Bizarro World of Welfare Reform

I've been trying to follow this Welfare Reform Issue.  I'm still not sure I totally understand both because it's kind of complicated and neither side has really comprehensively explained what's happening.  This is what I believe: Utah and Nevada want the Federal Government to relax some of the work requirements included in Welfare Reform.  These are the provisions that ensure that people who receive welfare are not just lying about watching TV.  They say, not that they want to allow this kind of sloth, but they want to be able to have their own definitions of work (like going to school).  The Obama administration replied it was willing to consider granting waivers if more information is given.

Cynical conservatives believe the Obama Administration is doing this to weaken the work requirements, while the Obama Administration claims it is trying to provide more flexibility but maintain the spirit of the law.

I guess only time will tell who is correct, but this story has two passages I find extremely interesting.

The first is a quote from George Sheldon, acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families at HHS. "Federal rules dictate mind-numbing details about how to run a welfare-to-work program. Many states report that their caseworkers are spending more time complying with federal-documentation requirements than helping parents find jobs."

Have you ever heard a Democrat decry a regulatory burden.  When Republicans complain about too many regulations choking the economy, generally, there's no response from Democrats.  Probably because Democrats believe in regulations but they poll poorly.  Maybe Democrats have decided regulations that restrain the private economy are good, but regulations that restrain the public sector are bad.

The article's authors, Louise Radnofsky and Janet Hook say "The outcry was a shift for Republicans, who have traditionally pushed for states to have greater control over how they spend federal dollars. The Obama administration has tried to portray many of its policies as giving states more latitude."

This is very interesting. I county myself as someone who "traditionally pushes for states to have greater control over how they spend federal dollars." How can I reconcile this seeming discrepancy?

If I'm pro-federalism (which I am), and anti state to state redistribution of taxes (which I am), then how can I disagree with these waivers? Well, if the Obama administration is sincere in wanting to relax the specific requirements but maintain the general work requirement, then I completely agree with what they're doing. Conservatives are worried that they are just using this as an excuse to increase the size of the program by increasing aid to those who don't work.