# Romney's Work for Welfare Ad **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 14, 2012, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435 "2012-08-14T03:06:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/21 "2012-08-15T17:38:52Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Well, if that’s Mickey Kaus’ opinion, then that’s certainly good enough for me. Mickey Kaus is clearly a wise and impartial judge of these things. This is not an appeal to authority, I just think his arguments are compelling. The administration can call it whatever they want, work requirements are going from stringent to more flexible, in part by calling things other than work “work”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/22 "2012-08-15T17:40:42Z")
> [@RitterSport](#): > > …at the request of the governors asking for the change, right? Giving more power to the states, including those those with Republican governors, including Romney himself, when he was governor of Massachusetts – that’s certainly anathema to Romney/Ryan. The Republicans generally prefer federalism, but the whole point of putting stringent work requirements into the 1996 bill was so that states couldn’t weasel out of them. The change by the administration does loosen work requirements. There’s no way to argue around that. Whether it’s “gutting” welfare reform or not is in the eye of the beholder. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/23 "2012-08-15T18:36:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The Republicans generally prefer federalism, but the whole point of putting stringent work requirements into the 1996 bill was so that states couldn’t weasel out of them. > > The change by the administration does loosen work requirements. There’s no way to argue around that. Whether it’s “gutting” welfare reform or not is in the eye of the beholder. The law provides states with more ADMINISTRATIVE flexibility but it does not loosen the work requirements. And it is not even close to “gutting” it and is not in the eye of the beholder one bit. It is a straight out lie, dishonest through and through. ANd what is even more dishonest about it is that Republicans don’t actually like the change. I mean really the Republicans are upset about a change that puts more power into the hands of the States. Really? Nonsense, they would cream themselves silly if it were a Republican doing this. ---
**Author:** ![Jophiel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jophiel/32/66_2.png) [@Jophiel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jophiel)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/24 "2012-08-15T18:57:19Z")
A misleading ad saying that Obama will make it so welfare bums don’t have to look for jobs but can just stay home cashing their government checks? The phrase “dog-whistle politics” comes to mind here. Much like Lee Atwater, Reagan and “Cadillac Welfare Queens”. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/25 "2012-08-15T18:58:00Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > The law provides states with more ADMINISTRATIVE flexibility but it does not loosen the work requirements. And it is not even close to “gutting” it and is not in the eye of the beholder one bit. It is a straight out lie, dishonest through and through. ANd what is even more dishonest about it is that Republicans don’t actually like the change. I mean really the Republicans are upset about a change that puts more power into the hands of the States. Really? Nonsense, they would cream themselves silly if it were a Republican doing this. Does the law allow non-work activities to count towards the work requirement or doesn’t it? BTW, what’s with Obama claiming he reduced the welfare rolls by 80%. What’s THAT claim based on? ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/26 "2012-08-15T19:00:11Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Does the law allow non-work activities to count towards the work requirement or doesn’t it? > > BTW, what’s with Obama claiming he reduced the welfare rolls by 80%. What’s THAT claim based on? It doesn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/27 "2012-08-15T19:05:52Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Does the law allow non-work activities to count towards the work requirement or doesn’t it? It’s not a law, it’s an Informational Memorandum. It’s right [here](http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html)- you tell us. Any redefintions would come from the state waiver request. All this memo does is let states know that HHS will consider requests for waivers if the proposed plans have measurable means of showing they are more effective in meeting TANF work goals. Can you show me a state plan that has been granted a waiver? As far as I know there haven’t been any. Therefore, there haven’t been any redefinitions. > [@](#): > > BTW, what’s with Obama claiming he reduced the welfare rolls by 80%. What’s THAT claim based on? Here ya go: [PolitiFact | Welfare rolls dropped, but not just because of law](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jun/30/barack-obama/welfare-rolls-dropped-but-not-just-because-of-law/) Rated “Half True”, which by your standards is certainly good enough for a political ad. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/28 "2012-08-15T19:10:42Z")
Okay, so the time limits are unchanged and recipients still have to get actual employment within that time limit. So what’s being waived? What Kaus is worked up about is that so far, states that have asked about changes to the program have wanted the work requirement loosened. So the only way Kaus is wrong is if no waivers are actually given. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/29 "2012-08-15T19:16:56Z")
Nothing so far. Here are the examples proposed in the memo: > [@](#): > > ``` > Projects that improve coordination with other components of the workforce investment system, including programs operated under the Workforce Investment Act, or to test an innovative approach to use performance-based contracts and management in order to improve employment outcomes. > Projects that demonstrate attainment of superior employment outcomes if a state is held accountable for negotiated employment outcomes in lieu of participation rate requirements. > Projects under which a state would count individuals in TANF-subsidized jobs but no longer receiving TANF assistance toward participation rates for a specified period of time in conjunction with an evaluation of the effectiveness of a subsidized jobs strategy. > Projects that improve collaboration with the workforce and/or post-secondary education systems to test multi-year career pathways models for TANF recipients that combine learning and work. > Projects that demonstrate strategies for more effectively serving individuals with disabilities, along with an alternative approach to measuring participation and outcomes for individuals with disabilities. > Projects that test the impact of a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation rate requirements. > Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs count toward participation rates, either generally or for particular subgroups, such as an extended training period for those pursuing a credential. The purpose of such a waiver would be to determine through evaluation whether a program that allows for longer periods in certain activities improves employment outcomes. > > ``` The last one, for example, would allow training programs to count for a longer period of time if a state could prove that it improved overall employment outcomes. I’ll admit some of the lingo is above my head - but the general gist is letting states try out ways to get folks re-trained while on TANF and letting some of those retraining programs count as work, with the caveat that overall employment as defined in the other sections (407 in particular) are met or improved upon. Either way, the overall work requirements remain as do the time limits involved. Calling it a “gutting” is ridiculous, especially considering no waivers have even been granted. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/30 "2012-08-15T19:19:40Z")
Fair enough. Here’s what the NY Times reported about what states were actually asking for: Last year, an aide to Brian Sandoval, the Republican governor of Nevada, asked to discuss flexibility in imposing those requirements. Perhaps, the state asked, those families hardest to employ could be exempted from the work requirements for six months while officials worked with them to stabilize their households. Utah, also led by a Republican governor, asked for relief from some federal reporting requirements, and urged that refugee families be treated differently when seeking welfare benefits because of cultural barriers. > **[NYT proves Romney right on welfare](https://dailycaller.com/2012/08/10/nyt-proves-romney-right-on-welfare/)** > > Today's entertainment gossip and chatter Now if those requests won’t fly, then we’re wrong about the administration. But given that this is what states are asking for, it’s understandable that critics would believe this is what the administration has been planning to give them. If they aren’t, then we owe the President an apology. BTW though, the language on those requirements is obtuse, but some of those definitely look like a loosening of work requirements to me. All of these can be interepreted to do so: Projects under which a state would count individuals in TANF-subsidized jobs but no longer receiving TANF assistance toward participation rates for a specified period of time in conjunction with an evaluation of the effectiveness of a subsidized jobs strategy. Projects that improve collaboration with the workforce and/or post-secondary education systems to test multi-year career pathways models for TANF recipients that combine learning and work. Projects that demonstrate strategies for more effectively serving individuals with disabilities, along with an alternative approach to measuring participation and outcomes for individuals with disabilities. Projects that test the impact of a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation rate requirements. Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs count toward participation rates So it seems they aren’t loosening the overall requirements so much as making them easier to meet, by for example counting people no longer on TANF as employed for the purposes of the program. That clearly makes the participation goals easier to meet. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/31 "2012-08-15T19:28:13Z")
Those might or might not fly, as I understand it. What the state has to do is propose a plan and a set of metrics to track work outcomes of TANF participants. If Nevada wants to exempt a sub-group for 6 months for special stabilization then they need to define those terms and then show that the end result is actually higher work-rate requirements for all TANF members. Similar for Utah - maybe the rigidity of the reporting is making the local administrators push TANF participants into dead-end short-term jobs when a more flexible approach would lead to better long-term employment outcomes. Propose a plan and a metric and lets find out. I’d have to dig into section 407 for how those terms are currently defined, but in the end it seems that flexibility and letting the “laboratory of the states” work is reasonable executive behavior. It’s not unlike the state waivers from the ACA - if a state has a plan and can show that it will offer near-universal coverage they can try it out and be exempted from the other ACA requirements. Vermont is pursuing this. On preview: yes, they are loosening the reporting requirements during the program (which is limited to 5 years). But they have to report their work metrics all along and if they fail to meet them the program is terminated. And the end result of the program has to meet the existing TANF work guidelines. Again, this is all just conjecture as no waivers have been granted. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/32 "2012-08-15T19:31:05Z")
Here’s a article with some more of the technical details: [http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/August-2012/Mitt-Romney-Welfare-and-Waivers/](http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/The-312/August-2012/Mitt-Romney-Welfare-and-Waivers/) Basically it comes down to whether you think Obama wants to gut welfare-to-work. If he does, and the states (even GOP-run ones) do too, then this memo could conceivably lead to that. But I see no reason to believe that he does, and this memo by itself surely isn’t enough evidence that he does. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/33 "2012-08-15T19:33:58Z")
No, but predicting intentions is fair game in politics, Democrats do it to Republicans all the time and vice versa. If reasonable people believe that’s what these changes will lead to, it’s fair to call him on it. At the very least, the fact that the President has to vociferously insist that he’s not going to loosen work requirements might have made it impossible to do so now, if that’s what he was intending. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/34 "2012-08-15T19:51:53Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, but predicting intentions is fair game in politics, Democrats do it to Republicans all the time and vice versa. If reasonable people believe that’s what these changes will lead to, it’s fair to call him on it. At the very least, the fact that the President has to vociferously insist that he’s not going to loosen work requirements might have made it impossible to do so now, if that’s what he was intending. Complete and utter bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/35 "2012-08-15T20:12:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > No, but predicting intentions is fair game in politics… I predict that your intention is to take whatever information you’re given and pretend that it demonstrates Obama is a sniveling cock-whore no matter how much evidence to the contrary exists. The Romney ad is misleading, and if you ask me, outright disgusting. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/36 "2012-08-15T20:18:11Z")
> [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](#): > > Complete and utter bullshit. In the end, guess who decides? The voters. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/37 "2012-08-15T20:19:18Z")
We can simply look at the exact words in the ad to see that it is unequivocally false, as much as **adaher** tries to wordsmith, the words of the ad are clear as day, Obama was ending Work for Welfare, not he was slightly loosening, not that he was paving the way to end it. Nothing like that, the words themselves are a straight out falsehoods, AKA lies. > [@](#): > > “Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.” No, not even close. > [@](#): > > “under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.” False. Not half false, just simply false. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/38 "2012-08-15T20:27:07Z")
Exactly right **Gangster Octopus**. If the ad said “Obama authorized waivers that could drop work requirements” then it’s at least somewhat defensible. But there is no plan to drop work requirements and the second quote is disgustingly false. But **adaher** doesn’t care - if the lies work then they’re all good. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/39 "2012-08-15T20:29:48Z")
I do care about lying, but unlike the rest of you, I put it into perspective. You know what trashing Romney’s lies while not caring about Obamas lies is? Whining. If Paul Ryan is ending Medicare, then Obama is ending welfare to work. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 15, 2012, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435/40 "2012-08-15T21:10:10Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > The change by the administration does loosen work requirements. There’s no way to argue around that. Whether it’s “gutting” welfare reform or not is in the eye of the beholder. The ad says it gets rid of any requirement to work. That is a lot more than “loosening” job requirements. The ad is a total lie. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/romneys-work-for-welfare-ad/631435.md?page=3)