Orwellian Nonsense from HHS

My contact at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (by just referring to him as my contact, suddenly the story seems dark and mysterious) informed me about a year ago that HHS was plotting on expanding the definition of "child" in the TANF program (which is the national cash welfare program) in the regulations they were writing for the extra 5 billion for TANF provided through ARRA (the stimulus bill). I have been salivating waiting for these regs to come out to bring to light the absurd changes in the definition...and I finally heard today that these regs are available online. (For True Patriots who love reading regulations and other government publications, click here.)

It's not as damning as I had hoped. But it sure is complicated. First, TANF money can be provided to a recipient in two ways: 1) "Assistance" which consists of regular cash payments to a recipient. If someone receives TANF "assistance," they are subject to the work requirements of the program as well as the five-year time limit. 2) "Non-assistance" which consists of non-regular cash payments to a recipient or the provision of other services. So, you can give someone a lump sum of cash and, because it isn't a regular payment, it doesn't count as assistance. Which means that the person does not need to meet work requirements and does not count as being "on welfare." You can also give someone a pamphlet paid with using TANF funds and by giving them the pamphlet, they now count as receiving TANF (albeit "non-assistance"). Because they are receiving TANF non-assistance, they are eligible to receive food stamps. And if they are eligible to receive food stamps, they are also eligible to receive WIC. (It also allows them to use the TANF asset test which is typically waived by the states instead of the food stamp asset test which is stricter.)

Anywho, the point is that the TANF law explicitly states that in order to receive TANF "assistance", you must have a minor child in your home. The big deal with these new regs is that HHS looked at Purpose 1 of TANF which is to "provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives” and determined that it does not specify minor children, just children. Therefore, for "non-assistance," states can define a "child" up to the age of 25.

What does this mean? Well, it means that states can provide more non-assistance services to families that would otherwise be ineligible for receiving TANF non-assistance because their children were too old. It also means that more families will be eligible for "non-assistance" funded diversion grants (and possibly state EITC payments...)

I originally thought that this was going to be applied to assistance, which would have been a bigger deal, what with child-only cases and all. Instead, it's really just a change that makes understanding TANF (only a $17 billion program) even more difficult. Which makes me think that the regulations for Obamacare are going to be absolutely impenetrable.