Federal attacks on state sovereignty is one of the four major abuses of the federal government.
When it comes to welfare reform, states want to institute policies that help the truly needy while saving the state money. Work requirements are one such reform, but as Nic Horton writes for The Hill, states have found in early impossible to govern their citizens as they see fit:
Work requirements work. They reduce dependency and save taxpayers money. They free up limited dollars for the truly needy. They help individuals who would otherwise remain trapped in welfare get back into the labor force and increase their incomes. They help individuals earn more than they were earning before, including lost welfare benefits.
But states are hamstrung. Even though cash assistance and food stamps require work for certain populations, work requirements have never been allowed in Medicaid. If a state wants to pursue it, they’re forced to endure a lengthy and complicated waiver process, begging Washington for permission to implement these commonsense measures.
But when nearly half the cost is coming out of their budgets, states should have significantly more flexibility to shape these programs—and the process should not be so difficult.
Even right now, as Congress debates ObamaCare repeal and the Graham-Cassidy replacement plan, work requirements should remain a top priority. Because, as the Kansas experience shows, work matters. Without it, enrollment will continue to climb, taxpayers will continue to be squeezed, and the truly needy will be robbed of limited resources.
Congress has proven to be nearly incapable of decisive action. They'll never cede more power to the states, which is why We the People must call an Article V Convention of States.
A Convention of States can propose constitutional amendments that restore the balance of power in our republic. States shouldn't have to beg the feds to institute policies that help their citizens, and after a Convention of States, they'll never have to beg again.
