After reading the linked Memo, I have to say that the OP's interpretation [and subsequent comments] are totally off the wall.
The goal is to allow states [which actually distribute welfare funds] to do whatever works to reduce dependency on welfare and children outside of marriage. As nearly every state is in the same fiscal boat as the Feds [sinking], it boggles the mind that people think that state officials are generous with 'money for nothing'. The fact is they'd like nothing better than to to reduce the welfare rolls to the bare minimum, but they know something many others refuse to understand: 99% of welfare recipients have no other options. If they did, the State would require them to pursue them. The state of Ohio is, right now, requiring a friend of my mother's to attend classes in order to learn a new skill [while collecting unemployment or disability] which is great, only the woman is 68 years old! She's perfectly willing, but the point is that anyone who is getting a 'free ride' from the government is scamming, because the government is not the poor folks' Sugar Daddy some people insist.
They can't afford to be, because the Pentagon & Defense Department have first dibs.
Anyone catch the article about how many billions of dollars the US taxpayers gave to Iraq that can't even be accounted for? Where's the outrage over the scams and fraud and waste and abuse and mismanagement by so called educated professionals who are paid [very highly] to account for the money?
Crickets.
I see several issues that I have a different take on. The work requirement that Obama is trying to do away with is a bad idea. You simply are turning people into accepting welfare as a way of life. If someone is on welfare at 68, that is a problem. They should be on social security. There is no job requirement for the elderly.
Like Leo said, too many are clueless as to what poor really is. Take a hard look at many foreign countries and you will see what poor really is. Our welfare folks with air conditioning, cell phones, big screens, xboxes, 200 dollar shoes, and the list goes on are hardly suffering. These same people are living in subsidized housing, subsidized utilities, free phone plans, free health care, free childcare, free transportation, and so on at the taxpayers expense.. So it is not just the welfare side.
My opinion on comparing wasted money in other places as a way to justify welfare isn't quite right. One of those "two wrongs don't make a right". Especially when you are borrowing 40 cents on the dollar from China to support it.
I seen a week or so on John Stossel interviewing welfare folks at a government office and he asked them why they weren't looking for jobs. They said there wasn't any. They worked a eight block area hitting 80 businesses. Out of those, 60 were hiring. Imagine that? Problem is the unskilled all want to start at 50k a year.
He stated that the "real" poor is roughly 2 out of 10 recieving benefits.
If you want to fix welfare, put a time limit on it and you will find more people willing to work. Unemployment is earned through previous employment, welfare is a entitlement that should have a limit. If someone can't really work, that is what disability is for. As for drug testing, all for it including politicians.
