So there has been rampant debate about HHS proposing to change the Clinton landmark welfare legislation of 1996. Yes, it is true they are trying to change the regulations in the law. The debate is whether that change is good or bad.
Here are the facts;
The HHS secretary does not have the legal right to change the law and here is why: “Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”
The Deputy secretary of HHS sent a memo to States asking them to submit applications for a "waiver" from the TANF regulations. Specifically, the waiver is designed to give the States the flexibility " to try programs that promote employment for welfare recipients in the face of the recession". It further states " The Secretary will not use her authority to allow use of TANF funds to provide assistance to individuals or families subject to the TANF prohibitions on assistance.” The Democrats are saying this means that folks who don't qualify for TANF under the work requirements are not going to get bailed out by these waivers.
These facts do not contradict each other but beg a few questions. First if the Secretary has no authority to grant waivers then why is the HHS trying this? From digging deeper what we find is that the specific prohibition is around not being able to waive the "work requirements". So HHS thinks that means they can get around the general prohibition by saying if a person is disqualified because of not meeting the work requirements then they don't get help under the new waivers? This makes no sense. If the folks they want to help are those not working then how can they meet the work requirements in order to get this additional "training" help? It would appear that their target cant get the help unless the States apply the waivers outside the regulations.
Based on this incongruouance we have concluded that in actuality HHS is trying to bend or modify the work requirements of the law - 42 U.S>C sections 615 and 607.
The next pertinent issue is whether a waiver will actually be helpful to States and drive more people back to work? Here is what we know:
The number of folks in 1980 receiving a payment from the government was 30% of the population. In 2008 that had climbed to 44% and today it stands at 49% and climbing. In the last 3 months more folks have applied for disability from SS than have gotten jobs. Additionally, the jump in disability claims has been the most significant in recent history (20 years). Americans out of work has risen from 70 M in 2008 to over 100M today. We only have 139 M people in our workforce today. That is down from nearly 170 M in 2008. In 2007 there were only 26.3 M folks on food stamps today there are 46 M.The conclusion - more people are using government assistance and much more are applying for welfare.
The second fact is most States are struggling financially. The two "book ends" - California and New York are totally broke. Sadly they are two of our most populous States in the country. With tight and shrinking budgets many States are crying to the Feds for help. Welfare is a low hanging fruit that the Feds can reach. If more folks can qualify by enrolling in "programs" then this helps the States. The Democrats argue this is great and will lead to more folks getting jobs. The republicans argue it is illegal and will just cause more folks to get and stay on welfare - not drive employment.
So who is right? Simply put they both are. If we had full employment as we did in the late 1990's these training programs might help drive some employment but since we are at 8.2% unemployment and in a recession, the Republicans are more accurate in saying this will do nothing to drive employment because there are NO JOBS.
Our conclusion is that this request for waivers from the welfare law are legally questionable and will do nothing to drive employment but will add significant costs to the system while providing a larger dedicated voting base for the President.
Commentary:
Once again the President is using his incumbent power to increase his dedicated voter base. He did it a few months ago by granting 800,000 illegal alien children in the US immunity. This ploy by most estimates gained him about 2M dedicated voters in the form of the children's adult relatives and friends. This latest move with welfare will be significant if it is implemented. The actual estimate of dedicated voters is unknown yet.
Aside from playing brilliant politics against a weak opponent, the President is furthering his social agenda by getting more Americans dependent on the government. While we do not offer an opinion whether this agenda is best for the country we do suggest that all Americans be aware of it as they make their voting decision for November 2012.
Here are the facts;
The HHS secretary does not have the legal right to change the law and here is why: “Section 415(a)(2)(B) of the welfare reform act, now codified at 42 U.S.C. § 615(a)(2)(B), expressly states that ‘a waiver granted under section 1315 of this title [the one that HHS now claims it is acting under] or otherwise which relates to the provision of assistance under a State program funded under this part (as in effect on Sept. 30, 1996) shall not affect the applicability of section 607 of this title [which applies the work requirements] to the State.’ In short, whatever else might be said of the scope of the waiver authority, the Secretary has no lawful authority to waive the work requirements of section 607, which is what HHS is contemplating in its Memorandum.”
The Deputy secretary of HHS sent a memo to States asking them to submit applications for a "waiver" from the TANF regulations. Specifically, the waiver is designed to give the States the flexibility " to try programs that promote employment for welfare recipients in the face of the recession". It further states " The Secretary will not use her authority to allow use of TANF funds to provide assistance to individuals or families subject to the TANF prohibitions on assistance.” The Democrats are saying this means that folks who don't qualify for TANF under the work requirements are not going to get bailed out by these waivers.
These facts do not contradict each other but beg a few questions. First if the Secretary has no authority to grant waivers then why is the HHS trying this? From digging deeper what we find is that the specific prohibition is around not being able to waive the "work requirements". So HHS thinks that means they can get around the general prohibition by saying if a person is disqualified because of not meeting the work requirements then they don't get help under the new waivers? This makes no sense. If the folks they want to help are those not working then how can they meet the work requirements in order to get this additional "training" help? It would appear that their target cant get the help unless the States apply the waivers outside the regulations.
Based on this incongruouance we have concluded that in actuality HHS is trying to bend or modify the work requirements of the law - 42 U.S>C sections 615 and 607.
The next pertinent issue is whether a waiver will actually be helpful to States and drive more people back to work? Here is what we know:
The number of folks in 1980 receiving a payment from the government was 30% of the population. In 2008 that had climbed to 44% and today it stands at 49% and climbing. In the last 3 months more folks have applied for disability from SS than have gotten jobs. Additionally, the jump in disability claims has been the most significant in recent history (20 years). Americans out of work has risen from 70 M in 2008 to over 100M today. We only have 139 M people in our workforce today. That is down from nearly 170 M in 2008. In 2007 there were only 26.3 M folks on food stamps today there are 46 M.The conclusion - more people are using government assistance and much more are applying for welfare.
The second fact is most States are struggling financially. The two "book ends" - California and New York are totally broke. Sadly they are two of our most populous States in the country. With tight and shrinking budgets many States are crying to the Feds for help. Welfare is a low hanging fruit that the Feds can reach. If more folks can qualify by enrolling in "programs" then this helps the States. The Democrats argue this is great and will lead to more folks getting jobs. The republicans argue it is illegal and will just cause more folks to get and stay on welfare - not drive employment.
So who is right? Simply put they both are. If we had full employment as we did in the late 1990's these training programs might help drive some employment but since we are at 8.2% unemployment and in a recession, the Republicans are more accurate in saying this will do nothing to drive employment because there are NO JOBS.
Our conclusion is that this request for waivers from the welfare law are legally questionable and will do nothing to drive employment but will add significant costs to the system while providing a larger dedicated voting base for the President.
Commentary:
Once again the President is using his incumbent power to increase his dedicated voter base. He did it a few months ago by granting 800,000 illegal alien children in the US immunity. This ploy by most estimates gained him about 2M dedicated voters in the form of the children's adult relatives and friends. This latest move with welfare will be significant if it is implemented. The actual estimate of dedicated voters is unknown yet.
Aside from playing brilliant politics against a weak opponent, the President is furthering his social agenda by getting more Americans dependent on the government. While we do not offer an opinion whether this agenda is best for the country we do suggest that all Americans be aware of it as they make their voting decision for November 2012.