Tag Archives: welfare work requirement

Scaring Up Voters–Literally!

Posted on by

One of the signs held up by the Democrats at President Trump’s speech on Tuesday said “Save Medicaid.” Just for the record, Medicaid is not in danger. That is a scare tactic to try and persuade voters to vote Democrat.

On Wednesday, The New York Post reported:

Get ready to be bombarded with ghoulish ads warning about grandmothers dying and children denied needed cancer treatments “just to make billionaires like Elon Musk even richer.”

The ads, paid for by a Democratic PAC, started running Monday. And Monday night Democrats attending President Donald Trump’s speech to Congress held up paddles with the message “Save Medicaid.”

It’s demagoguery in full swing to combat Republican efforts to control federal spending on Medicaid and stabilize the nation’s debt.

Gov. Kathy Hochul is claiming, “House Republicans just voted to rip health care away from up to 1.8 million New Yorkers — all to bankroll giveaways for billionaires.”

The article notes:

These are lies. The needy are not going to lose their health care, and the demagogues know it. 

Truth is, congressional Republicans are finally sticking up for working people who resent covering the bills for healthy folks who refuse to work.

To control Medicaid spending, Republicans are calling for a “work requirement” for able-bodied adults without children or an elderly dependent.

“Work” overstates the toughness.  Anyone who is employed for 80 hours a month, or attends school, a training program or drug-recovery program and is low income will still be eligible for free care. Just not moochers.

Just a reminder–in 1996, President Clinton added a work requirement to welfare payments. President Obama removed it in July 2012. President Trump reinstated it in 2017. President Biden removed the work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps.

The article reminds us of the recent history of Argentina:

Take it from Javier Milei, Argentina’s president, elected one year ago.

He campaigned with a chainsaw, pledging deep cuts to his government’s out-of-control spending.

At that time, his country had one of the highest inflation rates in the world. A year later, inflation is coming down fast.

Republicans aren’t taking a chainsaw to Medicaid, but slowing its spending growth will help deter inflation and allow them to renew Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which are about to expire.

Before 2017, the US was losing 10 multinational corporate headquarters a year to countries with lower corporate taxes.

After Trump’s 2017 cuts, the exodus stopped.

Renewing those corporate tax cuts is essential to save American jobs. Possibly yours.

When you hear the demagogues oppose Medicaid “cuts,” think of the guy sitting on the couch, while you go to work to pay his health-care tab.

Don’t fall for the phony sob stories.

Remember, there is no legal requirement for political ads to tell the truth.

I Simply Do Not Understand The Logic Behind This Concept

Posted on by

On Sunday, Fox News posted the following headline:

Republicans’ work requirements ‘obsession’ is ‘offensive’ to poor people,’ CNN commentator complains

Quite possibly I am missing something, but it seems to me that one of the ways to get out of poverty is through work. The other way is through education or training in a useful skill.

The article reports:

Republicans’ “obsession” with work requirements are “offensive” to poor people and could produce a backlash, CNN political commentator Ashley Allison said on Sunday..

She appeared on a panel discussion during “State of the Union” to react to the news that Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., reached an agreement to raise the debt ceiling after months of debate.

McCarthy has argued that while some Republicans were unhappy with the concessions in the agreement, there is “not one thing in the bill for Democrats.” One of the Republicans’ concessions, however, included removing work requirements for social programs like Medicaid and SNAP, something  that Allison insisted is “offensive.” 

The article concludes:

Allison’s comments echo, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., who criticized the idea of work requirements in another segment of th show, saying that it would actually “hurt poor people.”

“We’ve seen reams of data that show that when you put these work requirements in, they’re really just administrative red tape that prevent the people who need help from getting help,” Jayapal said.

McCarthy claimed Republicans are largely in favor of the agreement. According to the House Speaker, the bill will sit for public review for 72 hours before finally coming up for a vote on Wednesday. The vote would come days before the new June 5 default deadline provided by the Treasury Department.

The people who need help are not prevented from getting help due to a work requirement. The work requirement has exemptions for people caring for children and for the elderly. There is no reason an able-bodied American can’t be required to work for his benefits.

Laws Have Consequences

Posted on by

On Tuesday,  Stephen Moore posted an article at Townhall about the current employment situation in America.

The article notes:

A policy question these days that has befuddled federal lawmakers is why so many millions of people have not returned to the workplace in the post-COVID-19 era. The labor force participation rate among employable adults is near a record low today. There are at least 2 million to 4 million employable adults who could and should be working but aren’t.

Very few people with even minimal skills can credibly say they can’t find a job. Employers report some 10 million job openings. Small business owners say their biggest problem is finding competent workers. There are many explanations for why so many people aren’t working — fear of COVID-19, the skills mismatch, more people taking early retirement, and so on. But a major factor is that the federal government is back to doing what it did in the 1970s and 1980s. The welfare state today is paying people not to work — even a single hour.

That problem went away in the 1990s after many states, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, began reforming their welfare systems with work requirements. Then-House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and the Republican Congress in 1996 passed a historic bipartisan welfare reform bill that President Bill Clinton signed into law.

The article reports on the results of the passage of that law:

Few laws in the last half-century have had such stunning success. Here is a quick summary of the impact, as reported by Brookings Institution welfare expert Ron Haskins:

No. 1: Caseloads declined by 60%, and the number of welfare recipients fell to its lowest level since 1969.

No. 2: Between 60% and 70% of those leaving welfare got a job.

No. 3: The child poverty rate fell every year between 1994 and 2000 because parents were working.

No. 4: The federal government saved more than $50 billion (almost $100 billion in today’s dollars).

During the Covid pandemic, the work requirements were removed.

The article concludes:

America is a rich nation, and we should absolutely have a safety net so that those who fall on tough times, lose a job or become disabled — and that happens to almost all of us at some point in our lives — do not go hungry or homeless or suffer from deprivation.

But welfare is supposed to be temporary and a hand-up, not a handout. The goal of welfare was to end poverty, not perpetuate it.

House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-MO) said that restoring work for welfare requirements is “a top priority” of his panel. It should be a top priority for our country. Let’s make work, not welfare, pay.

Let’s put the work requirement back into welfare.

Somehow The Media Missed This Story

Posted on by

Breitbart.com is reporting today that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has stated that the changes that President Obama made to the work requirements in the welfare reform act passed during the Clinton administration are illegal.

The article reports:

In its Sept. 4 letter, the GAO found that Health and Human Services (HHS) should have formally submitted a letter of its intent to make the changes to Congress and the Comptroller General before any waivers can be legally issued.

The letter also said that the GAO had not determined if HHS had the legal right to even make such waivers available. The GAO is basically saying that the Obama administration is breaking the law with its waivers.

But, according to a review of the shocking news of the GAO’s determination, neither CNN, nor CBS, nor ABC have bothered to report the story.

It’s stories like these that show the need for the alternative media.

President Obama has stated that the changes in the waivers were made at the request of Republican Governors, but those governors have denied that they requested a change, stating that they only asked for clarification.

The real question here is whether or not Congress is willing to stand up to the President and uphold the Constitution.

Enhanced by Zemanta