Repub­li­cans in two Con­gres­sion­al com­mit­tees vot­ed last week to press for­ward with leg­is­la­tion that would deny states the flex­i­bil­i­ty they request­ed to help more wel­fare recip­i­ents get jobs.

In July, Mitt Romney launched an attack on the administration's offer to meet a demand from states for more flexibility so states could move more people to work instead of pushing more paper around. Now, Republicans in Congress are taking up the cause.

That’s right.

Not only that, Rep. Paul Ryan, the GOP vice pres­i­den­tial can­di­date, said last week he is eager to return to Wash­ing­ton this week for a floor vote on the Repub­li­can mea­sure pro­hibit­ing the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion from, as the Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices (HHS) described it: ​“encour­ag­ing states to con­sid­er new, more effec­tive ways to meet the goals of TANF (wel­fare), par­tic­u­lar­ly help­ing par­ents suc­cess­ful­ly pre­pare for, find and retain employment.”

That’s right.

Repub­li­cans don’t want the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion to help states get wel­fare recip­i­ents off the dole and into jobs. In July, Repub­li­can pres­i­den­tial can­di­date Mitt Rom­ney launched an attack on the admin­is­tra­tion’s offer to meet a demand from states for more flex­i­bil­i­ty so states could move more peo­ple to work instead of push­ing more paper around. Now, Repub­li­cans in Con­gress are tak­ing up the cause of thwart­ing Oba­ma’s plan to grant states’ request for flex­i­bil­i­ty. His­tor­i­cal­ly, Repub­li­cans sup­port­ed mov­ing wel­fare recip­i­ents off the fed­er­al rolls and onto pri­vate pay rolls. But they’re not going to let Oba­ma get cred­it for accom­plish­ing that.

This dis­pute began with an attempt by the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion to reduce reg­u­la­to­ry bur­dens. Here’s what Pres­i­dent Oba­ma wrote Feb. 28, 2011 in the Admin­is­tra­tive Flex­i­bil­i­ty memo:

​“I am instruct­ing agen­cies to work close­ly with state, local, and trib­al gov­ern­ments to iden­ti­fy admin­is­tra­tive, reg­u­la­to­ry, and leg­isla­tive bar­ri­ers in fed­er­al­ly fund­ed pro­grams that cur­rent­ly pre­vent states, local­i­ties, and tribes, from effi­cient­ly using tax dol­lars to achieve the best results for their constituents.”

The Depart­ment of Health and Human Ser­vices (HHS) took the direc­tive seri­ous­ly and asked states for sug­ges­tions. Some state offi­cials com­plained about bur­den­some wel­fare reform paper­work require­ments and asked if HHS would pro­vide flex­i­bil­i­ty. Among them were Utah and Neva­da, both of which have Repub­li­can gov­er­nors. Utah also has a Repub­li­can super­ma­jor­i­ty in its legislature.

HHS respond­ed with a memo to states issued on July 12. It offers states a chance to achieve flex­i­bil­i­ty through waiv­er of some wel­fare rules if states con­duct HHS-approved pilot pro­grams that move addi­tion­al wel­fare recip­i­ents to work in mea­sure­able ways.

The memo states at least 10 times that the goal is increased employ­ment. For exam­ple, there’s this:

​“HHS will only con­sid­er approv­ing waivers relat­ing to the work par­tic­i­pa­tion require­ments that make changes intend­ed to lead to more effec­tive means of meet­ing the work goals of TANF (wel­fare).

​“More­over, HHS is com­mit­ted to ensur­ing that any demon­stra­tion projects approved under this author­i­ty will be focused on improv­ing employ­ment out­comes and con­tribut­ing to the evi­dence base for effec­tive pro­grams; there­fore, terms and con­di­tions will require a fed­er­al­ly-approved eval­u­a­tion plan designed to build our knowl­edge base.”

In a let­ter that accom­pa­nied the memo, HHS repeats inces­sant­ly that all pro­pos­als must ful­fill the goal of increased employ­ment. Of the 21 sen­tences, at least 10 spec­i­fy that less wel­fare and more work is man­dat­ed by the law, is impor­tant and will be required for waiv­er. For exam­ple, there’s this:

​“The (HHS) Sec­re­tary is only inter­est­ed in approv­ing waivers if the state can explain in a com­pelling fash­ion why the pro­posed approach may be a more effi­cient or effec­tive means to pro­mote employ­ment entry, reten­tion, advance­ment, or access to jobs that offer oppor­tu­ni­ties for earn­ings and advance­ment that will allow par­tic­i­pants to avoid depen­dence on gov­ern­ment benefits.”

Despite all that, Mitt Rom­ney began con­demn­ing the waiv­er offer imme­di­ate­ly after it was issued. Con­gres­sion­al Repub­li­cans hope this week to blud­geon it to death with leg­is­la­tion for­bid­ding HHS from pro­vid­ing the flex­i­bil­i­ty request­ed by gov­er­nors, includ­ing Repub­li­cans Gary Her­bert of Utah and Bri­an San­doval of Neva­da. Her­bert’s state depart­ment of HHS wrote the fed­er­al HHS in 2011 seek­ing flexibility:

​“Neva­da is very inter­est­ed in work­ing with your staff to explore pro­gram waivers…”

Like wel­fare-to-work, Repub­li­cans have long sup­port­ed ​“flex­i­bil­i­ty” for states in imple­ment­ing fed­er­al man­dates. For exam­ple, in 2005 every Repub­li­can gov­er­nor in the nation — 29 of them — wrote Con­gress to sup­port a bill that would have allowed waivers to wel­fare reform law require­ments. The gov­er­nors told Con­gress they want­ed ​“flex­i­bil­i­ty to man­age their TANF (wel­fare) pro­grams.” The let­ter said:

​“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.”

Mitt Rom­ney signed that let­ter. He was among the 29 gov­er­nors seek­ing flex­i­bil­i­ty through waivers to man­age welfare.

That’s right. The same Mitt Rom­ney who now is denounc­ing the Oba­ma admin­is­tra­tion’s effort to pro­vide flexibility.

Now, Rom­ney despis­es flex­i­bil­i­ty. Now, he hates waivers. Now, he’s demand­ing an end to the effort by HHS to give states the abil­i­ty to exper­i­ment with pilot pro­grams to increase the employ­ment of wel­fare recipients.

It’s yet anoth­er Rom­ney flip-flop, anoth­er Rom­ney Etch-A-Sketch moment. Said it once, erase it now. Rom­ney fig­ures GOP incon­sis­ten­cy does­n’t mat­ter as long as it hurts Pres­i­dent Oba­ma somehow.

Full dis­clo­sure: The USW is an In These Times spon­sor.