Ponnuru on Welfare Work Requirement
At Bloomberg View, Ramesh Ponnuru criticizes the administration's recent decision to loosen the work requirements for welfare by executive power. "If it’s a good idea for the states to have more control over federal welfare dollars, Congress should give it to them. The executive branch shouldn’t simply grant itself the power to ignore the law at its own discretion, even with the reassurance that it will do so only when wise," Ponnuru writes.
Ponnuru also cites the Brookings expert Ron Haskins in making the case that, by unilaterally changing the rules applying to welfare without going through Congress, the administration has undermined the already-crumbling trust between Democrats and Republicans.
The procedural implications of the administration's decision were outside the scope of my post on the subject. But I'd add a few points:
1. By bypassing congressional input, the White House played into an existing conservative criticism of the president; namely, that he is willing to stretch the executive's power in domestic affairs if he has to. Ponnuru mentions that HHS secretary has been involved in a controversy related to a mandate that would force religious organizations to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. There are other examples that could be mentioned, but the point is that there is a political aspect to this development that may be worth keeping an eye on.
2. This incident is a reminder that the HHS secretary's authority and responsibilities have grown too wide-ranging. Especially given the broad new powers given to HHS in the health care law, it's probably time to reconsider the division of oversight, and whether the person charged with determining the details of the nation's health care regulations should also be asked to make key decisions about the administration of welfare.
Furthermore, the welfare system itself has evolved to the point at which it can no longer be managed by the secretary of HHS alone. Ponnuru mentions that food stamps and housing assistance as important features of the safety net: the food stamp program is run by the Department of Agriculture, and housing assistance by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Does it make sense for each part of welfare to be regulated by a different bureaucracy?
