Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder <a href="http://www.chn.org/humanneeds/051028a.html" target="_blank">http://www.chn.org/humanneeds/ 051028a.html</a> As it relates to child support, near and dear to my heart, here in California, if these cuts were to be passed by the U.S. Senate, it would mean a devasting blow to each and every county. Many counties' programs would just about cease to exist. The state and local governments cannot begin to make up the costs. No one, and I mean no one, would ever be prosecuted for non-payment of child support. As it is now, L.A. County is one of only two that have a regular program for criminal enforcement, and it is a shell of what it once was, employing only two attorneys in that unit.
Originally Posted By Spree Don't worry too much. The House always goes over the top bc they know the Senate will always come in way too low....kinda like haggling for a used car
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Many counties' programs would just about cease to exist.> Why would a county rely totally on federal dollars for a local problem?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Why would a county rely totally on federal dollars for a local problem?" As a result of the Social Security Act, federal funds presently make up 66% of funding. Here in California, no county funds are expended. It's 66 Feds, 34 State. Although I draw a county check, the money comes from those two sources. The Feds also withhold funding if we don't nmeet certain federal performance measures, such as collecting a designated percentage of support. Moreover, the Feds have been fining California hundreds of millions of dollars over the last several years for not coming up with a state wide database to be used by all counties, despite L.A. coming up with one years ago. While California counties select the Director of the Child Support Department, counties have virtually real no input on policies and procedures. The Feds have a Code of Federal Regulations that they have mandated we codify into state law.
Originally Posted By cmpaley STPH, I'm curious. Does California have to adopt the CFR verbatim or is it like the other items where the state program is required to adopt similar or more stringent regulations?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "STPH, I'm curious. Does California have to adopt the CFR verbatim or is it like the other items where the state program is required to adopt similar or more stringent regulations?" Similar or more stringent, but don't dare leave anything out.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "It’s the same for the welfare system" I'll regret asking, but what's the same for the welfare system?
Originally Posted By cmpaley Yeah GOD FORBID that deadbeat dads be required to pay to support their children. Can't have that...it's such a commie concept. :-\
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>Why would a county rely totally on federal dollars for a local problem? << Because sometimes it's the only way to have things like child support enforcement in poor, rural counties.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I wasn't aware that L.A. was a poor, rural county. It sounds to me that the state and counties need to earmark more money for this.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer So because LA county is wealthy a rural county shouldn't have any of those funds available, Douglas?
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Here is a suggestion. Why not have every legislator and all of thier aides voluntarily give up $1000 per year of thier salary (on a sliding scale for those with scads of thier own money) to support such programs at the state level that the feds won't or can't support. I mean really, isn't $99,000 a year for members of the California Legislature a bit excessive. What is $9000 less. That is 120 x 9000 = $1080000, which I admit is certainately not enough to support the programs, but what if every politician at every level from City to County to State took such an action. Selfish politicians.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Why just the legislators? Child support enforcement is a good thing. Psalm 82 is in today's lectionary, oddly enough. "Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless" (Ps 82:3)
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Since I do child support obviously I'm going to be biased so I should at least point out that my area of work isn't the only one that could be decimated by these cuts. What really makes this an incendiary issue for us is that we've been told by both Republican and Democratic officials is that these cuts are proposed because the feds have to pay for Riyta, Katrina, Wilma, et al and the Iraq War. Since no new funds are being raised to cover these costs, programs such as ours are going to take these huge hits. So pardon my cynicism, but since when are children supposed to make sacrificies so George can go to war?
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Tom, that was a very tongue in cheek statement from me, thus the little smiley face. I support child support enforcement, especially since I have dealt with people who have experienced all the problems that come with a deadbeat dad. My question is, why do the cuts always effect the programs and not the salaries? I wish it was possible to do an efficiency test on the state and federal government. I don't think it would be pretty.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer And don't forget that these programs are being cut in the same bill that has $70 billion in tax cuts - not only are the kids going to have to suffer for it, the wealthy will have even more tax cuts.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>My question is, why do the cuts always effect the programs and not the salaries?<< Because you still want to be able to attract well-qualified candidates that can do more and more with less and less. Your salaries have to be competitive so better people can work in those positions.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So because LA county is wealthy a rural county shouldn't have any of those funds available, Douglas?> No. I'm fine with the state coughing up the dough.
