Romney Campaign to Launch Concerted Attack on Obama Over Welfare
Presumptive Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney and his campaign are launching a new issue-attack against President Barack Obama, one that will further unite the GOP, motivate its voters and also effectively shift the focus away from the battle between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Camp Romney over Romney’s tax returns. It’s the welfare issue -- and the accusation is that Obama scuttled bipartisan compromises on welfare to nudge the U.S. back into being more of a welfare state:
Mitt Romney’s campaign is launching a new offensive on Tuesday accusing President Obama of “unilaterally dismantling” the 1990s bipartisan welfare reform.
On the campaign trail beginning Tuesday in Illinois and in a new television advertisement, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee plans to argue that the Obama administration is turning the federal welfare program into “just a handout” with last month’s decision to allow waivers to states from welfare work requirements.
This is Romney’s latest attempt to cast Obama as a big-government liberal and to drive a wedge between the president and the popular legacy of one of his Democratic predecessors, President Clinton.
“President Obama is unilaterally dismantling President Clinton’s welfare reforms,” Romney campaign spokesman Andrea Saul said in a statement. “Instead of tough work requirements, the president’s policies could change welfare to work into old-fashioned welfare. As president, Mitt Romney will restore the bipartisan work requirement in welfare so that workers have the dignity of a job and not just a handout.”
The Obama campaign responded by noting that in 2005, then-Massachusetts governor Romney and most other Republican governors requested state waivers similar to those the Obama administration began allowing with the Department of Health and Human Services’ July 12 announcement.
“Under the President’s policy, states can build the welfare to work program that is best for them, and can apply for waivers from federal requirements that get in their way,” according to an Obama campaign statement. “This new policy cannot be used to weaken welfare reform.”Romney plans to make his case in campaign appearances starting Tuesday, Saul said, and his message will be amplified by a new 30-second television advertisement, “Right Choice,” that says, “Obama guts welfare reform.”
Welfare has long been an issue that resonated with GOP voters and a chunk of independents. Whether it will work within the context of the issues of a sagging economy (Obama negative) and fairness (Romney negative which is what the tax issue is all about) remains to be seen. But — at the very least — it’ll get Camp Romney back to campaigning against Obama rather than squabbling with an increasingly gleeful Harry Reid.
Share This
That Marxist Obamama wants to give all the Welfare Queens a dressage horse in there stables right next to the Cadillac…
Just another example of political double talk.
Many states have requested this authority including Republican controlled states.
According to an article in Yahoo news website, Utah, a Republican dominated state and Warren Hatch’s home state said “Officials from Utah — Hatch’s home state — said in a letter to HHS that they want relief from burdensome federal reporting requirements that tie up staffers who could be helping welfare recipients find a job. State case workers are supposed to keep meticulous logs on the hours that welfare recipients devote to job activities.
Anyone tired of the same old divided politics dominating Washington. They all (ALL) need to be replaced.
Orrin Hatch, not Warren, sorry no edit function
Typical Republican tempest in a tea cup tactics. The waivers are to give governors more flexibility to move people from welfare to work, but it won’t be presented that way. Sen. Hatch and Rep. Camp have offered bills to prevent HHS from granting the waivers – just because they can.
Republican and Democratic governors have asked in the past for more flexibility in implementing welfare reforms. Gov. Haley Barbour and other governors signed a letter in 2005 asking for more flexibility.
“The policy we have outlined is designed to accelerate job placement rates for those on welfare, not address other aspects of their lives,” Sebelius wrote in her letter to Camp. “No plan that undercuts the goal of moving people from welfare to work will be considered or approved.”
A pretty transparent attempt to get the heat off Mitt. Good luck with that..
Interesting. When you’re considered a richy-rich snob who cannot connect with the common people and has no clue what it means to be poor, as well as a pretty consistent race-baiter, it seems there might be more winning issues than welfare to push on.
I’m relatively young so I ask this in earnest —
Have US politicians always preferred negative mischaracterizations over thoughtful proposals?
I dont understand how any progress could have been made this way.
As usual, because Obama has displayed an actual willingness to allow the States to structure their own welfare programs, free from any encumbering Federal requirements, Mitt will have a hard time painting the President as unyielding or, unwilling to compromise with Conservatives. That one belongs more to Republicans and their obstructionist strategies.
Although Republicans are quick to claim that Welfare dependence should be drastically eliminated in name of dignity and morale boosting, one wonders if they really don’t object based on a belief that those without work are terminally lazy. But,If a single mother, cannot afford daycare, and can’t find any friends or relatives to help her take care of several young children while she goes off to work for minimum wage at McDonald’s,then why in the world shouldn’t she receive the help provided by our social safety nets?
Republicans usually prefer to provide a welfare “trampoline,” rather than a safety net, but they cannot show exactly how such a trampoline can effectively be managed to reduce poverty. At this stage their objections concern mainly theories and speculation, not proven solutions. And, by cutting education and school budgets, they are effectively eliminating one of the only proven answers that can help reduce poverty.
The GOP should also remember,that some forms of welfare actually benefit our society as a whole. There are many estimates that the use of food stamps, in particular, actually benefit society more than their actual costs would suggest. A common estimate says that for every dollar of food stamps injected into the economy, we generate $1.77 in return–this due to the many jobs and products which help circulate food stamp money back into our financial system. Food stamps MUST also be spent on food and cannot be horded away in bank accounts, or other forms of investments.
Perhaps I am mistaken, but to me, it seems that when the GOP berates the value of Welfare programs, they are projecting a definite air of repulsion and blame towards people who find themselves bankrupt and destitute–usually through no fault of their own! There are many Democratic policies that Republicans are truly too clueless to understand–mainly because their criticisms are full of judgmental attitudes and social non-realities.
It is completely understandable why Republicans are so eager to dodge discussions of Romney’s tax records,and that they will continue avoiding such lose-lose situations until we voter’s finally forget about them–becoming convinced that they really must not be so important!
No hyperflow, it hasn’t always been this way. I’m 60 and have followed politics all of my adult life. The negativity, deliberate mischaracterizing and the abandonment of thoughtfulness and honesty has become more widespread and pervasive over the past couple decades. Sure, there have always been dirty campaigns and mischaracterizations, but there were also enough people of integrity (and genuine journalism) to keep things from spinning out of control. Now anything goes, and what passes for mature commentary seems to consist of variations on the theme of “both sides do it”. So much for grit and wisdom.
hyperflow,
I will be 60 in October, and I completely agree with Zephyr.
When I was growing up, there were indeed, a few cases of negative mudslinging concerning certain candidates. but things really have gotten much nastier in the last few decades.
Even several current Republican leaders have
resigned from their posts, saying, and I paraphrase–Politics and the Republican party are just not the same anymore–They also mourn the fact that legislators used to accept compromise and bi-partisanship as acceptable and ethical processes while, as you know, today it is all about obstructionism and grandstanding power plays. We all hope that eventually the pendulum will swing back to it’s previous position.