chairman Barack Obama permitted states come waive the TANF program’s work-related requirements, which had been denote by the 1996 welfare revolutionary law. Marianique Santos/ZUMA Press/Newscom

President Donald trump card on Wednesday reversed one Obama management policy the undermined one of the many successful domestic policy reforms in the last half-century.

You are watching: Increase in welfare recipients under obama

In law so, trumped took solid steps to preserve the original intent that the 1996 welfare revolutionary law: to weaken the bike of poor by reducing dependence and also promoting self-sufficiency through work and also marriage.

This is a sound decision for two an essential reasons.

First, the decision enforces the 1996 welfare reform law, which deliberately made the main point work requirements of the Temporary aid for Needy families (TANF) routine mandatory and also non-waivable by future managements of the law.

The Obama management effectively gutted the law’s needs in July 2012 when it exit a plan directive v the room of Health and Human solutions that permitted states to waive the TANF program’s occupational requirements.

To do this, the Obama administration claimed waiver authority the was illegal and antithetical come the purpose. Obama’s department of Health and Human Services created no historical proof that congress intended to provide waiver authority for the TANF occupational requirements.

Even if it had actually tried to carry out so, it would have come increase empty.

The summary of the welfare reform regulation prepared through Congress quickly after that enactment was clear: “Waivers granted ~ the day of enactment may not override provisions of the TANF legislation that issue mandatory job-related requirements.”

The non-partisan conference Research service was even much more clear in 2001 once it stated that “there space no TANF waivers” for work requirements.

In allowing states to waive the TANF job-related requirements, the Obama administration broke indigenous the established knowledge the Congress had never granted together waiver authority to Health and Human Services.

Trump’s reversal that this bureaucratic maneuver marks a return to the original letter and intention the the 1996 reform law.

Second, Trump’s decision return the TANF regime to the principles that make it successful in the first place.

The TANF work-related requirements, which required a section of able-bodied adult on the regime to occupational or prepare because that work, developed the foundation of the reform’s success: Welfare rolfes dropped by 50 percent, and also poverty prices for children, particularly black children, reached record lows.

The Obama administration’s directive made wholesale changes to the standards developed in the 1996 welfare revolutionary law. The legislation as written consists of “participation rate requirements” that stipulate that 30 to 40 percent that adult able-bodied TANF recipients must connect in “work activities” for 20 come 30 hrs per week.

These work activities are broadly defined and also include: unsubsidized employment, subsidized employment, on-the-job training, as much as 12 months of vocational education, community-service work, job-search and job-readiness training, high school or GED education and learning for recipients under age 20, and also high college or GED education for those 20 and over if merged with other noted activities.

Although the Obama management and that media defenders insisted the it was just “tweaking” TANF reform, it changed the core work-related participation demands with a considerably weaker “universal engagement” system.

Universal engagement frequently requires all adult able-bodied TANF recipients to connect in constructive activities—defined very broadlyto encompass things such together visiting a doctor and also looking for daycare—for at the very least one hour every week.

As The silverlakestyle.com structure has previously written, together a standard might be great policy if linked with existing TANF job-related standards, however Obama’s department of Health and Human Services applied it “in lieu of” the TANF requirements.

The Obama administration also urged states to abide by alternate performance measures. Because that example, former Health and Human services Secretary kathleen Sebelius argued that states can bypass federal work requirements by boosting their number of world moving native welfare into work, or so-called “employment exits.”

However, this “employment exits” measure up is inherently misleading. Fairly than offer as coherent indicators the success, employment exit are often a role of welfare caseloads.

Larger caseloads will certainly yield a greater number of exits simply since there are more people in the system. Historically, the number of employment exist rises as the caseload rises, and falls together the caseload falls.

According to this measure, the welfare device of old that existed before the 1996 welfare reforms would be taken into consideration a chuck success: Caseloads soared and also the variety of employment exits practically doubled.

By contrast, the post-reform TANF program was a failure because caseloads fell and employment exits declined. This is why, as soon as the 1996 reform to be drafted, the use of employed exits was deliberately excluded together a success measure. It is inherently misleading.

The president made the right call when he determined to restore a emphasis on job-related in this vital welfare program. TANF’s principles of work-related requirements should be replicated in food stamps together the next step in welfare reform in a proceeding effort to encourage self-sufficiency amongst able-bodied adults.

As president Ronald Reagan eloquently put it:

Welfare needs a purpose: to provide for the needy, of course, but an ext than that, to salvage these, our fellow citizens, to do them self-sustaining and, as easily as possible, live independence of welfare.

See more: Is Judge Joe Brown Still On Tv Show Tickets, The Shady Side Of Judge Joe Brown

We should measure welfare’s success by just how many civilization leave welfare, not by how many are added.