BUT HEY – WHAT’S A LITTLE CIRCUMVENTION AMONG FRIENDS, RIGHT?
“Lost in last week’s news cycle,” due to wall-to-wall coverage of the Democratic Convention, of course, (translation: conveniently buried by the liberal media), was the announcement by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that it had determined the Regime circumvented federal law by waiving welfare work requirements.
As to expected, CBS, ABC and CNN failed to mention this “minor story.”
This is where I always throw in the “Imagine, if you will, George Bush or Dick Cheney” part – this time, Bush or Cheney being determined by the GAO (or MSNBC, for that matter) to have circumvented federal law. In your wildest dreams, can you also imagine the liberal media not jumping all over it? Hell – the “major” networks would have broken into regular programming with the urgency of Michael Moore running from his car into McDonalds.
According to the GAO, O’s decree “is subject to the requirement that it be submitted to both Houses of Congress and the Comptroller General before it can take effect.” Translation: The Regime, by law, was required to submit its decree to Congress for review first – under the Congressional Review Act, which it refused to do. But, hey – no biggie: O never lets the U.S. Constitution get in his way; why would he worry about a silly little insignificant nuisance like the Congressional Review Act?
So, O has once again changed existing federal law by royal edict, without first notifying the Legislative Branch – as required by law – of his intentions to do so. Yet – neither CBS, ABC nor CNN found this to be newsworthy. And the liberal media wonders why we call them sock puppets. This is Barack Obama’s America, folks.
As to O’s edict itself – as one might imagine – two schools of thought exist regarding its impact: O says it does not gut welfare. Robert Rector – who helped draft the work requirements in the 1996 law – says it does. Via WaPo:
To hear Bill Clinton tell it, there’s no truth to the charges that President Obama gutted welfare reform. The White House, fact-checkers and some journalists have said the same, playing down Obama’s decision to exempt states from the law’s work requirements.
Working closely with members of Congress, I helped draft the work requirements in the 1996 law, and I raised the alarm on July 12, when the Obama administration issued a bureaucratic order allowing states to waive those requirements. The law has indeed been gutted. Here’s how:
The 1996 welfare reform law required that a portion of the able-bodied adults in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program – the successor to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program – work or prepare for work.
Those work requirements were the heart of the reform’s success: Welfare rolls dropped by half, and the poverty rate for black children reached its lowest level in history in the years following.
But the Obama administration has jettisoned the law’s work requirements, asserting that, in the future, no state will be required to follow them. In place of the legislated work requirements, the administration has stated, it will unilaterally design its own “work” systems without congressional involvement or consent. Any state will be free to follow the new Obama requirements “in lieu of” the written statute. Continue reading…
As is often the case, the Regime
lied passed the buck said its waiver plan was prompted by interest from the states, including Nevada and Utah, which have Republican governors. Both states responded:
Mary Sarah Kinner, Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval’s press secretary, said Nevada had not and would not seek a waiver. Ally Isom, Utah Gov. Gary Herbert’s deputy chief of staff, acknowledged that Utah sought waivers but not from work requirements.
The most transparent administration in history gets caught with its disingenuous political pants down – again. What a shock.
No wonder Debbie Wasserman Schultz doesn’t worry about job security when she lies her ass off.