Romney lies on welfare

Granted both political parties frame their arguments, as well they should. But one party consistently not only frames but lies in so doing, while the other generally uses facts. Take for example Romney's campaign ads that Obama has cut the work requirement for welfare. This has been repeatedly fact-checked and deemed an outright lie, yet Romney persists in it. Romney's defense is that the facts will depend on which party is spinning them. Per above yes, there is legitimate spin. But to use lies in that spin is another matter altogether, one representative of an egregious lack or moral character.



The facts: "At the request of several states -- including two with Republican governors -- the Obama administration announced in July that it would consider waiving certain federal welfare rules if states have ideas for 'demonstration projects' they promise can increase welfare employment outcomes by 20 percent (states are required to maintain certain percentages of welfare beneficiaries in work activities or else face penalties). The administration has not announced that it has issued any waivers."

"Ron Haskins, a welfare expert and former Republican congressional staffer who helped write the 1996 welfare reform law, has said Romney's welfare attacks are bogus. 'There's no plausible scenario under which it really constitutes a serious attack on welfare reform.'" Even Newt Gingrich has said that there is "no proof" for this lie.