GAO: Obama Circumvented Law By Waiving Welfare Requirements

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.

About these ads


Categories: Liar-in-Chief, Obama Reelection Campaign, Obama Regime, Planet Obama, Public Assistance, Welfare

Tags: , , , ,

31 replies

  1. Ah, when you’re a former editor of the Harvard Law Review, you get familiar with the fact that the law’s pretty flexible – especially if you can give yourself immunity from prosecution :)

  2. Rat, I’m with you 100% on this. BUT somewhere along the line Congress agreed to accept publishing E.O.’s in the Federal Register as their notification. Congress has 30 days to object. That’s about how long ago I heard of this, before any convention. Then without objection it’s the law by the executive. Actually both parties like it, less they have to do and no blame as who the heck knows. Can’t give any ref. as to when it started, but I and others I know question authority of O.E.s 20 years ago and that’s what we found. Probably some amendment on some bill paying for bullfrog reproduction to dismiss the Congressional Review Act.

    • Let’s not forget the focus of the post, unit; O once again circumvented Congress and existing law – illegally.

      As to whether his edict does in fact gut welfare, that’s the question – and why I said there were two schools o thought. Having said that, I have two thoughts:

      A. Gven that O does NOTHING in government (or out of it) that he doesn’t view from a political perspective, (this one being the creation of more folks dependent on the government) and, that he basically lied in reference to Nevada and Utah.), he obviously sees this as an effective way to accomplish that objective.

      B. Call me silly, but given the reaction and analysis from Rector – who says O DID gut welfare, (assuming his comments were not purely political) – I gotta go with A – and B.

      This boy who would be king has just shown us too many times “the stuff of which he’s made.”

  3. Ain’t forgetting. Just seen Congress grease the skid over the years. Last E.O. I “deem” valid is George Washington sending his secretary out for a new quill. And wouldn’t be surprised if Axelrod and Holder aren’t having a little friendly talk with GAO.
    As for as dependent on gov…report from Breitbar today.. we heard 96000 new hires…but not the 173000 new food stamps receivers, likely rest of 400000 still in waiting line.
    And I know you know that I know “the stuff of which he’s made.”

    • And 368,000 folks dropping out of the work force – which he secretly loves. Look at the great opportunity he has to create a whole bunch of brand new government-dependent Obmabots.

      • You go Rat. Your posters got yor back. :)

      • the Rat….those 368,000 ppl want to work, there just isn’t any jobs! hope you don’t think the republicans are gonna help, because they are not for the down and out, they are for the middle class and above…neither party live in the “real” world…welfare to work reform does not work here,…my brother worked five days a week, for 140.00 a month for him (single father) and two little ones…painting buildings and laying carpet…if the goverment can make you work for your little bit you get, then they should give them at least min wage, its an outrage…he could only have one sick day off a month, and if you take more, Bam! you lose it all…all 140.00 dollars…walk a mile in thier shoes before you get so gung-ho about something you really do not know much about..this is in AZ…

        • Dear Kat W-R. Thought I’d be signed off for awhile. But this mystifies me. 140 a month? That’s about .80 cents an hour. No accountant but figure that’s close. You say “if the government can MAKE you work for your little bit.” Anyway read what Rat says…he don’t have to work for welfare anymore. Hope for the best for the two little ones. Man, don’t usually cuss, but this is a WTF? And only recently learned these IT acronyms!

        • Kathleen, I didn’t suggest that any of those 368,000 folks don’t want to work – although, I suspect when you put 368,000 human beings together – you’ll find a certain percentage who don’t. There are two primary factors responsible for the massive amount of monthly “drop-outs.” One, college grads are coming out and finding they’re not qualified for many of the jobs that are available. Two, a large percentage of those drop-outs are post-50 folks who not only find it extremely difficult to find a new job – but who also experience “sticker shock” when they find that the average job available to them pays 40% less than they made at their last job. They simply give up.

          As for whether the Republicans can right the ship, I have a couple of problems with your comment. First, what evidence do you have that the Republicans are “not for the down and out”? And, how do you define “the down and out”? If by your statement, you mean that we don’t believe in handouts for people who refuse to help themselves – you’re right. If you believe that we don’t believe in giving a helping hand to those who cannot help themselves, you are wrong.

          Let me also add that no country has ever taxed itself to prosperity. America has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. When Obama talks about increasing taxes on “the rich,” the majority of those people are small business owners. Increasing taxes on small business owners (including those in ObamaCare) will not help the work forces of those business owners. Simple logic.

          Secondly, no entitlement state has ever thrived. All one need do is look at Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy. The only financially strong country in the EU is Germany, and guess what? It is also the only country in the EU that comes anywhere near a commitment to austerity. It’s also the only country in the EU that the others are going to for handouts.

          Not knowing the reality of your brother’s situation, I cant comment on it – but I will tell you this: Whether I’m “gung-ho” or not is your opinion. Same applies to your statement that this a topic I “really do not know much about.” Will be happy to debate you on the specifics whenever you’d like.

          Thanks for the visit – and the comment. Sincerely.

Trackbacks

  1. Media Blackout: GAO Says Obama’s Welfare Waivers Illegal « RubinoWorld

What's Your Take?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,395 other followers

%d bloggers like this: