-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Welcome to “Keeping Them Honest” tonight, two times with two powerful presidential campaign as one from each side. Now each one goes straight for the guts2 seeking to enforce negative views about other governor Mitt3 Romney over President Barack Obama. It’s a piece of a political fitter it’s tour to political welfare, each one is formidable, and each one is false as it’s not true. Tonight Keeping Them Honest, we will confront the defenders4 of these stupid ads and as always, we’re not taking political sides. We’re simply trying to report facts. We begin tonight with the new Mitt Romney ad.
In 1996, President Clinton and a bipartisan Congress helped end welfare as we know it, by requiring work for welfare. But on July 12th, President Obama quietly announced a plan to gut1 welfare reform by dropping work requirements. Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send your welfare check. And welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare.
Well, in a moment, you’ll hear from Newt Gingrich who joins us to defend that ad. But it also makes a pretty stunning5 envision about whether that ad he’s defending is strictly6 speaking through the facts. But first, I want to show you how Mitt Romney is campaigning on the claims made in that very ad.
With the very careful executive action, he removed the requirement of work from welfare. It’s wrong to make any change that would make America more of a nation of government dependency. We must restore and I will restore work into welfare.
Now listening to that and watching the ad, you would think that the White House with a sweep of the pen somehow managed to undo7 all your elected representatives, Democrats8 and Republicans, accomplished9 back in the late 90s on welfare reform. You get the impression the Obama administration wants an America where hardworking Americans pay taxes and lazy ones sit around collecting welfare. And in case you miss the implications, Romney’s surrogate Newt Gingrich today spelled it all out.
I think on the hard left there is an unending desire to create a dependent America. It’s not just that Obama is radical10 but the people he appoints are even more radical.
Well, obviously, the White House, the Obama campaign, strongly disagreed. And they are not alone. A string of fact checkers have blasted the ad as false. Political facts gave us pants on fire rating. The Washington Post fact guy rated in with four Pinocchios. That’s their rating system. What, in fact, the White House and the department of health and human services proposed doing, was give governors more flexibility11 to tailor programs for their own states. And these were changes, by the way, requested by the Republican governors Utah and Nevada. But what about this claim?
If President Obama didn’t want people to think that he was going to waive12 the central work requirement in welfare reform, his administration shouldn’t have written a memo13 saying it was going to waive the work requirements in welfare reform.
Well, Keeping Them Honest, here’s the relevant portion from that very memo from the Department of Health and Human Services. And I quote, HHS will only consider approving waivers relating to the work participation14 requirements that make changes intended to lead to more effective means of meeting the work goals. So the administration’s insisting they aren’t trying to waive the work requirement. They are in fact trying to make it less bureaucratic15 and more effective precisely16 what those Republican state governors had asked for. As we said, Newt Gingrich is defending the ad, going beyond to this as well in some respect. But as you will see later on in this interview,speaker Gingrich who I talked to just a short time ago, also makes a surprising admission. I spoke17 with the former presidential candidate just a short time ago.
Mr. Speaker, so this ad says, I quote, under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job, they just send your welfare check. Now according to pretty much every non-partisan fact checking organization, that’s not true. President Clinton who signed the law that he worked on it as well said it’s not true. Even Ron Haskins who worked in the original welfare law served with George W. Bush’s welfare policy adviser18 said quote, there’s no plausible19 scenario20 under which this new policy constitute any kind of serious attack on welfare reform. Are they all wrong?
Well, Robert Rector at the heritage foundation who was the originally developer of welfare reform, worked with Governor Reagan, and then President Reagan. He was the first person to come out aggressively and say look, this will in the end gut welfare reform. In this reason, he is pretty straight forward. Once she start allowing states, this is why by the way the law itself does not permit waivers. The president actually could not waive section 407, which says there can’t be any waivers to the work requirement. So he fudged and found a way to get around it which I suspect will turn out to be illegal. Governor McDonald of Virginia comes out and says this is clearly gutting21 welfare reform. The two governors that the Obama administration is hiding behind, the governor of Utah and the governor of Nevada, have both come out and said that is not accurate. This is not what they wanted, this is not the flexibility they asked for. And I think that this is gonna become a genuine argument. Those of us who favor welfare reform and work hard to get it felt deeply that particularly in local states if you didn’t have some kind of strong requirement. You know, they used to have thing like getting massage22 counted, going through drug rehab count it as a work program. And it was amazing the range of things prior to 1995, the year 1996 that you could do and pretend they were work.
点击收听单词发音
1 gut | |
n.[pl.]胆量;内脏;adj.本能的;vt.取出内脏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 guts | |
v.狼吞虎咽,贪婪地吃,飞碟游戏(比赛双方每组5人,相距15码,互相掷接飞碟);毁坏(建筑物等)的内部( gut的第三人称单数 );取出…的内脏n.勇气( gut的名词复数 );内脏;消化道的下段;肠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 mitt | |
n.棒球手套,拳击手套,无指手套;vt.铐住,握手 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 defenders | |
n.防御者( defender的名词复数 );守卫者;保护者;辩护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 stunning | |
adj.极好的;使人晕倒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 strictly | |
adv.严厉地,严格地;严密地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 undo | |
vt.解开,松开;取消,撤销 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 democrats | |
n.民主主义者,民主人士( democrat的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 radical | |
n.激进份子,原子团,根号;adj.根本的,激进的,彻底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 flexibility | |
n.柔韧性,弹性,(光的)折射性,灵活性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 waive | |
vt.放弃,不坚持(规定、要求、权力等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 memo | |
n.照会,备忘录;便笺;通知书;规章 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 participation | |
n.参与,参加,分享 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 bureaucratic | |
adj.官僚的,繁文缛节的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 spoke | |
n.(车轮的)辐条;轮辐;破坏某人的计划;阻挠某人的行动 v.讲,谈(speak的过去式);说;演说;从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 adviser | |
n.劝告者,顾问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 plausible | |
adj.似真实的,似乎有理的,似乎可信的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 scenario | |
n.剧本,脚本;概要 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 gutting | |
n.去内脏v.毁坏(建筑物等)的内部( gut的现在分词 );取出…的内脏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 massage | |
n.按摩,揉;vt.按摩,揉,美化,奉承,篡改数据 | |
参考例句: |
|
|