Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Since no new funds are being raised to cover these costs, programs such as ours are going to take these huge hits.> Sorry, but I don't see the "huge hits". Sounds more like the budget won't go up as much as some would like.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer It's not a huge hit for you because you aren't the one losing health care for your kids.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's not a huge hit for you because you aren't the one losing health care for your kids.> Is anyone?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Sorry, but I don't see the "huge hits". Sounds more like the budget won't go up as much as some would like." Then you're not looking in the right place. L.A. County's current child support budget is $140M. Projections are that in four years' time, it will be less than $100M, if we're lucky. We have 1900 employees. We'll lose about 400-500 employees. To get an idea of how big a county we are, if we were a state, we'd be the 8th largest in the country, based on population. We simply cannot afford to take that kind of hit.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I'd have to see the actual bill. I very much doubt anyone is proposing that federal spending on this goes to zero.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<It's not a huge hit for you because you aren't the one losing health care for your kids.>> <Is anyone?> Translation: "is anyone who's anyone?"
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "I very much doubt anyone is proposing that federal spending on this goes to zero." No one ever said zero. In four years, the proposal is to take it from 66% to 50%.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Here's a link to a fairly long letter written by the National Child Support Enforcement Association that discusses the impact of the proposed cuts. <a href="http://www.ncsea.org/pubpol/statements/20051101_cse.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ncsea.org/pubpol/st atements/20051101_cse.pdf</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <In four years, the proposal is to take it from 66% to 50%.> That hardly seems like a huge cut. A state as rich as California ought to be able to come up with the difference, since this does not appear to be a federal problem.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "That hardly seems like a huge cut. A state as rich as California ought to be able to come up with the difference, since this does not appear to be a federal problem." It's a huge cut, and the state can't do it. Did you read the link at all?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder By way of example, that's over $22M just in initial funding cuts for L.A. County alone in four years. That doesn't account for the resultant fines and other further funding that is withheld because of performance measures that aren't met as a result of the cuts. And this is just the child support programs. There are several other federally funded state run programs in a similar position, accounting for the inability of the state to cover the losses. Compounding the problem, California is so far in the whole right now it couldn't even think about making up all the differences.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Did you read the link at all?> Sure I did. It was the typical liberal take that throws out numbers without any context and predicts the worse, which never seems to happen. Like I said earlier, I'd like to see the actual numbers - what the spending is now, and what the Republicans are proposing to spend.
Originally Posted By Spree I don't have a link but earlier today a congressman(don't remember name, sorry) was on the house floor speaking about the supposed "cuts". The "cut" is a 7.1% increase instead of the 7.4% increase they were hoping for. Gosh, wish I could raise my prices to my customers by 7.1% and get away with calling it a "cut".
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Sure I did. It was the typical liberal take that throws out numbers without any context and predicts the worse, which never seems to happen. Like I said earlier, I'd like to see the actual numbers - what the spending is now, and what the Republicans are proposing to spend." Apparently, then you don't understand. Never mind.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder Nope. This isn't a liberal/conservative thing, and you've attempted to paint it that way. There's no way I'm going in that direction. This is a funding issue, no more, no less. Cutting funding to the degree proposed will be the death knell for all the programs included. Period.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Nope. This isn't a liberal/conservative thing, and you've attempted to paint it that way.> Of course it is a liberal vs. conservative thing. The conservatives propose a reasonable reduction in the growth rate of entitlements, and the liberals wail that it will equal doomsday. The source you linked to in your first was hardly some non-partisan site taking an honest look at the numbers. <Cutting funding to the degree proposed will be the death knell for all the programs included.> Again, I'd like to see why. Republicans aren't the cruel and heartless people the liberal organizations like to portray them as, and if these programs have merit they are not going to leave them completely unfunded.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder I hate using this phrase, but what part of a county losing over 20 mil in initial funding alone over a four year period don't you get? We're so tight on funding we don't even order pens to use. We all literally buy the cheap bags of ten for a dollar and bring them in to work. There have been no promotions since 2002 because of funding issues. We've gone from a staff of 120 attorneys to 105 attorneys in the last four years and our overall caseload has increased. Every county in this state is going through similar experiences. All because cuts have to be made so the feds can pay for the hurricane recovery and Iraq. Mainly Iraq. I'll ask the question again. Why should a kid in Watts go on welfare so more soldiers can be blown up in roadside bombs?
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Maybe so much of the GOP base are deadbeat dads that they are trying to pander to them by cutting child support enforcement.
