goodbye to Welfare Reform?

President Obama likes his welfare system the way he likes his Constitution: no strings attached. Late last week, in a move that went virtually undetected by the mainstream media, the administration made another leap toward lawlessness by reaching back into history and rewriting the 1996 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Act (enacted by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act). Under a new directive from Health and Human Services (HHS), states can now ask for waivers from the work requirement that's been a cornerstone of the welfare reform law signed by President Clinton for the past 16 years.

As part of the largely bipartisan policy, Americans who applied for TANF funds were required to work (or at least try to find work) or take classes. For almost two decades, those incentives have led to a record number of low-income people moving off the dole and into the workforce, where they have the best chance of escaping poverty. To members of both parties, the job requirement was a pillar of the 1996 reforms--without which, the bill would have failed.

So why change a successful bipartisan policy? The President's strategy is simple: to make people even more reliant on big government. After all, why bother job hunting if Uncle Sam will send a check? But, as Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) pointed out, "You don't improve people's lives with handouts. You improve people's lives by showing them--as I learned growing up in the inner city in a single parent household--that you can think and work your way out of poverty." HHS insists the waivers will help parents "successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment," which is ridiculous since it is taking away the biggest impetuous for doing so. And it's making the change illegally, I might add. As the Heritage Foundation explains, this is just the latest example of the administration's constitutional negligence. "Federal law expressly prohibits the Secretary from waiving the work requirements! ...The statutory language here is so clear that it is difficult to imagine how HHS could justify the language of the memo or its primary object."

Unfortunately, the President has never let a little thing like federal law get in the way of his radical agenda. (See also: the Defense of Marriage Act, pornography laws, marijuana laws, gambling laws.) The abuse is so rampant that the President won't even enforce his own laws! There aren't enough pens in all of HHS to sign the thousands of ObamaCare waivers that have come across Secretary Kathleen Sebelius's desk. Now, HHS is giving the states an opportunity to join in the administration's "legal flexibility" by gutting a policy right under Congress's nose. But House and Senate members won't let the work requirement go without a fight. The same day the memo was released, Rep. Dave Camp (R-Mich.) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) wrote a scathing letter to Secretary Sebelius "demanding an explanation" and questioning her authority to override the law. Rep. Camp called it "a brazen and unwarranted unraveling" of TANF that "ends welfare reform as we know it."

It's ironic. The law that tried to end welfare entitlement is only showing how entitled this President thinks he is. Let's hope Congress intervenes before it gives the administration what it really wants: one big waiver from the Constitution.

Buzz on the Bayou

I gained some insights from a private meeting yesterday with Gov. Mitt Romney. The Governor made a stop in my home town of Baton Rouge yesterday for a fundraising event with Gov. Bobby Jindal (R). I happened to be in town and responded to an invitation to meet one-on-one with Gov. Romney after the lunch for about 20 minutes. We discussed a wide range of issues which are of concern to social conservatives, including the economic importance of marriage. Gov. Romney had read a piece by Jason DeParle which appeared in the New York Times over the weekend about the expanding economic disparity between unmarried and married mothers, and it's clear that he understands not only the economic importance of marriage, but the cultural importance as well. I encouraged him to express this understanding more regularly in his messages, like he did last week when he spoke at the NAACP.

We did discuss the importance of his running mate choice. The campaign has been clear that his VP pick would be a pro-life conservative. My only encouragement was to consider someone who not only says they are pro-life, but someone who has advanced the cause of life. I offered a few names, like Gov. Jindal, Allen West, Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Marco Rubio, and a few others. The other great insight I gained? I discovered that Gov. Romney likes one of our favorite desserts in the South--bread pudding (he finished off a piece during our visit).

Seriously, it was a very productive meeting, and it is clear that the Romney campaign is beginning the process of building relationships with social conservatives based on a shared concern for the future of the family and the future of the nation. And while there is no question we have some differences, I do believe we share a set of values with Gov. Romney that will be critical in getting America back on the right track. For in-depth analysis on the possible Vice Presidential nominees and where they stand on social issues, check out FRC Action's backgrounders on 11 of the possible candidates, available here.

Protect Women? Yes, We Ken!

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli fought for months for tighter abortion regulations, so you can bet he'll do what he can to keep them from being watered down. Unfortunately for pro-lifers, that's exactly what the State Board of Health is attempting to do by exempting clinics from some of the more "burdensome" requirements. Like Pennsylvania, Virginia leaders decided to protect women by ordering abortion clinics to meet certain hospital-like criteria: wider hallways for gurneys, larger operating rooms, big parking lots for ambulances, etc.

Last month, though, the Board of Health took a page out of President Obama's playbook and tried to dilute the guidelines by voting 7-4 to let existing facilities off the hook. "The Board does not have the statutory authority to adopt these regulations," wrote Senior Assistant Attorney General Allyson Tysinger. Cuccinelli and his office refused to certify the Board's changes, triggering a surprise fight over a law that the General Assembly passed months ago.

In the end, the fate of these regulations rests in Gov. Bob McDonnell's (R) hands. He can either approve the Board's changes or send them back for amendments. We encourage him to follow the lead of his chief law enforcer and uphold the will of the state--which is to force abortion clinics to abide by the same standards as every other surgical center. If they can't meet the criteria--or won't--Virginia should have the power to shut them down.

** Ken Klukowski continues his deconstruction of the ObamaCare ruling in Part IV of his series on Breitbart.com, "The Great Dissent: Why the Entire ObamaCare System Must Be Struck Down in Court." Check it out here.