Dear Leader Does It Again, Overrides Law Because He Says So

[LiveLaughLove]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/upending-welfare-reform-obama-criticized-for-giving-states-more-flexibility/


After the Obama administration announced this week that it is opening up waivers to states from the work requirements contained in welfare reform, Republicans began to speak out against the move, complaining it completely undercuts the law.

Yet again he takes law and changes it without passing new law. I'm amazed at how fragile and monopolistic our government really is. I have always believed we do not have a king, but in fact, we really seem to.

He decrees, and that's that. The Republicans pathetically say, "You can't do that." But do nothing to stop it.

What law is next that he doesn't like, and simply changes it by presidential fiat? We need to hold a contest and guess.

It will almost certainly be one that keeps people enslaved to his handouts for votes. Not sure what else he can give away but he and his folks are probably working on it now.





Oh yeah, the newest estimates on ObamaCare are up to $2.6 trillion now too. So there's that. I think I recall him saying not a penny over $900 billion.

[Maxwell Smart]Missed it by that much![/Maxwell Smart]

[rock on sooner]

Triple L, wait for it, wait for it....I agree with you. BUT, every prez
uses "fiat" to advance as much as he/she can, right or wrong! I bitched
about Clinton not doing that more than he did. Especially with this group
of knuckleheads (aka, congress) who can't do didly squat, somebody has
to do something!

[diverdog]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/07/upending-welfare-reform-obama-criticized-for-giving-states-more-flexibility/



Yet again he takes law and changes it without passing new law. I'm amazed at how fragile and monopolistic our government really is. I have always believed we do not have a king, but in fact, we really seem to.

He decrees, and that's that. The Republicans pathetically say, "You can't do that." But do nothing to stop it.

What law is next that he doesn't like, and simply changes it by presidential fiat? We need to hold a contest and guess.

It will almost certainly be one that keeps people enslaved to his handouts for votes. Not sure what else he can give away but he and his folks are probably working on it now.





Oh yeah, the newest estimates on ObamaCare are up to $2.6 trillion now too. So there's that. I think I recall him saying not a penny over $900 billion.

[Maxwell Smart]Missed it by that much![/Maxwell Smart]

Here is the actual text of the law:


Sec. 1115. [42 U.S.C. 1315] (a) In the case of any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project which, in the judgment of the Secretary, is likely to assist in promoting the objectives of title I, X, XIV, XVI, or XIX, or part A or D of title IV, in a State or States—(1) the Secretary may waive compliance with any of the requirements of section 2 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title00/0002.htm), 402 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0402.htm),454 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0454.htm), 1002 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title10/1002.htm), 1402 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title14/1402.htm), 1602 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title16b/1602.htm), or 1902 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1902.htm), as the case may be, to the extent and for the period he finds necessary to enable such State or States to carry out such project, and
(2)(A) costs of such project which would not otherwise be included as expenditures under section 3 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title00/0003.htm), 455 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0455.htm), 1003 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title10/1003.htm), 1403 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title14/1403.htm), 1603, or 1903 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title19/1903.htm), as the case may be, and which are not included as part of the costs of projects under section 1110 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1110.htm), shall, to the extent and for the period prescribed by the Secretary, be regarded as expenditures under the State plan or plans approved under such title, or for administration of such State plan or plans, as may be appropriate, and
(B) costs of such project which would not otherwise be a permissable use of funds under part A of title IV and which are not included as part of the costs of projects under section 1110 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1110.htm), shall to the extent and for the period prescribed by the Secretary, be regarded as a permissable use of funds under such part.

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1115.htm

And the memo from HHS

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html

Please explain to me how Obama is doing anything wrong when the law clearly states he can issue waivers for Section 402 and two GOP states asked for a waiver? I do not understand your outrage. Based on my reading of the text of the law he is following the law.

[LiveLaughLove]

Here is the actual text of the law:



http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1115.htm

And the memo from HHS

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html

Please explain to me how Obama is doing anything wrong when the law clearly states he can issue waivers for Section 402 and two GOP states asked for a waiver? I do not understand your outrage. Based on my reading of the text of the law he is following the law.

Thanks for that diver. I'll take your word that it says what you say it says. It looks like mumbo jumbo to me. I didn't say he did anything illegal, but he certainly likes to go around Congress and law where he can.

As for what he did, it is a mistake in my mind, and I did see that two of the states were Republican ran. Still, I am happy for Romney to have just one more thing to run against him on.

I notice not too many Dems are cheering about it. I think they know better than to cut their own throats by aligning with him on more handouts.

The rules had been in place since Clinton, why now all of a sudden are they not worthy of remaining intact? Was Clinton a heartless Republican that needed setting straight? Nah, of course not. Obama is just panderer in chief.

[diverdog]

Thanks for that diver. I'll take your word that it says what you say it says. It looks like mumbo jumbo to me. I didn't say he did anything illegal, but he certainly likes to go around Congress and law where he can.

As for what he did, it is a mistake in my mind, and I did see that two of the states were Republican ran. Still, I am happy for Romney to have just one more thing to run against him on.

I notice not too many Dems are cheering about it. I think they know better than to cut their own throats by aligning with him on more handouts.

The rules had been in place since Clinton, why now all of a sudden are they not worthy of remaining intact? Was Clinton a heartless Republican that needed setting straight? Nah, of course not. Obama is just panderer in chief.

I think it is a case of states wanting to build a better mouse trap so to speak. If you read the parameters around the waiver you can see that the states would have to jump through a lot of hoops to get the waiver. Sometimes the laws are too rigid like Leave No Child Behind and they need to be tweaked.

Also if you read the article a little more closely I do not see where Obama had a hand in this. Rule making like this is done all the time by the various departments of government.

[Mazeppa]

I think it is a case of states wanting to build a better mouse trap so to speak. If you read the parameters around the waiver you can see that the states would have to jump through a lot of hoops to get the waiver. Sometimes the laws are too rigid like Leave No Child Behind and they need to be tweaked.

Also if you read the article a little more closely I do not see where Obama had a hand in this. Rule making like this is done all the time by the various departments of government.




Nothing to see here, move along!
November can't get here soon enough.

[badger]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a president using his presidential right to veto a bill he doesn't like for whatever reason he chooses.

Brad Henry vetoed tons of bills that were sent to his office.

[sappstuf]

Here is the actual text of the law:



http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title11/1115.htm

And the memo from HHS

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html

Please explain to me how Obama is doing anything wrong when the law clearly states he can issue waivers for Section 402 and two GOP states asked for a waiver? I do not understand your outrage. Based on my reading of the text of the law he is following the law.

Nice post DD. The only problem is that the work requirements that Obama is waiving are not in 402 as you state... They are in 407 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0407.htm). Now look what you pasted and see if you can find anything about 407 in there.

Obama is back dooring 407 by going through 402, which means he can make any changes to the law he wants. That was clearly not Congress's intention and if they had wanted that, they could have written the law to say as much.

You can even see in your link how they are twisting it.


Section 1115 authorizes waivers concerning section 402. Accordingly, other provisions of the TANF statute are not waivable. For example, the purposes of TANF are not waivable, because they are contained in section 401. The prohibitions on assistance are not waivable, because they are contained in section 408.

While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407

In another words... They are ignoring the big bold not waiverable part because they don't like it and will instead read all the way into "(a)(1)(A)(iii)" to find what they want...

If only we had a something from a nonpartisan government committee, say the Congressional Research Service, on if there can be waivers.... Uh oh.


Technically, there is waiver authority for TANF state plan requirement; however, [the] major TANF requirements are not in state plans. Effectively, there are no TANF waivers ...

[diverdog]

Nice post DD. The only problem is that the work requirements that Obama is waiving are not in 402 as you state... They are in 407 (http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0407.htm). Now look what you pasted and see if you can find anything about 407 in there.

Obama is back dooring 407 by going through 402, which means he can make any changes to the law he wants. That was clearly not Congress's intention and if they had wanted that, they could have written the law to say as much.

You can even see in your link how they are twisting it.



In another words... They are ignoring the big bold not waiverable part because they don't like it and will instead read all the way into "(a)(1)(A)(iii)" to find what they want...

If only we had a something from a nonpartisan government committee, say the Congressional Research Service, on if there can be waivers.... Uh oh.

This is what they are doing:


While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates. As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.Moreover, HHS is committed to ensuring that any demonstration projects approved under this authority will be focused on improving employment outcomes and contributing to the evidence base for effective programs; therefore, terms and conditions will require a federally-approved evaluation plan designed to build our knowledge base. TANF funds may be used to fund an approved evaluation and state funds spent on an approved evaluation may be considered state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) expenditures. In addition, terms and conditions will require either interim targets for each performance measure or a strategy for establishing baseline performance on a set of performance measures and a framework for how interim goals will be set after the baseline measures are established. The terms and conditions will establish consequences for failing to meet interim performance targets including, but not limited to, the implementation of an improvement plan and, if the failure to meet performance targets continues, termination of the waivers and demonstration project.




I still do not have an issue with what they are doing and it is still inside the framework of the law.

My guess is that some of the current recipients are not being employed and they need some flexibility on training so they can seek better outcomes.

I saw this on Politico from an HHS manager:


When the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program was established as part of welfare reform in the 1990s, it was intended to give states flexibility to design effective programs to help parents move from welfare to work. Today, however, Federal rules dictate mind-numbing details about how to run a welfare-to-work program. Most States and experts agree that these aren’t helpful. Here’s one example: under current TANF rules, many states report that their caseworkers are spending more time complying with federal documentation requirements than helping parents find jobs. We need state workers spending less time filling out data reports and more time helping parents find employment.
The new policy we announced will allow states to test new, more effective ways to help parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment. States can apply for waivers of federal requirements that get in their way. These waiver applications will be available for public review.

[sappstuf]

DD,

from your own links..


Section 1115 authorizes waivers concerning section 402. Accordingly, other provisions of the TANF statute are not waivable.


As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements

Work requirements are located in 407, WHICH ARE NOT WAIVERABLE. Congress specifically wrote it this way. They wanted it to be difficult, the fight for welfare reform was very difficult and the law was written strongly. If changes need to be made, then it is Congress that should go back and make those changes.

However, it is duly noted that you do not respect the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. The law says whatever Obama says it does regardless of how the law has been carried out for the past 20 years.

[diverdog]

DD,

from your own links..





Work requirements are located in 407, WHICH ARE NOT WAIVERABLE. Congress specifically wrote it this way. They wanted it to be difficult, the fight for welfare reform was very difficult and the law was written strongly. If changes need to be made, then it is Congress that should go back and make those changes.

However, it is duly noted that you do not respect the opinion of the Congressional Research Service. The law says whatever Obama says it does regardless of how the law has been carried out for the past 20 years.

Did you post a link to the Congressional Research Service? I am sorry if I missed it.

HHS is asking for waivers that have to do with project demonstrations which are linked between the two sections of the code.

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0402.htm

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title04/0407.htm#act-407-e-2



I think it is telling that several states including some GOP states are requesting more flexibility. You guys are suppose to be states rights folks. Right? Anyway, clearly there are some issues on how the law is being implemented....like the paperwork issue that the HHS administrator points out. From doing more reading on this than I care to admit it also looks like states are having a difficult time meeting the minimum standards for work requirements and that is why the are asking for more flexibility. There is nowhere in there that I can see that is letting people off the hook for working.

Here is the letter that started all of this and I think there are good points:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/colleague-ltr/2012_ltr-gs_to_commissioners-im-2012-03.html


Here is the deal. If the GOP does not like it then take the Administration to court.

[soonercruiser]

Been really busy lately. No time to do my own reasearch on this. So...I will try to look at you guys' linked stories.

But....The talking heads on the news networks are basically saying it is going backwards, on the reforms that Clinton put in place.
And...SORRY....it's just another ruling by fiat by Obama!

[Ton Loc]

Do you guys wake up every morning just looking for something (no matter how small or inconsequential) to get outraged about? Of course you do.

Start searching those websites and papers for something you can change. I'd assume most of you have been around enough to realize that you aren't changing anything in November. Just another politician with a new suit and a smile you can't trust.

[olevetonahill]

Do you guys wake up every morning just looking for something (no matter how small or inconsequential) to get outraged about? Of course you do.

Start searching those websites and papers for something you can change. I'd assume most of you have been around enough to realize that you aren't changing anything in November. Just another politician with a new suit and a smile you can't trust.

Not me, I usually know the night before what Ima bitch about the next day

[rock on sooner]

Not me, I usually know the night before what Ima bitch about the next day

Vet, I bet yur funnin' everybody...you know WEEKS before!:D

[olevetonahill]

Vet, I bet yur funnin' everybody...you know WEEKS before!:D

Heh, I keep a Lot of spoons handy cause I never know from day to day how many pots gonna need stirrin :D

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I thought O'Bummer said he couldn't make law his own self...He couldn't go against Congress. What a lying sack of goo and a$$hat.

[rock on sooner]

Heh, I keep a Lot of spoons handy cause I never know from day to day how many pots gonna need stirrin :D

Be sure that certain pot gets tention every day!:D

[sooner_born_1960]

I don't think there's anything wrong with a president using his presidential right to veto a bill he doesn't like for whatever reason he chooses.

Brad Henry vetoed tons of bills that were sent to his office.
What in the world has this got to do with vetoes?

[badger]

I read it wrong. my bad

[LiveLaughLove]

Do you guys wake up every morning just looking for something (no matter how small or inconsequential) to get outraged about? Of course you do.

Start searching those websites and papers for something you can change. I'd assume most of you have been around enough to realize that you aren't changing anything in November. Just another politician with a new suit and a smile you can't trust.

Translation: I sure am sick of defending this guy. But hey, he's my guy!