The Administration for Children and Families has quietly proposed closing loopholes in the nation's cash assistance program for the poor that a 2021 ProPublica investigation found states had exploited for years.

Through a package of proposed reforms to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, or TANF, the administration plans to shore up the U.S. social safety net. The regulations are intended to ensure that more federal and state welfare dollars make it to low-income families, rather than being spent on other things or not spent at all.

The proposal, drawn up by the federal Administration for Children and Families, is open for public comment until Dec. 1. Once comments are reviewed, officials plan to issue final regulations that could take effect in the months after that, heading into the 2024 election.

  • neatchee@lemmy.world
    31·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think the administration is making this move predicated on “putting children’s safety first”. They’re doing it because using funds that are earmarked for social safety net purposes (providing more support for families in need) to instead punish those who are in need of those funds - even when that punishment is deserved - does not address the thing the money was intended to resolve and this the request for funds is disingenuous.

    We can roleplay this…

    Person 1: “Hey, can I borrow $50? My impoverished sister can’t afford food for her family this week.”

    Person 2: “Sure, here you go. Wait, what are you doing?”

    Person 1: “Well, I think my neighbor might be neglecting their kids so I spent that $50 on investigating them, just in case.”

    Person 2: “But I gave you the money to help your sister, not to investigate someone who may or may not have done anything wrong”

    You see the problem?

    • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
      1·
      1 year ago

      I understand the issue being highlighted in the article, and I wasn’t commenting on that specifically. I was merely expressing disjunction with their characterization of the CPS system in the sense that they implied there was a hostile motive behind it in a general sense. In my experience, this isn’t true.

      • neatchee@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        As mentioned elsewhere, the article is talking specifically about Arizona, due to investigative reporting on their handling of the funds. I realize that it may not be true everywhere, but do you have a reason to believe Arizona does NOT have the problem called out in the article?

        • Tedesche@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          I’ve already said I wasn’t talking about the funding issue. At this point, you seem to be willfully misunderstanding me, so I’m not going to continue responding.

          • neatchee@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 year ago

            … But the article is about the funding issue? I’m not willfully misunderstanding anything. I’m asking whether your statement is directly related to the article or just a tangent that is only marginally related.

            You seem to have intentionally misrepresented the article’s content so that you could say “Not All CPS” which is just not a good look for you