Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
-- was probably why it.
-- huge supporter of me the federal plan that was signed in 1996.
I would not probably.
The federal bill that was -- That was governor Mitt Romney's campaign accusing the Obama administration of gusting welfare reform in a new television net.
It's part of a new line of attack blasting the president for apparently removing work requirements from federal welfare regulations.
The centerpiece of president Bill Clinton's bipartisan welfare overhaul back in 1996.
The Obama campaign is now firing back with a new -- of its own.
The Washington Post says the Obama administration is not removing the -- work requirements at all states have to increase the number of people moving from welfare to work.
In fact Romney ask for even more flexibility when he was governor out.
So who's right who's wrong and what impact is all of this having on voters joining us now for a fair and balanced debate.
Mary Katharine Ham and editor at large for hotter dot com and -- Fox News contributor.
-- Venus is the former chief of staff to West Virginia senator Joseph mansion welcome to both of you.
The impression Mary Catherine is that from President Obama sort of with a stroke of -- of a -- on did.
What president's Clinton and the congress got together to do back in 1996.
-- the fact is that he did to undo a lot of that and states can make different decisions now based on this waiver but.
The basic idea of what he didn't actually have the authority do this thing about ministers and enjoys doing things at the start of a -- that maybe -- legally it's post it in 1996 -- was built on this.
Great bipartisan consensus the kind of things that Obama really supports allegedly.
And yet now after they had these fights after they had this hard -- consistent with consensus he just says -- We're not doing that anymore and I think they're trying to clean up a mess after the fact now because this is an 80% issue with folks with Americans to have work.
Connected to welfare and now they're -- we didn't do that but they did they -- they specifically cited that they want to -- work requirements not reporting requirement.
Since it doesn't seem to make sense Chris that you'd tell welfare recipients are all -- you don't have to work anymore.
Well that's and that's not what the president has been suggesting to me is you look at actually the facts.
And you know in terms of how wrong Romney's attacks are.
What what do you know what President Obama is trying to do is actually provide the same kind of flexibility.
That governor Ronnie asked for when he was governor.
In fact it doesn't -- minimize or reduce requirements it actually increases requirements to get the waiver you actually have to -- -- a goal of 20% more jobs 20% more employment.
I mean so these kind of ad hominem attacks that are based on nothing but a kind of skewed.
Perspective by the Romney campaign I understand it's politics but it's completely irrespective of the facts well governor Romney said that the president is trying to water down the work requirements it here's what he had to say it's not true but it's absolutely false let's let's hear from the governor and then we'll get back to.
I want state flexibility to craft programs in a way that's best for each state.
This idea the federal government telling states what to do in my opinion is the wrong way to go.
The -- the might.
My focus is on increasing work requirements not a limited in what the president is doing is saying we're gonna take out the requirement for work it's a big mistake.
You disagree without Chris.
No I don't disagree with what the point and what he's saying but the fact is that what President Obama is trying to do.
He's giving states the flexibility not every state will qualify in every state will be granted a waiver the goal is to hit.
20% more deployment to make sure the people who are on welfare -- actually getting better jobs more jobs that I think is a goal and that everyone can be supported us.
-- -- -- because it wouldn't when governors asked for flexibility in the past they specifically asked.
For a piece of legislation that would give them flexibility on reporting requirements and give them some flexibility in fact to increase the work requirement they asked for his legislation why because there was not the authority to change this law.
The law says you cannot change the -- -- you cannot just with the stroke of a pen.
Got the entire hard by consensus that the 1996 law was based upon.
So -- another very easily -- is getting the good work -- -- thanks what is the greatest.
So what is the criticism the criticism is he's not following a lot to increase employment or he is not increase I think one.
Civilians by the way this -- 20% increasing employment idea came after they issued -- initial.
Requirements it was a Thursday afternoon.
Information memorandum that they hope everyone -- because it does -- -- -- this stuff it does not the authority to do it and they wanted everybody to just relax and never noticed it but now they're having -- -- -- -- -- -- people like you to say they're gonna increase employment by 20%.
I think it's not a cleanup job this is business regulatory than 80% is you -- they're upset that you're right -- half -- later on down to.
You have to have -- laid down before you send in the states it's not like a cleanup job and this is not a fantasy world we live in.
Well it's not a fantasy world you live -- then why are you changing legislation.
Randomly when you have to pass through what if that's -- bill that's what the congress is allegedly Obama loves this kind of hard fought bipartisan bill and that he just sort of dismisses it been -- bit.
All right if if if the put.
Good Chris we're gonna have to leave the discussion there territory certainly keep tabs on this -- welfare thing it's going to be percolating for the next few months until we have the elections in November that's for sure.
Christopher Eunice Mary Katharine Ham thank you -- Thanks thanks to --
Filter by section