The provision of welfare, whatever it is called and whatever form it takes, is neither a constitutional nor legitimate function of government. --- nor is healthcare
On Sep 6, 7:44 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > "When the Republican Party controlled Congress for six years under Clinton > and for more than four years under George W. Bush, it made no attempt > whatsoever to eliminate other welfare programs such as farm subsidies, > Supplemental Security Income (SSI), energy assistance, housing assistance, > food stamps, Head Start, or Medicaid. It actually greatly expanded refundable > tax credits such as the earned income credit, which grew from a maximum of > $2,528 the year of the so-calledRepublican Revolutionto a whopping $4,824 the > last year of George W. Bush s presidency."Republican Welfare Stateby Laurence > M. Vance, September 5, 2012 > Republicans are upset with Barack Obama -- again. This time it is about > welfare. Not the constitutionality and legitimacy of federal welfare > programs, but their structure and requirements. No one should think for a > minute that Republicans are opposed to the welfare state. After all, it is > their welfare state. > The latest brouhaha erupted because the Department of Health and Human > Services (HHS) is quietly notifying states that they may seek a waiver from > the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program s work > requirements. The waiver allows states to provide assistance without having > to enforce the work requirements of the program. > Republicans are accusing the Obama administration of gutting the bipartisan > welfare reform enacted in 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work > Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). > Of course, that is not how theWhite Housesees it:Last week, the Department of > Health and Human Services released guidance regarding waivers for the TANF > program. These waivers will strengthen welfare reform by accelerating job > placement and moving more Americans from welfare to work. Under this policy, > no waivers that undercut work requirements in welfare reform will be > approved. This policy will allow States to test new, more effective ways to > help people get and keep a job. For years, Republican and Democratic > Governors have requested more flexibility in implementing welfare reform so > they can meet their States specific needs.In the 1992 presidential campaign, > Bill Clinton pledged to end welfare as we have come to know it. After vetoing > two earlier welfare-reform proposals passed by the Republican-controlled > Congress, he signed the PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, stating that the > legislation gives us a chance we haven t had before to break the cycle of > dependency that has existed for millions and millions of our fellow citizens, > exiling them from the world of work. It gives structure, meaning, and dignity > to most of our lives. > The 1996 welfare reform didn t exactly end welfare as anyone knew it. It > replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the > aforementioned TANF program. Instead of the government s just mailing out > welfare checks to recipients who did nothing in return but spend the money, > the new TANF program came with work standards that had to be met by at least > 40 percent of adult TANF recipients. The new standards required able-bodied > welfare recipients to work or engage in work activities, such as on-the-job > training, attending high school or a GED program, vocational education, > community-service work, job-readiness training, or looking for work as a > condition for receiving aid. The minimum level of participation was 20 hours > per week for mothers with children under six and 30 hours for mothers with > older children. A lifetime limit of five years to receive benefits was also > imposed. > After the HHS issued its rule weakening the TANF program s work requirements, > Republicans in the House and Senate introducedlegislationto prohibit the > secretary of HHS from implementing or taking action on its guidance memo on > TANF waivers and from authorizing, approving, renewing, modifying, or > extending any experimental, pilot, or demonstration project that waives > compliance with TANF work requirements. And any waiver described in the HHS > guidance memo granted before the date such legislation is enacted would be > rescinded. > The Obama administration s action last week was illegitimate and totally > misguided, said Rep. Jim Jordan, Republican Study Committee chairman. The > Obama administration has once again overstepped its bounds, this time to the > detriment of those struggling most under their failed economic policies, said > Rep. Dave Camp, House Ways and Means Committee chairman. Gutting welfare work > requirements with the stroke of a pen and without congressional input is > simply unacceptable and cannot be allowed to stand, said Sen. Orrin Hatch, > Senate Finance Committee ranking member. > Camp and Hatch sent aletterto HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius stating that if > Congress had intended to allow waivers of TANF work requirements, it would > have said so in the statute.She replied,No plan that undercuts the goal of > moving people from welfare to work will be considered or approved. > The TANF program was up for reauthorization in 2002. After several temporary > extensions were granted to continue the program, it was reauthorized through > fiscal year 2010 under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Since then it has > been extended at various times and is currently authorized through September > 30, 2012. > What is so insidious about the TANF program is that, unlike welfare programs > such as Medicaid, food stamps, and WIC, it pays cash benefits. > So instead of actually putting America on the path to ending welfare as we > know it when they held a majority in the Congress during the last six years > of Clinton s presidency, Republicans merely reformed and improved welfare. > Then, when they controlled the Congress from January 2002 to January 2006 and > had a Republican president to sign their legislation, Republicans extended > the TANF program before reauthorizing it in 2005. Because all the Democrats > and only five Republicans voted against the bill (S.1932) containing the TANF > reauthorization, Vice President Dick Cheney, in his role as president of the > Senate, had to cast the tie-breaking vote. The House version passed by the > slim margin of 217-215, with all the Democrats and 14 Republicans voting > against it. Former Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul voted against > it; current Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan voted in favor > of it. > But it is not just the TANF program that makes the welfare state a Republican > welfare state. > The State Children s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), which provides > federally funded health insurance to children in families with incomes too > high to qualify for Medicaid, was created by the Republican-controlled > Congress in 1997 and reauthorized without a whimper under George W. Bush. > In 1998, when Republicans still controlled both Houses of Congress, they > introduced and passed the William F. Goodling Child Nutrition Reauthorization > Act (H.R.3874), which greatly expanded the federal school-lunch program. It > passed in the Senate by unanimous consent. In the House, only Ron Paul voted > against it. > In 2003, with a Republican president in the White House and Republican > control of the House and Senate, Republicans introduced and passed their own > health-care bill: the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and > Modernization Act (H.R.1). It was the largest expansion of the welfare state > since Medicare was instituted as part of Lyndon Johnson s Great Society. Only > 9 Republicans in the Senate and 25 in the House voted against more socialized > medicine. > In 2004, with the Republicans still firmly in control of the government, they > introduced and passed the Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act > (S.2507). It passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, passed without > objection in the House, and was eagerly signed into law by a Republican > president. > When the Republican Party controlled Congress for six years under Clinton and > for more than four years under George W. Bush, it made no attempt whatsoever > to eliminate other welfare programs such as farm subsidies, Supplemental > Security Income (SSI), energy assistance, housing assistance, food stamps, > Head Start, or Medicaid. It actually greatly expanded refundable tax credits > such as the earned income credit, which grew from a maximum of $2,528 the > year of the so-calledRepublican Revolutionto a whopping $4,824 the last year > of George W. Bush s presidency. > Republicans are among the most vocal supporters of the two largest welfare > programs in existence, Social Security and Medicare. In the House > RepublicanPledge to America, issued on the eve of the 2010 election, > Republicans promised to make the decisions that are necessary to protect our > entitlement programs for today s seniors and future generations. > According toRobert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage > Foundation, The federal government operates more than 80 means-tested welfare > programs to provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to > poor and low-income people. What have Republicans ever done to eliminate any > of them? > The welfare state is a Republican welfare state. > Republicans are content merely to reform welfare programs, to change them, or > to make them more efficient. It is only when they are not in power that they > talk about cutting them. We can clearly see this in Rector s conclusion:Obama > plans to spend $12.7 trillion on means-tested welfare over the next decade. > Our nation should take the opposite course. Welfare-to-work requirements > should be restored in TANF. Similar work requirements should be established > in parallel programs such as food stamps and public housing. Finally, when > the recession ends, total welfare spending should be rolled back to > pre-recession levels.Contrast that with whatRon Paulrecently said at a rally > for him in Tampa on the eve of the Republican National Convention: We don t > want a more efficient government; we want to get the government out of the > business it s not supposed to be doing. > The provision of welfare, whatever it is called and whatever form it takes, > is neither a constitutional nor legitimate function of > government.http://www.fff.org/comment/com1209c.asp -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
