Background: In 1996 President Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act, which became popularly known as “welfare reform,” into law. The legislation transformed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) into Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), a program intended to provide temporary financial assistance to low-income families while encouraging work and self-sufficiency. Most significantly, the 1996 welfare reform included mandatory federal work requirements, stipulating that welfare recipients must be engaged in work or some type of work activity in order to receive TANF benefits.
As Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield of the Heritage Foundation have written:
“Mandatory federal work requirements for recipients were at the heart of the change, which led to significant decreases in the program’s rolls, increased work among former recipients, and historic reductions in child poverty.”
Problem: Despite the success of the 1996 welfare reform, 20 years later there’s still much to be done to ensure that the welfare system moves people towards work and self-sufficiency rather than towards government dependency. According to Rector and Sheffield’s paper Setting Priorities for Welfare Reform:
In response to the housing collapse and financial crisis of 2007-08, Congress rushed to pass the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act under the guise of “consumer protection.” But instead of addressing the root causes of the financial crisis, such as the government’s reckless efforts to expand housing affordability and implied guarantee to bail out large financial institutions, Dodd-Frank empowers the very regulatory establishment which created the environment that led to the financial crisis in the first place.
Heritage Foundation Financial Regulations expert Norbert Michel writes:
“The 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act is among the most inappropriately named laws ever enacted in the U.S. It neither reformed Wall Street nor protected consumers, and it imposed massive new regulations on banks far away from Wall Street.”
When setting up the Obamacare exchanges, three “risk mitigation” (read: bailout) provisions were written into the law to incentivize large health insurance companies to participate in the government takeover of our healthcare industry. The three bailouts are known as the risk corridors, reinsurance, and cost-sharing subsidies. Despite these cronyist “risk mitigations” for big business, Obamacare has been an unmitigated disaster for the average citizen’s health plans and tax dollars. In fact, due to these bailout options, some of the worst fiscal consequences for the taxpayers are potentially yet to come.
As The Heritage Foundation explained last year, the reinsurance program funneled nearly $8 billion to Obamacare insurers in 2014, paid for “by a tax on everyone with non-Obamacare coverage.” Highlighting the problems with the reinsurance bailout provision, Chris Jacobs at National Review writes:
This week, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 94% and Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) 67% will introduce The Protecting Internet Freedom Act. This legislation would prevent the transition of the control of the Internet from U.S. hands to an international body called the “Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Number (ICANN) unless Congress affirmatively acts to do so. It also ensures that the United States Government would maintain ownership and control of .gov and .mil domains, to protect our national security interests.