Skip to main content

Paul Ryan is the gift that keeps on giving. As some of you may have heard, Mitt Romney's main message the past week or two has been that President Obama is going to gut welfare to work requirements. It is based on a memo written that would strengthen welfare to work requirements, so it's a pretty weak argument. By weak argument, I mean it's a lie.

Here's the interesting part: In 2002, the House of Representatives tried to create a super-waiver that would gut welfare to work requirements. In other words, Obama is being accused of doing something that he is not doing and that the Republicans tried to do. Their bill, H R 4737, was supported by Paul Ryan.

I am not going to get into the current mess, since enough people have already gone there. Let me go back to 2002.

The bill in question is HR 4737. The vote took place on May 16, 2002. The bill included something called a super-waiver. A super-waiver would allow a state to receive a waiver from requirements dealing with

Child Care, TANF, SSBG, the food stamp program, housing programs except those under Sections 7 and 8, the Labor Department's Wagner-Peyser Act and the Department of Education's Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.
The key item in that list is TANF, which stands for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. That's the program which Obama is being accused of removing requirements from. Republicans voted to make it easy for states to rid themselves from those requirements. States would apply for a super-waiver which would remove those requirements among many others, and the super-waiver would be approved by the Secretaries of Health and Human Services and Labor without oversight from Congress. If those states did not want to require families on welfare to look for work, then families in those states would not need to look for work.

What would the impact be? According to Michael Tomasky, who talked to Ron Haskins, the Republican who played a major role in getting the 1996 Welfare Reform bill passed:

Finally, he sounded amused that Republicans are getting worked up about waivers. "Republicans are the party of waivers," he said. He told me that in 2002, when he was in the Bush White House, the Bush administration proposed the idea of what they called "super-waivers," which were designed to offer flexibility to the states not just on TANF (welfare), but on "a broad range of social programs." The Bush administration pushed this, "and they were pushing on an open door with Republicans." It was the Democrats who were opposed.
That's right. The Republicans voted to waive welfare to work requirements. Their bill passed the House on a partisan vote but not the Senate, which was controlled by the Democrats at the time.

If you look at the Republicans who voted to gut the requirements, you'll see several names you recognize: Boehner, Camp, DeMint, Hoekstra, Issa, Rehberg, etc. You'll also see Ayn Rand fanboy and Bush apologist Paul Ryan.

It turns out that Ryan was for stripping welfare to work requirements before he was against it, just like he was for more debt before he was against it. I'm sure that his views have changed--this was before Romney shook Ryan's Etch-A-Sketch. It's probably true that Ryan is retroactively against the bill. However, when he had his chance to strip welfare to work requirements, he took it.

I don't know if this is a big political liability for Ryan. After all, even though Ryan voted to strip the welfare to work requirements, it's going to be difficult to portray Ryan as an Angry Black Man or as a lazy Negro. Also, no matter how hypocritical Ryan is, he'll never be able to match the man on the top of his ticket.

All that being said, however, let the word go out. There are four people running on presidential tickets, and exactly two of them tried to strip the welfare to work requirements. One of them, who joined a group of governors in 2005 to ask for waivers, is Mitt Romney. The other, who joined a group of Congressmen in 2002 to introduce super-waivers, is Paul Ryan.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (13+ / 0-)

    "H.R.W.A.T.P.T.R.T.C.I.T.G -- He really was a terrible president that ran the country into the ground."

    by Reino on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 08:58:00 AM PDT

  •  The more you look... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Reino, NoMoreLies

    ...the less you like.

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:07:48 AM PDT

  •  Good catch! n/t (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Reino, Hey338Too

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:09:53 AM PDT

    •  Thanks (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, myboo

      I was looking at some recent interviews with Haskins, who has some interesting things to say on welfare even though he certainly is not one of us. When I saw the paragraph I quoted above, I got a hunch--Bush asked Congress to do something in 2002, so I bet Paul Ryan was there for him. Some simple research verified that my hunch was correct.

      "H.R.W.A.T.P.T.R.T.C.I.T.G -- He really was a terrible president that ran the country into the ground."

      by Reino on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:19:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Yes but, Republicans have made an art (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tinfoil Hat, Reino, Hey338Too

    out of being for legislation that is either designed to fail and bound not to be passed.  That's how they have their cake and eat it too.  The problem with Democrats is that their programs actually work.  The legislation isn't just for show.

    Over the years, the whole abortion kerfuffle has been a strategy to appear to give the religious nuts what they want and then failing, so they can argue for a chance to try and try again. Now their bluff is being called.
    "Designed to fail" is to ensure re-election, which is all the critters are interested in. Playing bad cop gives them a thrill.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Tue Aug 21, 2012 at 09:43:24 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site