The Obama administration claims that its July 12 HHS memo contains real limits on waivers of the work requirement for welfare. But those supposed limits are illusory. As Kaus points out, its provisions “ weaken work requirements " and allow welfare reform to be gutted:

"For example, HHS said states ‘may want to consider’ ‘Projects that test systematically extending the period in which vocational educational training or job search/readiness programs count toward participation rates, either generally or for particular subgroups, such as an extended training period for those pursuing a credential.’ “Translation: you’ll keep getting a welfare check for “training” or for “job readiness,” or for going to school for an “extended … period,”even though the law would otherwise say it’s time to get to work. This may be a good idea. It may be a bad idea. But it’s a weakening of the work requirement. (It’s also unfair to the poor suckers who just go to work without ever going on welfare–they don’t get subsidized while they’re ‘pursuing a credential.’)”

“After [conservative welfare experts] like Robert Rector publicized [the apparent gutting of welfare reform] and some GOP politicians kicked up a stink, Sebelius wrote a highly political damage-controlling letter in which seemingly from nowhere she produced an appealing ’20 percent’ promise. What Sebelius actually said is that governors must ‘commit that their proposals will move at least 20% more people from welfare to work compared to the state’s past performance,’ not compared to what would happen under the existing program. Phrases like ‘compared to the states past performance’ don’t just get stuck into official letters to add poetic lilt. As Rector argues:

‘This sounds impressive, but a state can accomplish this merely by raising monthly “employment exits” (people exiting welfare to take a job) from, say, 5 percent to 6 percent of its caseload. That kind of change will occur automatically as the economy improves.’

“In other words, a state that doesn’t move many people from welfare to work can raise its pathetically low number of job placements by a fifth and get excused from meeting the welfare reform law’s much tougher standards. And one way to get credit for more ‘exits’ is to run lots of people through the system–including people who would normally bypass welfare entirely on their way to getting jobs. ‘Given the normal turnover rate in welfare programs, the easiest way to increase the number of individuals moving from “welfare to work” is to increase the number entering welfare in the first place,’ writes Rector. Bringing people into unnecessary contact with the welfare system is, of course, exactly what the ’96 law was designed to avoid.”

Nor, as Kaus has previously explained , did HHS’s deceptive claims made later in response to the furor over its memo gutting welfare reform do anything to protect work requirements from being waived, since its subsequent "20 percent" pledge uses a meaningless benchmark and is non-binding: