Obama is ending work requirement in welfare

I want to express gratitude that my debate partner has decided to pick up this debate – I am eager to argue the subject. Before beginning my argument, however, I need to point out a few things. Much of the argument presented as the work of my partner was plagiarized from Huffington Post.com, and Breitbart.com, and do not represent the original thoughts of my partner. Consider this excerpt, from my partners Opening: The welfare reform law that President Clinton signed in 1996 changed the name of the federal welfare program to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It added a work component, requiring recipients to find employment within a proscribed time period To the wording from a recent Huffington Post article: The welfare reform law that President Clinton signed in 1996 changed the name of the federal welfare program to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). It added a work component, requiring recipients to find employment within a proscribed time period… http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Additionally, the following also appears in my partners Opening: July 12th, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. 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. Compared to an article appearing on Breitbart.com… But on July 12th, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements. 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… http://www.breitbart.com... Considering this, I will argue that my partner has not yet presented his first argument. Nevertheless, I am reluctant to name this contest “won” until I have at least presented an argument of my own. To this end, I will use one of the sources my partner copied, which explains that the welfare funds are paid out to states in block grants, which are then used at the state level as they see fit, more or less. The Obama administration has agreed to allow work requirements that are more effective than those implemented by the federal government to be used by states instead. [1] Far from gutting the work requirements, this action actually allows states to strengthen them. To quote the article: The July 12th “announcement allows states to propose alternative ways to increase the numbers of TANF recipients they are moving into the workforce under the TANF program, or otherwise more effectively meet TANF goals. States still must meet a minimum percentage of TANF recipients who are employed. The time limit for beneficiaries receiving TANF benefits remains the same. BUT, states can propose (not automatically implement, because the waiver has to be approved), alternative ways to increase their workforce goals under TANF.” [1] FactCheck.Org says the following: “A Mitt Romney TV ad claims the Obama administration has adopted “a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.” The plan does neither of those things. Work requirements are not simply being “dropped.” States may now change the requirements — revising, adding or eliminating them — as part of a federally approved state-specific plan to increase job placement.” [2] And finally, Politifact rates the claim that Obama has waived "the work requirement for welfare” as a ‘Pants on Fire’ statement. The article points out that, “In reality, the Obama administration has said it will consider proposals from states that are aimed at finding better ways of getting welfare recipients into jobs.” [3] Considering all of this, my argument as of this round is: The Obama Administration waiver allows states more flexibility in getting welfare recipients back to work, and to implement more effective strategies than those required by the federal government. This does not weaken the work requirements – it strengthens them. It also puts shifts more control over these programs to the states, which are often better suited to understand the needs of local residents. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.factcheck.org... [3] http://www.politifact.com...