Mickey Kaus responds to the point and counterpoint on Obama's new "waivers" for work requirements made law in Clinton's welfare reform bill:
I had some serious doubts about Mitt Romney’s ad attacking Obama’s welfare “waivers”–until I read the New York Times editorial denouncing it. Now I know Romney’s ad isn’t as accurate as I’d thought. It’s much more accurate.Specifically, he hoists the NY Times on their own editorial petard by noting that giving states the option to allow welfare recipients to be "exempted from the work requirements for six months" (could be longer) is exactly what Romney is claiming in his ads.
Of course the media is circling the wagons around their precious snowflake and the counter-argument of choice is that Republican governors are asking for flexibility with the work requirement, therefore (?) it's not really dropping the work requirement - which it is. A better question might be: why alter a law that was bipartisan, worked fine, and was uncontroversial for two decades? Oh, right, the election.
Extra - From Ace of Spades.