Today, a Democratic PAC made claims about Romney’s role in a woman’s death that rated multiple Pinocchios. Earlier, the Romney claim that Obama is ending welfare rated a Pants on Fire. It is looking more and more as though it will be primarily negative campaigns on both sides, with claims being made that are transparently false to anyone who looks at them, but which are swallowed hook, line and sinker by true believers on both sides.
Knowing the history of presidential campaigns, one should not be surprised at how negative they can become. What is surprising, to me, that at a time when our economy is weak and we remain involved in a war in the Middle East, is the lack of substantive policy discussion or offerings. I don’t know if this is because both candidates are flawed, or if it is because neither side really has answers and they know it. Finally, the media is not living up to its role in pushing candidates for answers. The press have become stenographers, not journalists. Perhaps this will change after the nominations. Until then, this is awfully boring, even if it generates a lot of faux anger.
“Romney claim that Obama is ending welfare…” (Steve)
.
.
That is inaccurate.
You probably misspoke.
The Romney campaign actually claims that the Obama administration’s waivers are “gutting welfare reform.”
SEE:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57489821/obamas-welfare-waiver-gutting-rules-or-tweaking/
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/romney_ad_says_obama_is_gutting_A8k3dXjwpMt00wnhVcYD0O
Given the waiver makes workfare (the foundation of welfare reform) somewhat optional, the Romney campaign’s charge is largely correct. Overwhelmingly the media reports that “some states have asked for such waivers,” BUT no state is on record for “asking for any waiver from the workfare requirements,” so the counter-charge (that “Romney’s charge is baseless”) appears inaccurate.
Like you, I favor mandatory work not only for the dependent poor, but incarcerated felons and others. I was expecting a call after Michelle Obama uttered the phrase, “Barack is gonna make you work.” After all, the Obama administration pledged to reach out ESPECIALLY to Conservative Democrats (I’m one).
I even submitted a plan that can be used as a template going forward.
FIRST, I’d set up an elite enforcement agency. Since I went to the St Sylvester’s Schools as a kid, I’d probably use those initials and call it the SS. This group would be so fierce that all other law enforcement agencies would quake at the mere mention of them. After that we’d have to set up large encampments to house all those who would soon be under our supervision. I’d call those “work camps.”
ALL media would be barred from those camps. We’d make our own films chronicling how wonderful life in those camps is for the workers. Those who were unable to work would be “rehabbed” both medically/physically and trained to do skills commensurate with their abilities. Those who simply refused to work would go through a “vigorous” retraining. Since “failure” (failing to force people to work) would NOT be an option for us, refusal would not be an option for the workers either. If that retraining failed then food would be rationed by their work hours. A worker COULD choose to starve to death, but they COULD NOT refuse work and remain among us.
A VERY similar plan was said to work well in motivating people in China during the 50′s & 60s and the former USSR from the 30s through the 60s. . .and perhaps a couiple of other places, I can’t quite put my finger on just now.
“The statement from Utah Governor Gary Herbert’s office said: “Utah’s request for a waiver stems from a desire for increased customization of the program to maximize employment among Utah’s welfare recipients,” adding that the state had needed “flexibility to customize work-focused solutions.”
Meanwhile, the statement from Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval’s office maintained that its request to the White House was “not a request to weaken work requirements” or a request for a “waiver to eliminate welfare work requirements for recipients.”
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/08/07/13166948-gop-governors-sidestep-romney-lie?lite
Both sates asked for a waiver so that they could have flexibility in meeting the goals of putting people to work. Sometimes the states think they know better how to accomplish their goals. I guess you could make the argument, which some seem to be doing, that the Utah and Nevada governors are secretly intending to do away with work requirements and put lots more people on welfare so they will vote for Obama. I think that ranks up there with the shape changer conspiracy.
Steve
NEITHER state and NONE that has been reported asking for more flexibility has asked for, nor sought an exemption from the WORKFARE rules of welfare reform.
A State demanding the “State’s Right” to mandate MORE work from welfare recipients, which both the above requests you note, appear to do, don’t appear to meet the definition of “seeking an exemption from the workfare component of welfare reform,” do they?
Hey! You didn’t even acknowledge your initial error (probably a typo) in claiming that “Romney claim(ed) that Obama is ending welfare,” was erroneous (it STILL is). Moreover, it was NOT put like that by ANY reputable news sources. ALL referenced Romney’s claim accurately – that the Romney campaign charged that “the Obama administration’s waivers are “gutting welfare reform,” which is actually pretty accurate.
Yes, that was a typo. As I have noted before, this is is in the waiver requirements.
“” As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.”
As noted in my first reply, the two states seem to think they have asked for a waiver. Really, this is old news in many ways. The 2005 bill required a lot more paperwork. The states would like to drop a lot of that. You can choose to believe, if you wish, that the GOP governor is really going to stop requiring people to work, but that is not what is granted in the waiver. Mitt Romney’s letter asking for more waiver flexibility below.
http://blogs-images.forbes.com/rickungar/files/2012/08/prg052605a-41.pdf
Steve
Romney did sign the 2005 letter supporting “the PRIDE Act” – a Bill that would have granted the HHS secretary authority to issue waivers related to welfare programs. Also signing the letter were many of the most conservative Republican governors in America. Of course, the PRIDE Act would have actually toughened federal work requirements, raising the mandatory participation rates for recipients within each state from 50 percent to 70 percent.
You’ve been solid on this issue Steve – ALWAYS supporting mandated work rules and especially tough sanctions against the chronically slothful. We appear to be in complete agreement here.
I’ve seen your writings and you’ve been steadfastly anti-federal spending (except in the case of Medicare) and in favor of stringent penalties for the chronically lazy and unemployable – yes, a citizen who refuses or is unable to work DOES give up a certain amount of their liberty and autonomy. In other words, the state CAN compel such people to work even against their own will.
HOWEVER, Barack Obama has had a very checkered history regarding the welfare/workfare reforms that you and I are obviously both committed to; “Obama’s stimulus reversed the fiscal foundation of the 1996 (welfare reform) bill by paying states bonuses to increase, not decrease, the number of people on their welfare rolls.
“This May, Obama’s “Truth Team” attacked Mitt Romney for supporting welfare work requirements, another pillar of the Clinton-era reforms.” (SEE: http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-distorts-facts-in-effort-to-expand-welfare-state/article/2504276?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20-%2008/08/2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest#.UCQID6DheJV).
I’m with YOU, Steve. . .I believe in much stricter workfare rules and making it much harder for scammers to get bogus disability benefits (SSI, etc). . .on those issues, I believe you and I have ALWAYS been simpatico. In fact, I’ve often lauded you as being more strict on this issue than many ardent Conservatives.
Sadly, arcane and archaic federal laws had long empowered the HHS secretary to issue waivers relating to welfare programs, BUT the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform bill courageously limited this authority, carving out “mandatory work requirements” as one of a number of items the secretary could no longer waive.
I just know that we BOTH applauded that at that time and since. Let’s bear that in mind, please.
Obama’s July memo did something very different from the “Pride Act.”. In a clear Executive overreach (which we’ve both opposed on both sides) the Obama Letter, at least in theory, claimed executive authority to allow the states to dilute or even eliminate work requirements for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which hadn’t been done since 1996!
The memo even suggests “demonstration projects” that would water down the restrictions – such as “projects that test the impact of a comprehensive universal engagement system in lieu of certain participation rate requirements.”
THAT’S the problem we BOTH apparently have with the Obama memo, as Obama’s July HHS memo actually invites states to apply for waivers that change the “definitions of work activities” to better meet “the work goals” of welfare reform. In other words, the state of California could (as one state did before 1996, according to the Government Accountability Office) count Weight Watchers attendance as “work,” and thus keep more people on the state’s welfare rolls without making them work.
As you correctly note, the Governors of both Nevada and Utah are a couple of goodfellas and they certainly aren’t seeking to water down their welfare requirements, if ANYTHING those too guys would do exactly what YOU and I support – making such restrictions much more draconian.
I’m very suspicious of a guy (Obama) who shamelessly opposed the bipartisan 1996 welfare reforms and whose misnamed “Truth Team,”just this past May (a couple of months back), attacked Mitt Romney for supporting welfare work requirements.
We’ve agreed that the 1996 welfare reforms were the best thing to happen in government in decades, let’s not back away from such noble and lofty sentiments now, when so many devious and dastardly “sloth advocates” are fighting to water down those hallowed reforms.
Stay the course with us Steve, we’re counting on the support of good people like you!
“Yes, that was a typo.” (Steve)
.
.
OK, no problem….It just wasn’t clear whether it was that, or whether you were actually claiming that “Obama sought to end welfare.”
I agree that all states would like to reduce the paperwork involved, but this waiver seems to go well beyond that, definitely granting a waiver FROM the basic workfare requirements AND possibly even incentivizing states to do so.
It is just these workfare requirements that have kept thousands of scammers from “double dipping” – collecting checks in multiple locales. It seems unsound for any public official to grant any exceptions to such a time-tested and workable solution.
That kind of “double dipping” CANNOT be done with the existing and ongoing “disability scams” that are largely federally funded.
STILL, given that very natural predilection by people to scam, perhaps the onus should be put (at least when it comes to bogus disability scams) on the referring physician. Generally, like with prescription mills, a few unscrupulous physicians make some side cash by becoming de facto drug dealers.
Al it would really take would be an investigative unit. ANYONE on “disability” but engaging in any strenuous physical work, would be deemed “unfit for a disability claim.” I’ve suggested just such a unit for NYC, going after cops and firefighters who retired with “disability pensions” and then going on to work similar (often the SAME jobs) elsewhere or other physically demanding kinds of work. There’s just too much money in such bogus claims for states to ignore!
“efinitely granting a waiver FROM the basic workfare requirements AND possibly even incentivizing states to do so.”
That is not written into the ruling. Where do you get that idea? It specifically says that states must more effectively meet the work requirements. Are you saying that only the federal govt can determine how to do that? This was one o fthe relatively few, popular bipartisan bills over the last 20 years. Any governor who tries to subvert it loses the next election. I cant imagine why the governor of Utah would do such a thing.
Steve
“That is not written into the ruling. Where do you get that idea? It specifically says that states must more effectively meet the work requirements.” (Steve)
.
.
YES, the states must effectively meet much LOWER requirements. A strict reading of that bars states from raising their own standards above the new minimums that would, as an example, allow weight watchers meetings to count as “work.”
As you’ve noted, the PRIDE Act actually toughened federal work requirements, raising the mandatory participation rates for recipients within each state from 50 percent to 70 percent.
There’s no other reason to override the Pride Act with such a “Memo” other than to dilute its requirements, which you and I clearly oppose. In fact, this administration’s had a dim view of workfare from the start – “This May, Obama’s “Truth Team” attacked Mitt Romney for supporting welfare work requirements, another pillar of the Clinton-era reforms.” (SEE: http://washingtonexaminer.com/obama-distorts-facts-in-effort-to-expand-welfare-state/article/2504276?utm_source=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest%20-%2008/08/2012&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Washington%20Examiner:%20Opinion%20Digest#.UCQID6DheJV).
“Obama’s July HHS memo actually invited states to apply for waivers that change the “definitions of work activities” to better meet “the work goals” of welfare reform. In other words, the state of California could (as one state did before 1996, according to the Government Accountability Office) count Weight Watchers attendance as “work,” and thus keep more people on the state’s welfare rolls without making them work.”
As you correctly note, the Governors of both Nevada and Utah are NOT of “that ilk.” They certainly aren’t seeking to water down their welfare requirements, if ANYTHING those too guys would do exactly what YOU and I support – making such restrictions much more draconian, BUT the Obama administration is looking to make that (diluting the work requirements) much more feasible.
I found this top secret website where Romney’s policy positions are laid out. There is an “issues” link and links at the bottom of the page.
http://www.mittromney.com/issues
Yes. I have been there. His health care plan is about 300 words long that says he will repeal the ACA, then do something. Not sure what, but it will be flexible.
Steve
Here is how the street hustle known as 3 Card Monte is played:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2kO_5cNF5k
This is what Steve is doing in his argument with JMK, above: shuffling a red ace between black kings.
Our good Steve is obfuscating and conflating the GOP’s specific objection, following the claims of Camp and Hatch, Robert Rector, and Andrew Grossman, to HHS claiming it has the legal authority to waive the Section 407 work requirements under TANF and as amended in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 as it does here, specifically
with the different waivers asked for by the two Republican and other governors for more flexibility in administering their TANF programs while not at all asking for waivers from Section 407 work requirements.
Let us freeze-frame this game of 3 Card Monte in progress and review:
The Red Ace: the right to waive section 407 work requirements Kathleen Sebelius is claiming she has above, which right Camp and Hatch, Rector, and Grossman say she does not have and which the Romney campaign claims will gut welfare reform if Sebelius acts on the right to waive work requirements which she claims she has. As Peter Suderman> notes:
and
The Black Kings: requests by two Republican and other governors for waivers – different waivers, not The Red Ace seeking greater flexibility in administering their TANF programs. Again the governors’ Black King (not Red Ace) waivers do not ask for waiver of work requirements.
Any attempt to portray the HHS waiver claim concerning work requirements objected to by Camp and Hatch, Rector, Grossman, and Romney – The Red Ace – as the same as or as a response to various governors seeking various waivers not involving work requirements, which no one can waiveunder TANF – The Black Kings – is a deliberate attempt to deceive.
In addition, this claim
is patently false. The letter, sent to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and signed by twenty nine governors, in fact urges the reauthorization of TANF in 2005 following its expiration, as noted here.
Steve is capriciously lying, hoping you will be too timid or too intimidated by him to call him on his bald-faced lie: it is not “Mitt Romney’s letter asking for more waiver flexibility”. The closest reference to “waiver flexibility” is this generic boilerplate praising the TANF legislation:
The final, real question is actually this: why did HHS include that provocative paragraph in its memorandum?
If it can and does act on it, everything Romney alleges comes true.
If it does not because it cannot – as Camp, Hatch, Rector, Grossman, and others claim – why was it inserted at all? To press Obama’s frottage against the constitutional limits set on the executive branch even further? Simply to cause trouble in the final months of the election? If neither of those, why?
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
” the right to waive section 407 work requirements Kathleen Sebelius is claiming she has above, ”
She doesnt. It specifically says the work requirements must be met.
The Camp-Hatch letter was written a month ago asking for clarification. It has been clarified.
” But still I have to ask: Why claim authority to waive the work requirements if not to undermine them? HHS insists that the whole point is to strengthen the law’s promotion of work, and points to a requirement that any waiver must be tied to a plan to increase the number of people moving to work by at least 20 percent. But of course the easiest way to do that is just to enroll far more people in the program.”
LOL.
Steve
My good Steve,
Once again you are lying while the text to prove you are a pathological liar sits directly in front of you and everyone else (if you wish to plead inability to comprehend what you read as your explanation for what appears to be lying, I will cheerfully accept that alternative):
Sebelius says:
While the TANF work participation requirements are contained in section 407,
which Sebelius knows she cannot claim authority to waive directly
section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407, section 402(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires that the state plan “[e]nsure that parents and caretakers receiving assistance under the program engage in work activities in accordance with section 407.” Thus, HHS has authority to waive compliance with this 402 requirement and authorize a state to test approaches and methods other than those set forth in section 407,
she claims her authority to waive Section 407 via Section 402, specifically the right to waive
including definitions of work activities and engagement, specified limitations, verification procedures, and the calculation of participation rates.
In exchange for this claimed right to waive any and all specific Section 407 requirements, Sebelius in exchange only promises the entirely open-ended and nebulous
As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.
In the face of waiving specific Section 407 work requirements, this nebulous promise of hope and change can mean anything Sebelius wants it to mean. Moreover, while she explicitly claims she will not waive prohibitions in Section 408
the prohibitions contained in section 408 (including the time limits on assistance contained in that section), or any other provision of TANF other than those specified in section 402 will not be waived.
nowhere, nowhere below or anywhere else is there any equivalent claim that Section 407 work requirements must be met.
Instead, Sebelius claims the right to waive Section 407 work requirements via Section 402 and replace those duly legislated work requirements with her own.
In the face of this completely easy to grasp understanding from available text, good Steve, either you are an obstinately slow, stupid little man who insists on merely asserting he is right, without corresponding analysis and argument, or you are a pathological liar who simply cannot tell the truth.
Pick one so that we may henceforth treat you either with the complete pity you deserve, or, alternately, salt that pity with the additional contempt and scorn appropriate for the pathological liar you actually seem to me to be.
Or, just LOL. That efficiently spares us all the burden of having to try take you seriously on anything.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
“As described below, however, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.”
One man’s nebulous is another man’s flexibility. Since putting more out of work people on the rolls will not increase the number working, I am not particularly worried about that bit of silliness. The individual states will be determining how they will meet work requirements and HHS will only approve it. This will be incredibly easy to monitor. It would be political suicide to swell the rolls with non-working welfare recipients. Wont happen.
Steve
One man’s nebulous is another man’s flexibility.
My good Steve,
Right. It is indeed. Nebulous and flexible could be synonyms.
Here is the flexibility Nevada wants:
Because
1) HHS declares it has the authority to waive duly legislated Section 407 work requirements and that it
2) “will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF.”
then
3) HHS is declaring, not that it will strictly enforce and not waive Section 407 work requirements, but that if it decides that
3a) exempting the hardest to employ population for a period of time (i.e. 6 months, 2 yrs, until Obama is elected) to allow time for their barriers to be addressed and their household circumstances stabilized
3b) relates to the work participation requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals of TANF
that
4) HHS is perfectly willing to do so
This is how HHS buys votes for Obama: Obama is willing to (illegally) lift TANF work requirements – or at least project the appearance that they will while calling it something else; between now and Nov 6 they don’t actually have to deliver the promised chicken in every pot – and a vote against doing so, against Obama, for Romney, is a vote to screw yourself as a needy TANF voter out of the expectation that you might be able to get free TANF money without having to work for it.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
A lot of what ifs. So, take away the verbiage. The rule is clearly written that you must more effectively put people back to work. You just dont believe it will be enforced. You also seem to believe that people who were not on welfare will suddenly be on welfare and then vote for Obama. I doubt either of us believes that population would vote for Romney anyway. We also know that the states are under significant financial pressures. They want people back to work. If the economy were adding 300k jobs a month, Romney would be a speck in the rear view mirror. No one wants more people on welfare.
Last of all, the Nevada governor is a Republican. Why would he try to help elect Obama?
Steve
STEVE! You’re not obfuscating. . .are you?!
I mean I’ve complimented you on holding to the ONLY sensible position on welfare reform – There should be MORE of it and the restrictions SHOULD be even MORE draconian.
If you’re NOW going to claim you disagree with that because a couple of so-called “Truth Team” dipshits excoriated our side for supporting the workfare conditions of welfare reform, well that WOULD smack of something akin to moral cowardice.
Please DON’T do what Angela (“Angie”) Hopkins (an aide to Valerie Jarret) DID, and make a lame attempt to defend “welfare without work restrictions”. . .Butch Komives (a former economics blogger and currently “an unemployed street performer,” and, of course, an obviously brilliant mind) shredded that poor lass and I understand she recently resigned (probably at Ms Jarret’s urging) her position, for embarrassing the administration.
Look, if Angie couldn’t make a compelling argument in favor of “unrestricted welfare,” WHO can?!
Come on Steve, join Butch and me on this issue, you’ve always been in favor of workfare before, DON’T waiver (yes, pun intended) on this now!
I will definitely waiver if it will get more people working. Your faith in the federal govt to determine the best way to do this is touching. I suspect that local people may have a better feel for what works in their area.
Steve
” Your faith in the federal govt to determine the best way to do this is touching. I suspect that local people may have a better feel for what works in their area.” (Steve)
.
.
WHY then have ANY federal rules or oversight at all?
I could live with that. . .and seemingly, so could you.
I will add that I’d have a LOT more faith in states like Texas, Florida, Wyoming and Alabama “doing the right thing” – coaxing the chronically slothful into gainful, productive pursuits, than I would New York, Illinois or Massachusetts.. . again, I suspect you’d agree.
Let’s start from the premise that we both fervently support workfare and oppose the failed “dependency programs” of the recent past (1960s til the late 1990s). I believe you supported even stricter workfare rules at the start of all this. . .not sure, but I strongly suspect as much.
Given that, HHS declaring it has the authority to waive duly legislated Section 407 work requirements and that it will decide what meets its nebulous standards seems to move AGAINST the state autonomy we’ve BOTH clearly supported here. . .as in right here, right now.
You’re no doubt aware that there are some rogues (Eric Holder is one) who makes actual affirmative arguments AGAINST workfare and its restrictions! That’s why we need you and others to “stay the course” and NOT be lured by the likes of Holder’s “siren song.”
You probably haven’t read any of the arguments against workfare, but SOME have actually been somewhat lucid, even riveting. . .however wrong they may be.
… – yes, a citizen who refuses or is unable to work DOES give up a certain amount of their liberty and autonomy. In other words, the state CAN compel such people to work even against their own will.
Just a small point of clarification requested – the sort that drives DADvocate to strong language, but which I expect you will take as a point of possible springboarding:
Does the above only apply to citizens who are receiving welfare subsidies from the state, or can a case be made that under the current regime, the state can compel involuntary servitude from a citizen who is not ‘working’ but rather living a subsistence lifestyle, living off of savings, or living off of private charity?
The only example in the American Experience that comes to me is the draft and certain times of post-natural-disasters when people were conscripted into burial details.
Of course these limitations would not apply to an Autocratic State where citizens exist to serve The State.
Of course it’s easy (too easy) for me to recommend something that almost certainly will never happen.
How far gone are we?
Tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of cops and fireman have “incentivized medical leave policies” in their Departments. NYC is not very different in that regard. Since disability pensions are untaxed, so is LODML (Line-of-Duty Medical Leave). Many, MANY cops and firemen find it “necessary” to get their 30 days or so of LODI each year to “balance out their tax bills.”
Thousands more “angle” for tax exempt “disability pensions,” simply because they’ve become so prevalent. Many, in recent years have utilized one of the most abused routes to such rewards – PTS claims. MANY of these “disability pensions” have been found to have been gotten fraudulently, as numerous recipients have been caught working very physical jobs (some even engaging in Police and Fire work in other locales) while ON such pensions from another Municipality.
These are all people who (for the most part) consider themselves “good and decent, moral people,” and yet they STEAL (IF you’re engaging in physical labor while on a “disability pension” you are de facto NOT “disabled”) and rationalize their stealing because it is cloaked by the government incentives FOR such abuses.
Many “good and decent people” are cannibalizing the moorings of the programs that once sustained many such workers in the middle class. It’s not hard to envision some very dark days coming, in fact, it’s hard to envision anything less.
There should be MORE of it and the restrictions SHOULD be even MORE draconian.
Very true. But, during election season, the Democrats need to buy all the votes they can.
Oh yes. The governor of Utah is definitely going to put more people on welfare to help Obama. Probably a bit of overkill since that state always trends strongly Democratic.
Steve
“Does the above only apply to citizens who are receiving welfare subsidies from the state, or can a case be made that under the current regime, the state can compel involuntary servitude from a citizen who is not ‘working’ but rather living a subsistence lifestyle, living off of savings, or living off of private charity?” (JE)
.
.
John, there have never really been ANY “no-strings attached ‘freebies’ ” from ANY government in recorded history. . .at least none that stayed “free” for very long.
Every “freebie” starts off as an “enticer,” and from there governments tend to ratchet up the restrictions from there.
There’s absolutely NO reason the U.S. government would, nor SHOULD be any different in that regard.
Of course, ONLY subsidy recipients (welfare, sec 8 housing, food stamps recipients, etc) would be subjected to such restrictions.
That can be chronicled by Hillsdale College’s federal funds free policy exempting it from ALL government data requirements. Since Hillsdale doesn’t take federal funds it cannot be compelled to comply with federal restrictions that Colleges that DO take such funds must.
Hillsdale is currently fighting the feds over the federal government’s attempt to take them off the list of Colleges with the best student loans repayment rates (an indicator of how successful the students are and how valuable that institution’s degrees are). Since Hillsdale takes no federal aid and its students arrange their loans through 3rd party providers, that school is NOT required to furnish the feds with the data they require from most other Colleges.
Hillsdale appears to have one of the best repayment rates and one of the quickest, but the feds are apparently sick of seeing this school that flaunts federal policies at the top of that prestigious list, so it moved to take them off that list. . .Hillsdale has sued, and SHOULD win that court battle.
That’s sort of the same policy as the one mentioned on an individual level.
If you’re living off savings, or off the land, then the feds have no right nor reason to attempt to restrict your individual liberty and personal autonomy.
Those who DO get government subsidies DO “owe something back,” whether they acknowledge that, or not.
Thanks for clearing that up.
On similar lines, I look askance at the creeping ‘mandatory volunteer’ time that I am told is becoming a requirement for high school graduation in some locales.
I’m not totally opposed to the idea itself – school boards can set requirements as they like and answer to the voters – but the Orwellian language sets a bad precedent.
The Hillsdale College website was an interesting read. I concur that there is no reason why the loan repayment rates of their students should not be listed along with those of the students at the rest of the nation’s institutes of higher learning.
That’s the sad history of such “freebies.” An excellent little book on that subject was written by Andy Andrews (http://www.amazon.com/How-You-Kill-Million-People/dp/0849948355)
Sadly, it will almost certainly take a cataclysmic event, one that will virtually crash the current “Corporatist welfare system,” a system that includes both q mammoth Corporate welfare bureaucracy that rewards “favored companies,” even sham and scam entities like Solyndra. (I know, there are still a few naive folks around who believe that “Solyndra was merely incompetent, not at all a rank criminal scam,” and you have to love that naivete.
Fact is, Solyndra was not Steve Chu’s first support of an all out Corporate scam. . .the trail is easy enough to find.
AND that’s NOT to say that Chu and his cronies are doing anything many before them didn’t do – rewarding “THEIR scammers,” or scams they’ll benefit from. It’s merely that THIS administration suggested (however faintly) that they were going to “move away from that sort of thing.”
No, this system is so entrenched and it benefits so many among the well-connected so very well, that it will have to fail before it might be replaced.