Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Obama administration announced it would grant waivers authorizing states to evade Section 407’s “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”
The same memorandum makes clear that the administration will not grant any waivers that “reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families.” Instead, it encourages states to “test multi-year career pathways for TANF recipients” and to use “a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation-rate requirements.”
So does the new policy “gut” welfare reform or strengthen it? For those who bother to look at Section 407, the answer is straightforward.
If, as its backers contend, the Obama administration were truly interested in increasing work participation among welfare recipients, it wouldn’t need to issue a single waiver. Nothing in the law prevents states from exceeding the minimum requirements.
The only possible purpose for waivers is to undermine work requirements, and the administration’s memorandum basically concedes as much. It calls on states to weaken or abandon work requirements in favor of fuzzy metrics that do not actually require welfare recipients to “work,” in a way that word is normally understood.
Preparation for work and “career pathways,” which the new policy emphasize, are most assuredly not the same thing as work. This is a pathway to the past, when states credited personal journaling, motivational reading, exercise at home, and helping friends run errands as “work.” And that’s also how the administration can claim that loosening work requirements would actually result in more persons working — simply by contriving new “definitions of work activities and engagement.”
And it’s all blatantly illegal. With 21 uses of the word “shall,” the language of Section 407 is not open to much interpretation. Elsewhere, the law allows some waivers, but Section 407 is not on the waiver list.
So, yes, it’s safe to say the attempt to waive work requirements “guts” welfare reform.
From your link:
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.
Now that's where the welfare abuse came from that they clamped down on.
Meditation was allowable to meet work participation requirements and was classified as "job preparation".
I think there's just no work out there and these people will fall off the rolls unless the government does something to let them keep qualifying for TANF benefits.
The Obama administration announced it would grant waivers authorizing states to evade Section 407’s “definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.”
The same memorandum makes clear that the administration will not grant any waivers that “reduce access to assistance or employment for needy families.” Instead, it encourages states to “test multi-year career pathways for TANF recipients” and to use “a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation-rate requirements.”
So does the new policy “gut” welfare reform or strengthen it? For those who bother to look at Section 407, the answer is straightforward.
If, as its backers contend, the Obama administration were truly interested in increasing work participation among welfare recipients, it wouldn’t need to issue a single waiver. Nothing in the law prevents states from exceeding the minimum requirements.
The only possible purpose for waivers is to undermine work requirements, and the administration’s memorandum basically concedes as much. It calls on states to weaken or abandon work requirements in favor of fuzzy metrics that do not actually require welfare recipients to “work,” in a way that word is normally understood.
Preparation for work and “career pathways,” which the new policy emphasize, are most assuredly not the same thing as work. This is a pathway to the past, when states credited personal journaling, motivational reading, exercise at home, and helping friends run errands as “work.” And that’s also how the administration can claim that loosening work requirements would actually result in more persons working — simply by contriving new “definitions of work activities and engagement.”
And it’s all blatantly illegal. With 21 uses of the word “shall,” the language of Section 407 is not open to much interpretation. Elsewhere, the law allows some waivers, but Section 407 is not on the waiver list.
So, yes, it’s safe to say the attempt to waive work requirements “guts” welfare reform.
Again, refuse to read the memo, but instead continue to post an opinion from the Washington Post. I find it facinating that you deem anything that comes from Factcheck, but depend on an OPINION from the Washington Post. GROSSMAN:
From your link:
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.
Now that's where the welfare abuse came from that they clamped down on.
Meditation was allowable to meet work participation requirements and was classified as "job preparation".
I think there's just no work out there and these people will fall off the rolls unless the government does something to let them keep qualifying for TANF benefits.
Happy,
It also states.
Quote:
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.
So if these states plans do not meet the Federal requirements or theres a failure to perform, then the overseeing of the Welfare program will revert back to the Federal Government. So again, I do not see this as gutting welfare, but more of placing strategies back in the hands of the states to get folks back to work.
Again, refuse to read the memo, but instead continue to post an opinion from the Washington Post. I find it facinating that you deem anything that comes from Factcheck, but depend on an OPINION from the Washington Post. GROSSMAN:
Refuse to read for yourself. Again Pathetic.
What makes you think I didn't read Obama's dictatorial and illegal edict?
I don't even know what that matters.....it's nothing more than fancy legalese that covers-up the real motive.
And the real motive is explained in plain English above (PS: The Washington Post is known to be a LIBERAL newspaper...which makes it even more damning for Obama!).
If, as its backers contend, the Obama administration were truly interested in increasing work participation among welfare recipients, it wouldn’t need to issue a single waiver.
Nothing in the law prevents states from exceeding the minimum requirements.
What makes you think I didn't read Obama's dictatorial and illegal edict?
I don't even know what that matters.....it's nothing more than fancy legalese that covers-up the real motive.
And the real motive is explained in plain English above (PS: The Washington Post is known to be a LIBERAL newspaper...which makes it even more damning for Obama!).
And according to you, so is Fact Check, Politcal. But whats more damning for the Repugs is Ron Haskins the architech of the Welfare reform bill disagrees with Mittens LIE. ...but hey, you continue to pick and chose.
If, as its backers contend, the Obama administration were truly interested in increasing work participation among welfare recipients, it wouldn’t need to issue a single waiver.
Nothing in the law prevents states from exceeding the minimum requirements.
But whats more damning for the Repugs is Ron Haskins the architech of the Welfare reform bill disagrees with Mittens LIE
Well, not exactly, but being as partisan and desperate as you are, I can understand you grasping at straws......
Haskins had, and continues to have, some reservations about the new waiver rule at the heart of the current political controversy. "My first reaction upon hearing this was shock," said Haskins, who is now at the Brookings Institution.
He continues to believe that the administration should not have promulgated the new waiver "simply because of a separation of powers issue." That is, granting waivers like these that change work requirements ought to be Congress' job.
LOL....I show you a LIBERAL source in the Washington Post, and you diss them.
Now you want ME to accept something from Huffington Post as the gospel?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
