There has been a controversy on Roger Goun’s Facebook page about whether or not the Romney ads about the welfare work rules changes are truthful or not.  Coincidentally that dependable commie, pinko, left-wing mouth piece, The Boston Globe has an editorial on the subject. (I thought I would put in the adjectives before some right-wing nut job did 🙂

The 1996 reform was intended to guide welfare recipients into the workforce. But Ron Haskins, the Newt Gingrich policy aide who worked on the legislation , has said the program was always meant to adapt during a downturn, when needs rise and the number of jobs available shrinks. Unfortunately, it hasn’t. Over the past four years, temporary assistance enrollment has barely increased, even as unemployment grew. People who need help aren’t getting it.

Part of the problem is the program’s rigid work rules, which might make sense when the economy is humming but are counterproductive now. Currently, a state must have a sufficient percentage of its welfare recipients working in order to qualify for federal funds. When jobs are few, as in the current economic climate, that means states have a perverse incentive to cut otherwise deserving recipients off assistance in order to reach the work-participation threshold. In Ohio, officials have slashed temporary-assistance rolls by a third since last year in order to avoid losing aid. That’s a sign of inflexible rules, not a sudden increase in employment.

Tweaking the rules to account for the lack of jobs in the private market is consistent with the aims of welfare reform. It would allow states to use different approaches, for instance by extending a private-sector jobs programs subsidized by President Obama’s 2009 stimulus. In the program, HHS provided stimulus dollars to states that subsidized the hiring of temporary assistance recipients by private companies. The program was a wild success; for less than 1 percent of the cost of the $787 billion stimulus, it created 260,000 jobs in 39 states. Even states with very conservative Republican governors, including Haley Barbour of Mississippi and Rick Perry of Texas, took part in the program before it ran out two years ago.

When this legislation passed in the 1990’s, I thought, “Fine for putting in these rules when the economy is booming, but what is going to happen in the next recession?”  I didn’t know that there was adaptability written into the law to cover the situation I worried about.

Of course, now that we are at the stage were we believe nothing we read, or hear, or see, I suppose it is almost pointless for me to read anything or write anything on the matter.