A quiet, significant change on welfare
Administration gives flexibility to states, but bypasses Congress
Americans should arch an eyebrow at the Obama administration’s decision last week to allow states to seek major changes in federal welfare-to-work requirements. The decision, announced quietly last Thursday, not only could dilute a successful, bipartisan welfare-to-work law, it continues a pattern of this administration finding workarounds to landmark laws it doesn’t like.
In its policy announcement, the Department of Health and Human Services said it would consider state waivers from the 1996 federal welfare reform law that puts a time limit on how long families can get aid and requires recipients to eventually find work. Democratic President Bill Clinton signed that law, which was passed by a Republican Congress and created what is now called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF.
Obama administration officials say the waivers are a response to state officials who say that the law’s work requirements are rigid and reporting too burdensome on state caseworkers. Five states have inquired about waivers. Brad Deen, spokesman for the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, told the editorial board Monday that state officials are undecided and still figuring out what parts of the federal program can be waived.
The administration says states would need to replace TANF with a program that doesn’t reduce access to employment, and exceptions to TANF’s time limits on employment will not be permitted. The waivers, they argue, will allow states to develop innovative programs that deal with unique local issues. That’s the kind of flexibility conservatives have long wanted the feds to give state governments.
Still, anyone who’s familiar with policy knows that even the most well-intentioned programs take years of evaluation and tinkering before being declared failures. We hope the administration is vigilant on the front end of the waiver process, so that it doesn’t replace a TANF program that largely works with one that merely has a chance to.
Republicans also are complaining loudly that Health and Human Services doesn’t have the legal right to extend waivers – a claim that’s a little dubious. The administration says work requirements fall under the discretion of the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and certainly, such waivers in general are not unprecedented. Just this month, the Department of Education exempted two more states from having to meet requirements in the federal No Child Left Behind act, bringing the total to 26.
But Thursday’s welfare announcement, quiet as it was, marked a critical change to a landmark law. That’s become a pattern for the Obama administration, from deciding last year not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act to announcing earlier this year that children of illegal immigrants would be safe from deportation.
The administration’s defenders argue that Obama had the discretion not to prioritize or prosecute laws regarding gays or immigration that he felt were unconstitutional or inhumane. Yet this latest policy decision takes a perhaps troubling step, because it comes without a serious attempt to find a legislative solution to TANF’s issues. The administration isn’t even objecting to the law’s goals. Obama has simply decided he can achieve the same policy outcome in a better way.
Congress is right to fret about the president’s willingness to bypass the laws it passes. Even if it’s within the administration’s power to decide when and how to administer the requirements of those statutes, it should use that tool carefully.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/16/3386225/a-quiet-significant-change-on.html#storylink=cpy
Administration gives flexibility to states, but bypasses Congress
Americans should arch an eyebrow at the Obama administration’s decision last week to allow states to seek major changes in federal welfare-to-work requirements. The decision, announced quietly last Thursday, not only could dilute a successful, bipartisan welfare-to-work law, it continues a pattern of this administration finding workarounds to landmark laws it doesn’t like.
In its policy announcement, the Department of Health and Human Services said it would consider state waivers from the 1996 federal welfare reform law that puts a time limit on how long families can get aid and requires recipients to eventually find work. Democratic President Bill Clinton signed that law, which was passed by a Republican Congress and created what is now called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF.
Obama administration officials say the waivers are a response to state officials who say that the law’s work requirements are rigid and reporting too burdensome on state caseworkers. Five states have inquired about waivers. Brad Deen, spokesman for the N.C. Department of Health and Human Services, told the editorial board Monday that state officials are undecided and still figuring out what parts of the federal program can be waived.
The administration says states would need to replace TANF with a program that doesn’t reduce access to employment, and exceptions to TANF’s time limits on employment will not be permitted. The waivers, they argue, will allow states to develop innovative programs that deal with unique local issues. That’s the kind of flexibility conservatives have long wanted the feds to give state governments.
Still, anyone who’s familiar with policy knows that even the most well-intentioned programs take years of evaluation and tinkering before being declared failures. We hope the administration is vigilant on the front end of the waiver process, so that it doesn’t replace a TANF program that largely works with one that merely has a chance to.
Republicans also are complaining loudly that Health and Human Services doesn’t have the legal right to extend waivers – a claim that’s a little dubious. The administration says work requirements fall under the discretion of the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, and certainly, such waivers in general are not unprecedented. Just this month, the Department of Education exempted two more states from having to meet requirements in the federal No Child Left Behind act, bringing the total to 26.
But Thursday’s welfare announcement, quiet as it was, marked a critical change to a landmark law. That’s become a pattern for the Obama administration, from deciding last year not to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act to announcing earlier this year that children of illegal immigrants would be safe from deportation.
The administration’s defenders argue that Obama had the discretion not to prioritize or prosecute laws regarding gays or immigration that he felt were unconstitutional or inhumane. Yet this latest policy decision takes a perhaps troubling step, because it comes without a serious attempt to find a legislative solution to TANF’s issues. The administration isn’t even objecting to the law’s goals. Obama has simply decided he can achieve the same policy outcome in a better way.
Congress is right to fret about the president’s willingness to bypass the laws it passes. Even if it’s within the administration’s power to decide when and how to administer the requirements of those statutes, it should use that tool carefully.
Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/16/3386225/a-quiet-significant-change-on.html#storylink=cpy
