Dissolving Welfare Reform Via Policy Directive

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.

Source: Morning Bell: Obama’s Imperial Presidency Dissolves Welfare Reform.

The end result? Likely increasing dependency on government with no way to pay for the increased government spending that will result.  At the expense of economic growth.

Obama’s Sneaky Treaties

Seems the current administration is working to advance European liberalism in America.

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.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Obama: I’ll Decide What’s Constitutional

The assault on the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution by the Obama administration continues.

Just a few days before Christmas, Obama served notice to all Americans that he will continue to abuse executive privilege by seeking new ways to vilify gun owners and further his anti-gun agenda.

Congress placed a provision in the $1 trillion omnibus spending bill for 2012 designed to bar the National Institutes of Health (NIH) from using any of its $30.7 billion taxpayer funds to “advocate or promote gun control.” However, upon signing the bill into law, President Obama issued a caveat of his own:

I have advised Congress that I will not construe these provisions as preventing me from fulfilling my constitutional responsibility to recommend to the Congress’s consideration such measures as I shall judge necessary and expedient.

In other words: “Congress may pass laws, but I decide which of its laws are constitutional and which I can simply choose to ignore.”

Of course, the Constitution doesn’t actually give the president this power, but Obama won’t allow a little thing like the U.S. Constitution get in his way. And in the present case, Congress is right to try to prevent him from using a federal health agency, not to mention our tax dollars, as a weapon in his ongoing war against the Second Amendment. As The Washington Times reports, NIH has wasted over $5 million since 2002 producing deceptive studies aimed at furthering gun control — including one study that tried “to prove that a home without firearms was essential to a child’s safety and well-being.”

Even more importantly, Congress knows that there is no scheme too radical, or dangerous, for the Obama administration when it comes to using federal agencies to push its anti-gun agenda.

In other words the administration of President Obama has no qualms with bypassing Congress when it comes to his agenda.

Last month, email exchanges surfaced between employees at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) that show the administration helped illegally transfer guns to violent Mexican drug cartels in order to manufacture a case for gun registration. Now gun dealers in four Southwest border states must abide by a new gun registration requirement, courtesy of BATFE, that forces them to register the sales of any law-abiding American who purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within five business days.

Congress never passed any law like this. Rather, Obama’s BATFE orchestrated the deadly “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal to give cause for its unconstitutional gun-control edict. Given this, how hard is it to envision the Obama administration issuing a phony “health” study that maligns gun owners?

Yet another reason why in 2012 the American people must vote President Obama out of office.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sheriff Joe’s Harrassment by Obama

Sheriff Joe Arpaio continues to be harassed by the Obama administration.  And as part of their assault on Sheriff Joe, the Obama administration recently revoked the 287(g) program.

speaking in Phoenix, Arizona on February 26, 2011.

Image via Wikipedia

The 287(g) program was created by the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It authorized federal immigration authorities to train and deputize
 state and local law enforcement to fight illegal immigration.

Despite using the success of 287(g) in Maricopa County (where 58 percent of the state’s residents live), as a justification for suing to invalidate SB 1070, the Obama administration has now revoked the program as part of an all-out assault against Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

And the reason for the revocation? The results of a three-year investigation that wasted millions of taxpayer dollars.

The justification for revoking the agreement comes from a 22-page letter written by Thomas Perez, the head of the Civil Rights Division at the Justice Department. The letter accuses Sheriff Joe of “discriminatory policing” and not giving enough bilingual services to Spanish-speaking prisoners.

According to Perez, the letter to Arpaio is a result of a three-year-long investigation. The investigation was aided “by four leading police practice experts, one jail expert, and an expert on statistical analysis; we reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documentary evidence; toured [Maricopa County’s] jails; and interviewed over 400 individuals, including approximately 150 former and current … inmates, and more than 75 former and current [Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office] personnel.”

In addition there is a false claim of racial profiling that isn’t backed up.

Perez’s main allegation is that Sheriff Joe is racially profiling in his enforcement of laws against illegal immigration. The principal basis for this is a statistical study that claims that Hispanics are more likely to be pulled over and searched by Arpaio’s Maricopa County Sheriff’s deputies. 
However, the Obama administration refuses to release the data behind the study.

Even Robert Robb, a liberal columnist of the Arizona Republic, who previously accused Arpaio of running a “rogue agency,” wrote that “the letter is uncomfortably weak regarding evidence to back up its sweeping charges of pervasive racial discrimination.”

It should also be noted that ethnicity can be utilized when it comes to immigration enforcement.

while Sheriff Joe is not racially profiling, the Supreme Court has ruled that ethnicity may be a legitimate factor in immigration enforcement. In the 1975 case United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled “the likelihood that any given person of Mexican ancestry is an alien is high enough to make Mexican appearance a relevant factor, but, standing alone, it does not justify stopping all Mexican-Americans to ask if they are aliens.”

The simple reality is that the Obama administration is peeved that in Maricopa County, Sheriff Joe is enforcing immigration laws.

Under the leadership of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, 25 percent of all deportation in the United States since
 2007 came from Maricopa County. Arpaio’s success in identifying and deporting illegal aliens stands in sharp contrast to ICE’s weak enforcement across the rest of the nation. That success is an embarrassment to the federal immigration authorities, and this is why they are suing him and revoking his 287(g) authority. Apparently, Arizona’s enforcement efforts must be brought down to the levels of New York and Chicago and other sanctuary cities.

A prime example that enforcement of immigration laws is considered a no-no to the Obama adminstration.

Enhanced by Zemanta