The Obama campaign on Tuesday attempted to push back against a new Mitt Romney ad accusing the president of weakening the 1996 Welfare Reform Act by falsely accusing the GOP nominee of supporting looser welfare requirements.
Obama surrogate and former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta defended the administration’s effort to waive welfare requirements for states on a Tuesday conference call with supporters.
"[Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary [Kathleen] Sebelius proposed giving states flexibility to improve the effectiveness of welfare to work program," he said. "In contrast Gov. Romney in 2005 signed a letter requesting a complete waiver [from work requirements] … that would have completely undermined the 1996 law."
Obama campaign Policy Director James Kvaal added, "President Obama is entirely supportive [of welfare reform]."
"Mitt Romney has hardly shown consistency in welfare reform … he gave free cars to welfare recipients," he said.
The Obama talking points, however, distort both candidates’ records on welfare reform.
Romney came under fire from Democrats for attempting to move the state into compliance with the federal law. He attempted to shed 14,000 welfare recipients, who capitalized on a Massachusetts loophole to remain on state rolls. When he took office, Massachusetts was also one of only five states to not place a lifetime cap on welfare enrollment. He pushed for a five-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits.
That stands in stark contrast to Obama’s flip-flop on welfare reform. Then-State Sen. Obama told audiences on multiple occasions that he would not have voted for the 1996 Welfare Reform bill because it was done on the federal level.
"I was a strong proponent of some reform of the welfare system. I would not probably have supported the federal system—the federal bill that was passed," he told students at Carleton College in 1999.
Evidently, Obama no longer takes issue with federal overreach in achieving welfare reform. Sebelius bypassed Congress to grant the state waivers, which Romney claimed could be used to weaken work requirements. In a July letter to congressional Republicans, Sebelius said the administration is seeking stronger work requirements.
"No policy which undercuts that goal or waters down work requirement will be considered or approved by the Department," she wrote to House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp. "Governors must commit that their proposals will move at least 20 percent more people from welfare to work."
The Obama campaign contrasted its policy with Republican efforts to grant welfare waivers in 2005. That year, Romney signed a Republican Governors Association letter supporting Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley’s PRIDE Act, which would have given states more flexibility in administering welfare programs.
"Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work," the letter read.
The law would have increased state work participation rates by 10 percent—from 50 to 55 percent in Fiscal Year 2007—but it would have expanded the definition of work to include alcohol and substance abuse counseling, and also exempted all parents of children aged one or younger from work requirements.
"Romney is falsely criticizing a program he once supported," Kvaal said.
Romney’s actions as governor contradict the Obama charges that he has been lenient on welfare, however.
In 2005, he attempted to increase work requirements for welfare recipients—even some of those who would have qualified for work exemptions under Grassley’s law. His plan would have required parents of small children to work at least 20 hours per week, up from zero hours, while parents with children over age six would have to work 30 hours per week, up from 24 hours.