So let's keep talking about how Obama is gutting the work requirement for welfare!
From a purely political perspective, the waivers were a spectacular screw-up. Essentially, Obama may have lost his presidency to make a few antipoverty bureaucrats at HHS happy.The MSM keep protecting their snowflake by claiming the waivers to let states bypass the work requirement in the welfare law are not what the Romney campaign claims. Well, what were they? After all, nobody questioned the 16-year-old law until Obama found some unique sidestep around the law.
It looks like to believe that Obama didn't cut work requirements, you have to believe he'll make welfare recipients work even harder. It's quite a leap of faith:
Now, as we all know, it's usually the case that when executive agencies claim legally dubious new powers they only use them to do good things, especially when they promise not to abuse their new authority. But still I have to ask: Why claim authority to waive the work requirements if not to undermine them? HHS insists that the whole point is to strengthen the law’s promotion of work, and points to a requirement that any waiver must be tied to a plan to increase the number of people moving to work by at least 20 percent. But of course the easiest way to do that is just to enroll far more people in the program. And as Clinton pointed out in his 2006 op-ed, the biggest success of welfare reform was reducing the rolls. The Obama administration may not have actually gutted welfare reform. But it has put a big, sharp machete up to its belly.I, for one, welcome our President's authority to fundamentally ignore current law...in about five months.