Not only is it too complex, the pitfalls are yawning chasms.
Define “being married”.
Is that common law or is that a legally licensed marriage?
Is that “gay marriage” too? Why of course!
Is that multiple people in a marriage? Oh yeah...
If someone lives together but isn’t legally married, how can the government discriminate against them, after all, if they are together and in the home with the children...
What about those who get married and stay legally married, but who have in reality split up and gotten involved with other people?
I’m tellin’ ya, Paul Ryan lives on another planet.
Together with his best bud, Luis Gutierrez of total amnesty fame...
Define “being married”.
You pointed out a lot of pitfalls in just one aspect of the program. Think of all the new government jobs just in deciding who is considered “married” and monitoring them to make sure they are in a government sanctioned “marriage”.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22). Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it”.[1]
—
Bill Clinton was coerced into signing it, but he did. Now Obama gutted it:
2012
In July 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services released a memo notifying states that they are able to apply for a waiver for the work requirements of the TANF program, but only if states were also able to find credible ways to increase employment by 20%.[10] The waiver would allow states to provide assistance without having to enforce the work component of the program, which currently states that 50 percent of a state's TANF caseload must meet work requirements.[11] The Obama administration stated that the change was made in order to allow more flexibility in how individual states operate their welfare programs.[12] According to Peter Edelman, the director of the Georgetown Center on Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy, the waivers would reduce restrictions that increase the difficulty for states in helping TANF applicants find jobs.[13]
The change has been questioned by Republicans including Dave Camp, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and Orrin Hatch, who requested further details from HHS over concerns that the memo would remove the main focus of PRWORA.[11] Mitt Romney attacked the measure, saying that Obama was “gutting welfare reform”. However, PolitiFact stated that Romney's claim was “not accurate” and “inflames old resentments”, giving it a “Pants on Fire” rating.[14] CNN also reported that assertions that Obama was “taking the work requirement off the table” was false.[15] In response to Republican criticism, Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services said that states, including some with Republican governors, had previously asked Congress to allow waivers.[16]
Ryan's plan will just create more government employees. It doesn't really matter what law is passed until Congress gets a backbone and stops Obama and any other future President from gutting the laws passed by Congress. They should just pass a law to enforce the current laws.