Welfare To Work Requirements

First the headspin from Talkingpointsmemo:

Congress’ own nonpartisan research and analysis arm, the Congressional Research Service, has concluded that a Republican bill making its way through the House will have the effect of sidestepping the work requirements that are one of the pillars of welfare reform.

Let me say that again.

While launching a series of withering, racial tinged attacks that accused Obama of gutting welfare reform (when in fact his changes to welfare would strengthen the work requirements), Republicans have been pushing through a bill that the independent CRS has now found actually does have the effect of gutting welfare reform’s work requirements. [emphasis added]

I wonder if this'll get any play in Scaife's Tribune-Review.  I mean they dutifully reported this "Welfare Work Requirement" story before:

Under a new federal directive, states can apply for waivers regarding work requirements under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, commonly known as welfare.

A memo issued on Thursday by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services indicates it can allow states to “test alternative and innovative strategies, policies and procedures that are designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families.”

Critics question the department’s authority to allow waivers and complain that the Obama administration is trying to reverse reforms from the mid-1990s.

“What they’ve done is abolished federal work standards,” said Robert Rector, a welfare expert with the Heritage Foundation, a Washington think tank. “They found a very dubious loophole and are now saying whatever is written in the law doesn’t matter.”

No where in that reporting is this statement:

The Obama administration, working with the Republican governors of states like Nevada and Utah, is giving states additional flexibility only if they move more people from welfare to work — not fewer,” Obama campaign spokeswoman Lis Smith said in a statement.

No, the staff reporter from the Scaife-owned paper simply quotes an "expert" from the Scaife-funded Heritage Foundation (with no mention of Scaife's millions to Heritage, of course) and lets that stand as "the truth."

And this is from the news division at the Trib.