-
Curbing the IRS
June 12, 2013 | 70 comments
-
Can We Get It Back?
June 5, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Ronald Reagan of Virginia
May 29, 2013 | 72 comments
-
Time to Go for the Kill
May 22, 2013 | 67 comments
-
Obamacare Implodes
May 15, 2013 | 41 comments
The Obama Watch
Obama Retracts Clinton Welfare Reforms
He did so illegally, of course, in another brazen move that’s been all but ignored.
At one point in the Star Wars double trilogy, the character who starts out as a corrupt politician but morphs into an evil Sith Lord announces the suspension of the Republic in favor of the First Galactic Empire. Last week, President Obama did just that in regard to the American republic.
You didn’t hear about that? The party-controlled media in Star Wars didn’t report the event either.
Bipartisan Welfare Reform
One of the
greatest bipartisan policy successes of recent decades was the 1996
welfare reform of the old Aid to Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC) program, enacted into law by the then Republican Congress
and signed by President Bill Clinton. The 1996 AFDC reforms
returned the share of federal spending on the program to each state
in the form of a “block grant” to be used in a new welfare program
redesigned by the state based on mandatory work for the able
bodied. Federal funding for AFDC previously was based on a matching
formula, with the federal government giving more to each state the
more it spent on the program, effectively paying the states to
spend more on welfare. The key to the 1996 reforms was that the new
block grants to each state were finite, not matching, so the
federal funding did not vary with the amount the state spent. If a
state’s new program cost more, the state had to pay the extra costs
itself. If the program cost less, the state could keep the
savings.
With those reversed incentives for the state bureaucrats running the program, the reform was shockingly successful, exceeding even the predictions of its most ardent supporters. The old AFDC rolls were reduced by two-thirds nationwide, even more in states that pushed work most aggressively. The reformed program was renamed Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF).
As a result, in real dollars total federal and state spending on TANF by 2006 was down 31% from AFDC spending in 1995, and down by more than half of what it would have been under prior trends. At the same time, because of the resulting increased work by former welfare dependents, the incomes of the families formerly on the program rose by 25%, and poverty among those families plummeted. In his book on the 1996 welfare reforms, Work Over Welfare (2006), Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution reported, “[B]y 2000 the poverty rate of black children was the lowest it had ever been.”
This enormously successful reform grew directly out of the thinking of President Reagan and his chief welfare policy advisor, the late Robert Carleson, who developed Reagan’s welfare policies going back to California. (I worked directly for Carleson in President Reagan’s White House Office of Policy Development.)
An Impeachable Offense
But President
Obama and his Marxist minions think it is oppressive to require the
poor to work for welfare, as they firmly believe the poor have an
unconditional right to live off of your work somehow.
Consequently, last week on July 12 Obama’s Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) issued a so-called regulatory guidance
announcing that the Department will favorably entertain requests
from states for waivers from the work requirements on the TANF
block grants.
The Obama administration has no legal authority to issue any such waivers from the work requirements adopted in the 1996 reforms. It cites Section 1115 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315), which states that “the Secretary [of HHS] may waive compliance with any of the requirements” of specified parts of various laws. But as the Heritage Foundation notes, “Any provision of law that can be waived under Section 1115 must be listed in Section 1115 itself,” to be one of the specified parts of various laws eligible for waiver.
But “[t]he work provisions of the TANF program are contained in Section 407,” Heritage adds, not Section 1115. Heritage explains:
Critically, this section, as well as most other TANF requirements, are deliberately not listed in Section 1115; [so] they are not waivable. In establishing TANF, Congress deliberately exempted or shielded nearly all of the TANF from the Section 1115 waiver authority. They did not want the law to be rewritten at the whim of Health and Human Services (HHS) bureaucrats.
All that can be waived under the law are state reporting requirements to HHS under Section 402, not the core requirements of the TANF reforms contained in other parts of the law.
The impact of such waivers on the 1996 reforms are being overstated by some. The waivers would not “gut” the reform. Carleson believed that what drove the dramatic reform results were the finite rather than matching block grants and the incentives that created for the state bureaucrats administering the programs, not the work requirements. The Heritage Foundation’s Ed Meese, who was very close to Carleson, can confirm that. Carleson, in fact, did not even want federal work requirements, because he feared the federal bureaucrats administering them would pervert them into the opposite, and because he wanted to promote the principles of federalism and state sovereignty. Without those federal requirements, the above described incentives of the block grants can be expected to continue to drive states to get dependents on AFDC/TANF out to work.
But Carleson and Reagan did want state work requirements. In fact, it was federal regulations that stopped the work requirements, and the “workfare,” they wanted to implement at the state level when Reagan was Governor of California that led them to first conceive of block grants for the federal financing of the programs back to the states.
More troublesome is the outright lawlessness that Obama’s waivers represent, just like “recess” appointments when the Senate is not in recess, or Executive Orders or regulations without statutory or constitutional authority, or Obama’s refusal to enforce laws he does not like, such as the Defense of Marriage Act, or the immigration laws. The emerging Obama strategy is to trample the law with impunity, knowing the legal system grinds slowly in catching up with him, such as through suits invalidating any action his faulty recess appointees take.
Even more scary is that in a second term he will reach the point where he has appointed a majority of judges, sharing his belief that judges should hold the law to be whatever they want it to be. Too many of these judges will give his lawlessness a free pass, because they believe his policies are just, and the ends justify the means. The rule of law will then have collapsed, and America will be a third world country, like Argentina.
About the Author
Peter Ferrara is Director of Entitlement and Budget Policy at the Heartland Institute, General Counsel of the American Civil Rights Union, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, and Senior Policy Advisor on Entitlements and Budget Policy at the National Tax Limitation Foundation. He served in the White House Office of Policy Development under President Reagan, and as Associate Deputy Attorney General of the United States under President George H.W. Bush.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (63) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Peter Ferrara
More Articles From The Obama Watch
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/18/obama-retracts-clinton-welfare
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
- Current Wisdom
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 7.18.12 @ 6:45AM
Well, I hope (without much hope) that the rest of the government will move quickly and decisively to stop this usurper in his tracks, for a change, and that someone will unearth that section of the Constitution that deals with a President who is non compos mentis and get something in the works to neutralize him. Just because we have never had a tinpot Robert Mugabe in the White House before doesn't mean the FFs didn't provide for the time when such a thing would occur. They had seen it in Europe and knew at least as much as we do about such things.
Nothing, of course, will be done, and Romney will take no position and utter no decisive Leader Talk on the subject. After all, as the trulls keep telling us, we HAVE NO CHOICE but Romney. Why should he exert himself?
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.18.12 @ 3:28PM
TLP has the answer:
"Wait till you see the white of their eyes,
then shoot 'em like the zombies on
Night of the LIVING DEAD.
The Kingdom must be entered violently
with extreme prejudice,
for the flotsam and the jetsam must be washed away in the cleansing.
All trees which do not bear good fruit must be torn down
AND THROWN INTO THE FIRE!
WE MUST ANNIHILATE OUR ENEMIES WITH UTTER RUTHLESSNESS.
They must be crushed like the insects they are."
Anthony| 7.18.12 @ 4:30PM
Hey Brooks, you're a bit confused, (no suprise there) that's a pretty fair read of Marx and Saul Alinsky.
But you knew that, didn't you, moron?
RCV| 7.18.12 @ 7:01AM
Ferrara starts his piece with his usual alarmist prattlethat something the Administration did constitutes "the end of the Republic". What nonsense! If his analysis of the law is correct, it's easy enough to stop the action with a simple lawsuit.
Regulations and administrative fiats are struck down with regularity, just as the Framers intended. The Republic lives, Peter, so get a grip on reality for a change.
Nancy in NC| 7.18.12 @ 7:41AM
Where is your brain?
The republic has been destroyed for 100 years. The left has gutted the Constitution and the ideas presented by the Founders to a point that it's barely recognizable. The American experiment is no more, and he been ruined by power hungry individuals and apathetic citizens.
RCV| 7.19.12 @ 10:26AM
Oh really? So our country hasn't been a republic in more than a century? It was soooo much freer when blacks and women couldn't vote, huh? Your distorted view of the progress of American liberty is breathtaking!
TLP| 7.18.12 @ 7:59AM
"The Republic lives."
Really?
How so?
If the Chief Law Enforcement Officer REFUSES to Enforce the Republic's Laws? How is the Republic still standing?
If the Chief Law Enforcement Officer FLAUTS the Republic's Laws? How is the Republic still standing?
When he Continually Violates the Founding Documents of the Republic? How is the Republic still standing?
When he Directly Violates an Order from a Federal Judge of the Republic (Drilling Moratorium)? How is the Republic still standing?
When his only means to retain Power, is to DIVIDE the Republic by Race, Creed, Colour, Wealth, Religion, and Gender, and seeks to pit One American against Another, for the Greater Glory of HIMSELF?
How is the Republic still standing?
I thought you were smart.
Like any good liberal, you need your Teeth Knocked Out by this MFer before you'll open your eyes. You need Family Members SLAUGHTERED in another 911, before you'll admit that Waterboarding is A Good Thing.
And, you'll need to lose Everything to Herr Obama, and watch your Parents wither away, one Pain Pill at a time, because The One You've Been Waiting For has determined that they are NOT WORTH SAVING.
It's not about "Fixing Stupid".
It's like when you try and help your kids avoid making the same Mistakes, you did, growing up.
Some people just have to learn the hard way.
When Caesar took his Army across the Rubicon, and placed the Emperor's Crown upon his head? Was the Roman Republic still standing?
Or, was it gone, forever?
Gary B| 7.18.12 @ 12:55PM
The Muslim is a lawless runaway train.
I thought when his crimes got really blatant, most of the MSM would distance themselves from the situation. Apparently they're content to follow him right over the cliff.
Drunken Sailor| 7.18.12 @ 11:26AM
So you attack his conclusions but not his facts? Does that mean you agree the steps taken by this administration taking welfare backwards? And that the method used was illegal?
darcy| 7.18.12 @ 5:06PM
Or, as Randy Barnett, author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution," would say, the Constitution is like a well-designed aircraft with four engines: it can still fly with only one engine. We're flying with only one engine. But when that one goes, well, RCV, I'm sure you can fill in the blanks.
And BTW, I don't know you RCV, except by your many liberal comments on this board. OTOH, I'm well-acquainted with the work of Randy Barnett; his opinion has weight; yours? not so much.
SCMike| 7.18.12 @ 7:04AM
It’s nice to see the diversity of this administration’s offerings. Up until the president’s action, those with little ambition had only disability and food stamps (SNAP) to turn to. Now they’ve got a broader set of welfare possibilities. What a country, no?
Stephanie| 7.18.12 @ 8:23AM
I saw Star Parker this morning, who was herself a welfare mother at one time, now a working journalist, say that you can get, as a UNwed mother of 2 kids, upwards of $50,000 a year in welfare. That is including your 'free' healthcare.
I may just close my sluggish business, that I "didn't create myself" and just go on welfare.
Al Adab| 7.18.12 @ 9:21AM
Exactly the point Stephanie,
When public policy has incentives for destructive behaviors and causes sloth we face a crisis of our own culture. Policy should create conditions in which people may pursue opportunities and which allows for the creation of wealth rather than impose penalties for the behaviors we wish to see.
Drunken Sailor| 7.18.12 @ 11:30AM
Exactly!!! I figured it out and if I took a pay cut I could qualify and actually have more free capital to enjoy. How backwards is that?
Rasmussen just had a poll out showing that 83% believe in favor work requirements for welfare recipients. Problem is the smart ones have figured out how to immorraly game the system by making sure they come in under $29, 000, don't get married and still qualify for benifits.
Anna K. from Emory U.| 7.18.12 @ 12:05PM
Stephanie, ask yourself this question:
Are we our brothers' keeper?
As Christians, we are responsible for the welfare of our brothers and sisters, of helping those who have fallen to get up, and to try to keep them from falling in the first place.
In my opinion, poor people should receive even more welfare benefits than they now receive. I am especially concerned about the children of single mothers. They live in dire poverty. The government can and should increase the benefits to these children so they can at least have some of the benefits middle-class children take for granted.
So many readers come to the defense of the "unborn," the fetuses that have no identity, no memory, no personality. But when it comes to the children who are suffering because of poverty, they turn a blind eye.
There seem to be so many commenters on this blog who profess to be Christians. If you are truly Christians, why, I ask you, can't you be a little more Christ-like in your charity?
Stephanie| 7.18.12 @ 12:41PM
Go fly a kite Anna. So you think it's not okay to expect people to work for what they are given? We should just encourage sloth and poverty? That's what obama's agenda does. It keeps people on the plantation. It keeps them dependent on the almighty government and has NOTHING to do with Gods love or Christianity.
Now get lost.
loulou| 7.18.12 @ 12:41PM
There is no poverty in this country.
The parasite welfare recipients live better than the working people what with their flat screen TVs, their Obama phones, their Nike sneakers, gold grillz, recreational drugs, etc.
What are you, a poverty pimp?
MattInTexas| 7.18.12 @ 12:44PM
"7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8 Neither did we eat any man's bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread."
2 Thessalonioans 7-12
Now, how's that again?
Bob James| 7.18.12 @ 5:07PM
Precisely so, sir. There is nothing charitable or meritorious in government's extorting the bread earned by one citizen by the sweat of his brow, and passing it on to the indigent and slothful. This redistribution fosters resentment on the part of the giver and churlish ingratitude on the part of the receiver. And it is extortion in its most naked form. If you disagree, stop paying your taxes and see what happens to you.
Leave charity to the churches and synagogues; government is entirely unsuited to the job.
darcy| 7.18.12 @ 5:44PM
Three cheers, Bob James, for your clarity of thought.
DaPicayune| 7.18.12 @ 12:44PM
“We”is not the Fed Govt. You must have missed Joe The Plumber’s salient revelation in ’08,... Barry is a Socialist bent on Redistributing Our Wealth, not his, and he'll violate the Constitution and Fed Law to do so, with impunity and arrogance.
Funny how the Socialists in America always have to operate behind hidden agendas.
Render unto Caesar, Christian guilt tripper, and provide your charity as you like, as long as you respect the US Constitution which does not give a Feral Fed Govt the authority to redistribute personal wealth or property. Our FFs risked their necks in their revolution over this issue.
CJW| 7.18.12 @ 12:57PM
Anna
You can lead by exmaple by giving all your money to the poor, as Jesus said, and allowing the poor to move into your house.
nathan| 7.18.12 @ 2:24PM
Anna: Let me quote to James Madison:
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money their constituents."
Madison is properly considered the Father of the Constitution. If he could not find anything in the Constitution that allowed for federal benevolence spending, I'm sorry madam, it does not exist. However good our intentions are, we cannot violate the Constitution to accomplish those "noble" goals. And this applies equally to things that "conservatives" want to do like "defend" the country. They have to play within the confines of the document too. Equally police officers may be absolutely certain that the person in front of them is guilty of a horrible crime, but they cannot violate his constitutional rights to "prove" it. The Constitution binds us all.
If you believe that children of single mothers should get more money, you have the option of getting together with your local church and other similar organizations to help them. And understand something, the federal government is horrible at this kind of stuff. Upwards of 30 percent or more of "benevolence" funds often get wasted/misused, well above what private organizations do.
nathan| 7.18.12 @ 3:38PM
Anna: Let me continue a moment. Looking at the Madison quote and another one "Charity is no part of the legislative dute of the government" you might think he lacked compassion. Not remotely true. The Founders as a whole believed in "noblise oblige" the individual obligation for all of us to look to the needs of those less fortunate. If you look at the tax returns of those liberals who are the loudest advocates for a "Robin Hood" approach to dealing with the poor you will see as in the case with BHO and Biden that they personally gave very little to charity. When you look at "blue" (liberal) versus "red" (conservative) states liberals may talk about compassion and their concern for their fellow men, but red states significantly outgive blue states when it comes to charitable giving. For liberals, it's just that, talk. They want to give other people's money, not their own and the studies show this.
But Bush was bad on this too. He received high marks for his African AIDS initiative. Why? That was equally unconstitutional and we can find any number of private charities doing the same thing whose expense ratios are less than 10 percent versus the government's 20/30 or higher. Reputable private concerns are always going to do it better.
TLP| 7.18.12 @ 4:42PM
Young nathan.
That was Beautiful.
How can you be so Stupid, most of the time, and yet, so Brilliant, now?
Don't tell me.
I just wanna enjoy the temporary Brilliance, that you have just put to words.
Absolutely Perfect.
nathan| 7.19.12 @ 7:36AM
Thank you for the compliment. BTW I'm nearing retirement age.
What y0u and others fail to understand is that I'm more or less completely consistent regarding my insistence that we must adhere to the principles given by the Founders regardless of the circumstances. That "good intentions" do not justify bad behavior. That "defending the country" does not allow us to break the law, to torture people, to violate 100 years of standing precedents. That there aren't one set of rules for us and another set for everyone else. That it's not enough for us to "talk" it, we have to "walk" it to. That "by their works ye shall know them" isn't just a slogan, it's a truism.
At the end of the day this country isn't just about the land or the people or the buildings, it's about the principles embodied in the Declaration and the Constitution. When we stray from those, for whatever "good" reason, we cease to be us and we're no better than the people we oppose be it our foreign enemies or our domestic opponents.
Goldwater Girl| 7.18.12 @ 2:27PM
Anna,
You really need to spend more time scolding the readers at HuffPo or Politico. They might have a greater appreciation for your "christian" spirit. We have no patience here at AmSpec for your intellectual laziness.
Anthony| 7.18.12 @ 3:40PM
Dear Anna K from Enory U., I look forward to the day when Obozo delcares free college and university education for all illegals, err, all Americans.
It will be great watching you Ivy Tower elitists have a cow when your six figure cushy jobs end, and Ph.D.s are doing jobs Mexicans won't do.
Oh wait, we already have a generation of gender study Ph.D.s pushing brooms.
We'll see just how Christian your charity is girl when those Ivy towers come crashing down due to lack of money to send kids there, because the welfare state has taken all the money.
Perhaps a taste of real poverty is what you lefties need to get your heads out of your asses.
TLP| 7.18.12 @ 4:44PM
Forgive Her.
For she knows not what she says.
Butch| 7.18.12 @ 3:49PM
Anna, for someone who lives in Atlanta, you are either remarkably niave or have no adult pre-1996 memory. The "welfare queens" were having children FOR THE MONEY. Forty-five thousand a year sounded like "good money" for a lady with an 85 IQ. No worry about spending it on the chil-run, five of them, because they had no intention of spending it on the chil-run.
In my city, three children burned to death, oldest was four, one was crawling, left along by their "mother," who was using her for-the-chil-run money on liquor by the drink at a nearby bar. She was sot drunk when they finally found her, as the entire city could see on the TV news clip.
Your version of your religion apparently holds it as moral to literally create prostitutes to the state, along with their sure-to-be-neglected children, who will grow up most likely to be future prostitutes to the state or future crips and bloods.
Albertus Magnus| 7.18.12 @ 4:37PM
As a Christian you are not responsible for taking OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY and pretending that what you do is "charity." Charity is giving of oneself, not taking from others. Without prosperity, people have no wealth to give from. Your program of redistribution is flatly UN-Christian and is in fact legalized theft. (Remember "Thou Shalt Not Steal"?)
As for your remark about defending "fetuses" and turning a "blind eye" to poverty, this is a false assertion and you should be ashamed to make it.
Likewise your remark that fetuses have no identity, no memory, and no personality. This is scientifically untrue.
TLP| 7.18.12 @ 4:47PM
Again, for the Millionth time.
JESUS said, when asked what HE would do about the Poor - "The poor will always be among us."
What is it about HIS words, don't you understand?
poochified| 7.18.12 @ 5:12PM
What were the words Jesus said to the rich, young ruler? Did he not say, "Give everything you own to the poor"?
My, my, my. How the Bible contadicts itself over and over. No need to quote from it, TLP. Instead, use your own reasoning.
And by the way, I think Anna K.'s advice is utter nonsense.
Riff Raff| 7.19.12 @ 12:51AM
I agree about Anna K.'s advice. But just a note. Jesus said "Give everything you own..." He did NOT say "Take everything from someone else..." Government cannot give "charity" to the poor since government has no wealth of its own to give. Government takes wealth from people and PRETENDS what it does is "charity." This is a significant difference that Anna K. will never understand.
darcy| 7.19.12 @ 3:18AM
If you read that section of Matthew 19, Jesus was talking SPECIFICALLY to the rich young ruler, to show him -- who had just claimed he had kept all the Commandments -- that in not being willing to part with HIS wealth he had broken the very first Commandment which is to have no other gods before God. The rich young ruler's god was his wealth, as Jesus' answer revealed, and so the rich man had not, indeed, kept all the Commandments.
God would not have any of us neglect the care of our families by giving away our money foolishly; much less would he be pleased with a system of government that coerced from its citizens their property in order to advance its own power and encourage sloth and laziness among our people.
TLP| 7.18.12 @ 7:28AM
"An Impeachable Offense"?
Where ya been, pal?
He's had an ILLEGAL Drilling Moratorium in place for THREE YEARS. He had his Energy B*tch, and that Puerto Rican Homo in a Cowboy Hat, at the Interior Dept. FORGE DOCUMENTS and then give them to a Federal Judge. That's called Suborning Perjury where I come from.
The Judge Denied the Moratorium TWICE. The MFer put in place anyway. The Muslim is in Contempt of a Federal Court Order as we speak.
He's made 4 ILLEGAL Appointments of Czars and NLRB Ccksckrs.
He BROKE THE LAW when he went to War with Zero Consultation with, and No Authorization from Congress, in Violation of the Liberal Holy Grail - War Powers Act.
He REFUSES to Enforce the Laws that he doesn't feel like Enforcing.
He has Illegally and in Violation of International Law, Supplied High Powered Weapons to The Drug Cartels in Mexico, which has resulted in Hundreds of Murdered People down there, including TWO AMERICAN OFFICERS.
That's Accessory to Murder, where I come from.
All these things he's done, and now you're gonna get your Toupee in a wad over THIS?
It's too bad that we don't have any MEN in the GOP.
They've been drawing lines in the sand for 3 Years, only to have that Skinny Assed Effeminate African kick that sand up in their faces.
He will continue to Violate our Laws until somebody stops him.
We need SOMEONE on our side, to Quit Cryin like a Woman, and Stand Up, like a Man, instead.
Just don't hold your breath.
loulou| 7.18.12 @ 12:44PM
Our spineless House leaders are afraid to bring Articles of Impeachment against Obama because of all the riots and mayhem that would ensue.
I say bring it on and call up the National Guard with orders to shoot to kill any rioters.
Doctor Right| 7.18.12 @ 7:38AM
Obama's multiple un-Constitutional transgressions are irrelevant until the Republican Party grows a pair.
How I wish that there was a stronger, more successful Conservative political party; I'd ditch the GOP in a heartbeat.
Al Adab| 7.18.12 @ 9:26AM
This president seeks to rule through the use of selective enforcement and executive orders. Nothing could be further from the American theory of government.
Additionally as you note, we have selected another accomodationist republican as the GOP candidate following the long line from Dewey through Ford, Dole and McCain. We have followed them to defeat time and again. Do Conservatives retain any option other than to regain ascendancy in the GOP?
C'mon Man!| 7.18.12 @ 7:53AM
I hear ya TLP and agree completely - this is not the time to be civil, it's revolutionary time. He brought a gun to the battle, it's time to use our cannons.
Pecos Pete| 7.18.12 @ 8:01AM
With King O as president there will be no happy ending, unless you enjoy living in a cave boiling tree bark for tea; or, you work for the marxist government. Lock and load.
Anthony| 7.18.12 @ 8:08AM
Lawlessness and anti-Constitutionalism are Obozo's Alinsky/Marxist contribution to America's radical transformation.
Congress will sit on their collective asses until the election, so this crap will continue unabated. The only folks with balls in America are Sheriff Arpario and some governors.
Since we conservatives are law biding citizens, storming Washington is not our way. However, if we don't storm Washington this November and rid America of all these leftist scum, we'll be finished as a Republic.
On a more lighter note, now that blogging, getting a massage, reading inspirational poetry, and dog walking qualifies under Obozo's new workfare reform as "looking for work", look for Purp,vtwin, and other malcontents to really infest TAS. A dream come true, sitting in pajamas, massaging oneself, while posting all day. The new American dream thanks to Obozo.
Oh, and I love the picture of Clinton with the two black women on either side, note one is giving the more cumly black woman, that Clinton is leering at, the warning eye.
Oh for the days when Hope and Change ment that Clinton hoped to change some babe's mind, and do a Monica on her.
Stephanie| 7.18.12 @ 8:27AM
I saw the big girl as looking at what Slick Willy was signing and thinking "WTF! Whatch you mean, I's got to work!"
But I love your take on the photo as well!
loulou| 7.18.12 @ 12:45PM
At this point it depends on what the definition of "work" is.
Riff Raff| 7.18.12 @ 8:18AM
OBozo needs to buy more votes, which means he needs to pay out more of other people's money to non-workers to insure that 1. they CONTINUE to be non-working, and 2. they get out and VOTE! This is all there is to OBozo's "economic" policies and fake moralizing over "fairness." OBozo is a cheap, dishonest, corrupt little boob, who sees only his own ego and holding office to satiate that ego. To ascribe anything more complicated than this to the President is to WAY over-estimate his intelligence and abilities.
MK48| 7.18.12 @ 9:43AM
Load the waggon the MULE is blind..............
Cobalt| 7.18.12 @ 9:09AM
"Even more scary is that in a second term he will reach the point where he has appointed a majority of judges, sharing his belief that judges should hold the law to be whatever they want it to be. Too many of these judges will give his lawlessness a free pass, because they believe his policies are just, and the ends justify the means. The rule of law will then have collapsed, and America will be a third world country, like Argentina."
These judges will still be on the bench years after Obama has left office.
Mimi | 7.18.12 @ 9:24AM
Do you Think, the USURPER is doing all this on purpose? Daring an Impeachment?
We all know he LOVES chaos....anything to cause an uproar.....he gets bored, so stirs to POT!
Do you think HE KNOWS he will lose this election?....and maybe it's get even time?
We have got ourselves into this MESS....Thank God we can VOTE our way out of it.....Mature/MITT is looking better every day!
MK48| 7.18.12 @ 9:45AM
I say he steals the election.............he is above the LAW......what law.
loulou| 7.18.12 @ 12:47PM
He has already stolen an election--he is not eligible to be POTUS. He is a dual citizen and that is SUPPOSED to be a disqualifier.
loulou| 7.18.12 @ 12:49PM
And furthermore, his buddy CJ John Roberts swore him in knowing that there were unanswered questions about his eligibility.
DaPicayune| 7.18.12 @ 1:01PM
The Alinsky law: The Ends Justify the Means!
Albertus Magnus| 7.18.12 @ 1:31PM
It is their "ends" that frighten me most.
Louis Jenkins| 7.18.12 @ 1:31PM
Give a man a fish and he won't be hungry for a night. Keep giving him fish and he will never be hungry either. Unfortunately, we're doing the fishing. So much fishing in fact, that we cannot put any back for ourselves. It's all going to those who don't fish, but consume the larder even to the point our children go hungry.
Spread the wealth? What wealth? In no way, what-so-ever, can this nation continue to stand.
JD| 7.18.12 @ 1:37PM
The irony is that Star Wars III, like many movies made while Bush was in office, was intended to be anti-Bush propaganda. The emperor using a war to seize improper power was intended to parody the Patriot Act, and young Vader's "if you're not with me, then you're against me" quote was a direct Bush reference.
It's not as bad as "V for Vendetta", but in either case, this propaganda was absurd, given that Democrats have always been the greater threat to perpetrate the seizure of undue power portrayed in these movies.
David T| 7.18.12 @ 1:41PM
Under the HHS waivers, the following may qualify as work: "bed rest, personal care activities, massage, exercise, journaling, motivational reading, smoking cessation, weight loss promotion, participation in parent-teacher meetings, or helping friends or family with household tasks and errands."
nathan| 7.18.12 @ 2:48PM
Every president in modern times have exceeded their authority and have been probably impeachable and that includes Reagan who was more than impeachable regarding Iran Contra. Ike overthrowing the Mossedegh government in Iran over of all things OIL PRICES? (no attack on Americans, no threats to this country nothing) was almost certainly impeachable on that alone. Bush II invaded two different countries without the formal declarations of war that the Constitution requires. Even the "evil" FDR with explosions still rocking Pearl Harbor managed to find time to go through that formality. So why not the sainted GB? And his conduct of the war almost certainly made him impeachable if not an outright war criminal. (No, good intentions do not justify illegal actions. We have to play by the same rules we demand of others. Nuremburg, Tokyo, all those trials? And the conventions we're signatories to don't have "except" or "unless" or any other clauses that allowed us to treat people the way we did, sorry.)
So be honest here, BHO isn't doing anything all that different than his precessors did or his successor, MR will do and has already said he will do.
DonaldYoungsRevenge| 7.18.12 @ 4:13PM
Ya did great work Pete now how about the illegal activity that has been going on for years leading up to Barack Hussein Obama's unvetted run for the WH? I think it is time to act now that DRUDGE, the POLITICO, The Blaze, PRAVADA, The Canada Free Press and Lord Charles Monckton has put the BRITS on notice as to the fraudulent activity going on. It is the scandal of the century, a forged birth certificate, a fraudulent Selective Service registration, a fraudulent SS# what the hell more do ya need, the investigators have done all the work for ya.
Cobalt| 7.18.12 @ 5:40PM
More on the forged birth certificate from Mara Zebest.
http://www.americanthinker.com.....ayers.html
Oldefarte| 7.18.12 @ 9:34PM
First, it is [and was] completely asinine to institute any/all governmental welfare to begin with. What Democrats wanted/obtained was REPARATION FOR SLAVERY. The government is paying welfare recipients for their stupidity and laziness mostly. They want them on the public dole for control purposes [mainly to direct their voting efforts toward any/all Democrats]. Why should any income earner be forced by government to pay for these indigents' mistakes in life? Want multiple children that you can afford to personally pay the expenses for financially, no problem [the taxpayers can be forced to support them under legal threat of incarceration]. Want a house but can't afford one? What about health insurance? Free food maybe? No problem, Uncle Sam aka Democrats will take care of same for you! What adulterated crapola! End all forms of welfare and you'll cure the unemployment and illegal immigration problems all at once!!!!!!!!!
spike59| 7.19.12 @ 5:44AM
we've become 'the land of the freebie and the home of the buffet...'
i miss America...and in November, I'll be doing my part to help bring her back
rocky01| 7.20.12 @ 1:30PM
The loathsome lieutenant line sent me to the floor rolling with laughter. A little undignified and the mirth was short lived since these folks have told the electorate to go to h*ll since ramming the rolled up bill monstrosity down the American people's throats. The ruling elite are confident that their legislative and political thuggery can't be undone. Unlike the hand-wringing GOP, these radicals think ahead longer term. What do you suppose will be set loose later this cycle once they realize independents come to their senses and definitively move to the right?
timoshev| 7.20.12 @ 2:49PM
I do hope that Peter Ferrara and the House are successful in implementing these reform measures. I am an unwilling daily witness to the incredibly perverse incentives of the welfare program in California. The post college-age son of a well-off friend cruises through life rudderless, but on Pop's insurance, car, restaurant food and even housing dollars. Never had a steady job, lives at home with, get this, a girlfriend with a child who is waiting for a divorce decree. (thankfully, the child lives with her dad) After her second "surprise" pregnancy, I asked the father-to-be "who is going to pay for the expenses of a new baby?". He mumbled something about Medicaid. But wait, she's just had her second "miscarriage". Oh, how sad and unexpected... BTW, daddy is taking care of the puppy that the charming couple couldn't resist. But hey, she's looking for a job. Yikes!
We are paying the price of multiple generations of children having children. Charles Murray had it right, way back when.
May the Good Lord bring this pathetic couple and sympathetic politicians everywhere back to reality before it's too late.