With the media’s attention turned elsewhere this past week, a major policy revision by the Obama Administration.
Welfare reform replaced the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children with a new program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). The Heritage Foundation played a pivotal role in building bipartisan consensus for the reform and providing many of the recommendations that became part of the law. The whole point was that able-bodied adults should be required to work or prepare for work as a condition of receiving welfare aid.
This reform was very successful. TANF became the only welfare program (out of more than 70) that promoted greater self-reliance. It moved 2.8 million families off the welfare rolls and into jobs so that they were providing for themselves. Child poverty fell, and single-parent employment rose. Recipients were required to perform at least 20–30 hours per week of work or job preparation activities in exchange for the cash benefit.
Now, Obama’s HHS is claiming that it can waive those work requirements that are at the heart of the law, and without Congress’s consent.
When it established TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF program from waiver authority. They explicitly did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of HHS bureaucrats. In a December 2001, the non-partisan Congressional Research Service clarified that there was no authority to override work and other major requirements: “Effectively, there are no TANF waivers,” it reported.
But that did not stop the Obama Administration, which has been increasing welfare spending at an alarming rate already. President Obama has added millions to the welfare rolls, and his Administration has come under fire lately for its efforts to expand and add more Americans to the food stamp program.
An interesting perspective on Chief Justice Roberts in light of Thursday’s surprising SCOTUS ruling.
Roberts, who wanted to cement his reputation as a sober and judicious jurist, through his Hamlet-like deliberations ended up seeming incoherent, tentative, and unsure of himself. And if it’s true that rumors of Roberts reconsidering his vote swirled in Washington prior to the final outcome, and that such perceptions of hesitation prompted renewed venom and pressure — from not just the media, but from those such as Senator Leahy (who had voted to confirm Roberts) on the floors of Congress, and the president himself (who attacked the Court even earlier in his State of the Union address) — then the Court comes off as far more suspect after the opinion than before. Everything Roberts wished to prevent he ensured.
President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are entering negotiations over — or seeking ratification of — five treaties that could radically limit our national sovereignty and the reach of our democratic institutions. Particularly scary is that the treaties, once signed and ratified, have the same status as constitutional law and cannot be altered or eclipsed by Congress or state legislatures. And their provisions must be enforced by U.S. courts.
Those who wish to preserve our sovereignty and democratic control over our future must rally to block these treaties, either by pressing Obama and Clinton not to sign them or by blocking their ratification.
One of the treaties deals with offshore oil drilling.
The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration — with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) — will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar’s primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free.
A second treaty deals with children.
Rights of the Child — Even more fanciful is a treaty Clinton plans to negotiate setting forth a code of rights for children, to be administered by a 14-member court set up for the purpose. The draft treaty obliges rich nations to provide funds for shelter, food, clothing and education for children in poor nations. This provision could create grounds to litigate to challenge the level of foreign aid we give as inadequate to meet our treaty obligations. Already, leftists in the United Kingdom are using the treaty to attack welfare cuts by the Cameron government.
Head over to the source to learn about the other treaties being worked on that could threaten our sovereignty.
When a conservative media outlet brings up concerns:
Just as the recall petition circulating process was getting underway in November of last year, Media Trackers unearthed privacy concerns over the way information on a recall petition could be used. At the time, Media Trackers pointed out that recall petitions are different than other electoral documents such as voter registration forms and nominating papers, and because of that the information on them could be used against those who sign a petition.
The PolitiFact division of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel noted the report and chose to review it. They rated the conclusions “Mostly False,” even after agreeing with the substance of Media Trackers’ analysis of the facts and statements related to the issue.
Yet when a liberal group brings up the SAME concerns, there is silence.
Now, two months after the Media Trackers report and PolitiFact’s rating of it, the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin is expressing concern over privacy issues and the recall process. In a story reported by TMJ4, WISN-TV, WKOW-TV and WXOW-TV, the ACLU is suggesting that steps need to be taken by the Government Accountability Board to keep the information of domestic abuse victims private even as other signatures are released.
While the Media Trackers report on these concerns earned negative coverage in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, now that a liberal group is echoing those same concerns, the newspaper and other critics of the report at the time are remaining silent.
Shocking the hypocrisy shown by the mainstream media outlets. Just more proof the mainstream media is in the hip pocket of liberals.