House GOP questions legal grounds for changes to welfare work requirements
Published July 23, 2012

House Republicans said Monday they were “disappointed” with the Obama administration’s plan to waive mandatory work requirements for welfare and questioned the legal grounds being used to make such changes.

“We are disappointed to see that the administration through this action and others seems intent not on helping to get Americans back to work,” said the letter signed by 76 House Republicans.

The one-page letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius also states the administration is instead intent upon increasing Americans’ reliance on welfare and other government programs.

The work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families legislation were signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996.

The letter points out the addition of the work requirement had bipartisan support in Congress and that President Clinton upon signing them said the act “honors my basic principles or real welfare reform.”

The changes were detailed in a July 12 “information memorandum” from HHS telling states they could seek a waiver from the TANF program's strict work requirements.

Among the legal questions raised in the lawmakers’ letter Monday to Sebelius were whether waivers are applicable to the Social Security Act and what legal authority allows for such “underlying flexibility in federal law.”

Two Republican governors already differ on the issue.

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad has lashed out at the plan, suggesting the administration has exceeded its authority, while Florida Gov. Rick Scott has suggested the flexibility would allow him to keep the work requirement.

Scott made clear that Floridians seeking benefits will still have to look for a job.

“People need to be going out and looking for a job,” he said recently on “Fox News Sunday.” “We believe in personal responsibility, and we’re going to have that in our state.”

How the change to the welfare program will play out is unclear. The directive said only that states may seek a waiver from the work component of the TANF program to "test alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."

HHS stressed that any alternative should still aim to get welfare recipients into gainful employment. Any plan that "appears substantially likely to reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families," will not be approved, the memo stated.

States currently must have 50 percent of their caseload meet certain work participation requirements, though there are ways around that as many states fall short.


Film at 11..... 😣

Great, more will be moving to NY. The people that run this state will be loving this. They might as well put the offices right at the state line.

I have no problem forcing people who collect unemployment compensation to at least make the effort to appear to be truly looking for a job.

Prostitution should be legal

It already is. Tune in to CSPAN and see it in action every day.

Think of all the the welfare Mom's that are Fnnn every dude they see anyway.
They could make money,pay taxes and be contributing to the American Dream bullchit...

If the guberment can force me to buy health insurance, then they damn well better force people receiving a free hand-out to work for it!!!

securing more votes..... 😟

Obama begins class warfare, seeking higher taxes on Americans and business owners.
Guberment sues Arizona over the state's immigration laws.
Then there was amnestry for all the illegal immigrants - fed by the media and sob stories of crying mexican college students.
Illegals now have access to legal access to American jobs, Unemployment, and Welfare.
The guberment back-hands extensions for the welfare system through a Farm Act.
Obama continues class warfare by forcing all Americans to buy health insurance or pay highest Tax in American history (while telling people on welfare they won't have to work for it)

My question is... "Where are da white women at?"

I would be interested in learning whether the class of people who "benefit" from this, namely those on welfare who would no longer be required to "look for work", actually vote. My guess is that the percentage of them who vote is very small compared to the national average for Americans. I'd also like to see what the rate of voting is for those on welfare who no longer have to find a job vs. those on welfare who must continue to try to find a job...

me too.... how many people are currently collecting unemployment and planning to hit the welfare when it runs out..?? it's starting to sound better and better... free cheese and no job applications to fill out.. 👍

End Welfare Breeding.

It is unsustainable and immoral.
Our system can't handle more criminals anyway.

🍺

True, a substantial percentage of those generations living on Welfare don't bother to vote, themselves. They needn't bother; their community organizers cast their ballots for them.

However the dead career Welfare recipients are a sizable and ever-dependable Democratic voting block.

HA... that was until the last election. ACORN enlightened the fraud and abuse rampant with the program, while casting ballots for "those generations living on Welfare (who) don't bother" to register or vote for themselves. They did it all in the best interest of their constituents, all while receiving guberment funding. Damn Politicians would do the same if they could. [sarcasm]

Funny one!!!