Yes, exactly. So the line, “gutting the work requirement” is not true. It’s more complicated than that. I support the original law and the federal rules on the work requirement. I do not support Obama’s executive order. That said, the argument needs to be framed correctly. When we dumb things like this down we open ourselves up to “they’re lying about this” and they would be half correct.
Appreciate your points, but they (Washington Post and Obama) are not even half correct. The Washington Post knows that Americans will be VERY upset to know the work requirement has been removed from welfare reform. So they have to come up with, well it’s left to the states.
This is federal welfare and the REQUIREMENT has been removed. States can now ignore it, and states want as much money flowing in to their people as they can get. So the states will allow people to get welfare without working. The work requirement by the federal government is gone.
In addition to paying off his supporters, Obama is doing this to remove more people from the work force, in an effort to reduce the official unemployment numbers.
Dick Morris explained the whole purpose of the welfare reform they negotiated was to create work requirements that the states could not get around. Welfare reform is now gone as is the work requirement.
As I further have heard it explained, this was illegal because the law was written in a way to prevent the executive from doing this. Obama is removing the requirement because he is allowed to adjust reports the states make to the federal government. Just because he can adjust their reporting requirements, he is using that to change not just what they report but the substance of what they are doing.
The Romney ad is completely accurate and further based on direct experience the existing work requirement already was being evaded.