they are living to help maintain and strengthen family life and to help such parents or relatives to attain or retain capability for the maximum self-support and personal independence consistent with the maintenance of continuing parental care and protection.... 42 U.S.C. § 601. In 1981, Congress adopted various amendments to the Social Security Act through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (“OBRA”), Pub.L. No. 97-35, 95 Stat. 357 (1981). These amendments have injected a cost-cutting focus that appears to compete with the remedial goals of the statute, even though “the OBRA Congress neither changed the language of the AFDC statement of purpose nor abandoned the statutory goals.” Turner, 470 U.S. at 205, 105 S.Ct. at 1150. See Edwards v. McMahon, 834 F.2d 796, 801 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). The Supreme Court detected in OBRA “a change
holding that erisaqualified pension plans were not intended by congress to be within the statutory exemption holding that if federal income tax statutes are intended to benefit anyone it is the federal government to whom the withheld tax is to be remitted there is no indication anywhere in the language of the statutes that congress intended to confer rights on employees with respect to the withholding of tax recognizing that congress intended obra to reduce federal expenditures holding that where a conflict between state and federal law is alleged it must be reasonable to conclude that congress would have intended to preclude the state law in question since it would make little sense to preempt state law in order to serve the purposes underlying federal legislation if congress itself would not require or admit of preemption of state authority holding that removal is proper based on complete preemption only when congress intended the federal cause of action to be exclusive