Wednesday, March 17, 2010
TRYING TO GET THE SC NEW HIRE REPORTING STATUTE "RIGHT"
As many people are aware, we have long advocated amending the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Statute to both make it conform to federal mandates and to remove conflicts with Title 43 of the South Carolina Code. Earlier this week, an e-mail was forwarded to us that both criticised the specifics of our proposal and served to update us concerning efforts in the South Carolina General Assembly to amend Title 63 of the South Carolina Code to conform to federal law. The e-mail had been edited somewhat to "protect the innocent." And we are editing it further both to "protect the innocent" and to remove some immaterial or irrelevant portions (in our opinion) of the forwarded e-mail:
As to the issue of leaving both Title 43 and Title 63 provisions in the Code (which is what I believe you are proposing), I am at a loss to understand the wisdom of such a move. Our present problem stems from the fact that we have two separate statutes creating two separate New Hire Programs. One is voluntary (and was created in the late 1970s before the federal law was enacted) and contains many provisions that are inconsistent (and probably conflict) with federal law. The other is mandatory and mirrors the federal requirements. Why you or anyone (DSS also proposed this idea initially, but they have since agreed that one of the Sections needs to go) would advocate leaving both Title 43 and Title 63 intact is beyond my comprehension. Title 63 and Title 43 are inconsistent. They are inconsistent regarding when reports must be submitted, the contents of the reports, and several other matters, and Title 63 fails to exempt certain workers and fails to allow multi-state employers to choose a single state from which to file a report. The New Hire Program currently found in Title 63, whether it’s made mandatory or remains voluntary, needs to go. The New Hire Program in Title 43, with the few technical revisions I made to it in [a proposed] bill, is the plan that complies with federal law.
I imagine that DSS will have some kind of a position on this bill. But I have it from Mr. Bray, the legislative liaison for DSS, that DSS concedes that the current Title 63 program does not comply with federal law, and that the language in Title 43 does.
Initially, our focus was only on § 63-17-1210 of the South Carolina Code and the removal of one particular statutory section that we believed conflicted with both 42 U. S. C. 653a and § 43-5-598 of the South Carolina Code. We could not even get anyone in the General Assembly to even read the PRWORA in its entirety, much less to agree that there were internal conflicts within the South Carolina Code. However:
- There now appears to be a consensus that § 43-5-598 complies with the mandates of 42 U. S. C. 653a, that “Title 63 and Title 43 are inconsistent,” and that § 63-17-1210 “contains many provisions that are inconsistent (and probably conflict) with federal law;”
- DSS now agrees that “[t]he New Hire Program currently found in Title 63...needs to go;” and,
- “DSS concedes that the current Title 63 program does not comply with federal law, and that the language in Title 43 does.”
The preceding enumerated circumstances change the scope of the matter and also, in our opinion, both change the appropriate remedy to the problem and increase the potential for passing appropriate remedial legislation in South Carolina. Therefore, we suggest, rather than recodifying § 43-5-598 in Title 63 of the South Carolina Code, that the South Carolina General Assembly simply repeal § 63-17-1210 in its entirety. That would leave the entire statutory scheme set forth in Title 43 intact, would obviate the need for a "savings clause," and would allow South Carolina to avoid having to address the question of whether South Carolina is presently in conformity with federal law. Additionally, as a practical matter, we think it will be easier for DSS, and whoever else supports amending the New Hire Reporting Statute to conform to federal law, to convince the members of the General Assembly to go along with the suggested amendments if it is made clear that no new sweeping legislation is being introduced, but only that a statutory provision which, from a technical standpoint, was repealed by implication when § 43-5-598 was enacted, is now being formally repealed.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
