Sunday, February 28, 2010
FAMILY FEUD OVER RELIGION OR GRANDSTANDING CONTEMPT?
A case that has been characterized as a "family feud over religion" is currently playing out in Chicago. The transcript of an ABC interview and the video of that interview set the scene for the upcoming March 3 trial. And this article provides an update.
From our perspective, this case is more about defiance of a Court Order and violation of an implied agreement than it is about freedom of religion. Mr. Reyes admits that his wife insisted that he convert to Judaism. And not only did he convert--after they were married, no less-- but he had not renounced his Jewish faith as of the birth of his daughter. Therefore, like it or not, Mr. Reyes' daughter is a Jew and his belated attempts "to exercise his First Amendment Rights" by baptizing her without his wife's permission rings just as hollow and cynical as his attempts to frame Catholicism as a branch of Judaism.
Again, if Mr. Reyes were sincere, he would not have summoned the press to record and witness his act of defiance while simultaneously proclaiming his innocence of the act of contempt. And, if he were truly a Catholic as he now claims, he would have both renounced Judaism and converted to Catholicism before he baptized his daughter, not sometime in the future.
Labels: Custody, Religion and Custody
Saturday, February 27, 2010
NEW HIRE REPORTING: ANSWERS TO EMPLOYER QUESTIONS
Those South Carolina employers and Legislators who are having difficulty understanding the new hire reporting sections of 42 U.S.C. § 653a are in luck. The "Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement" (OCSE) has compiled [a] brochure to help employers both understand and comply with the law’s requirements." This brochure is titled "New Hire Reporting: Answers to Employer Questions" and can be downloaded by clicking here.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Friday, February 26, 2010
KNOW-IT-ALL LEGISLATORS--WHY SOUTH CAROLINA CANNOT ACCOMPLISH WHAT EVERY OTHER STATE HAS MANAGED TO DO
Following are a number of e-mail exchanges between us and a South Carolina State Senator on the subject of the South Carolina New Hire reporting statute. For the sake of clarity, the reader should be aware that the most oldest e-mails are at the bottom of the page.
The e-mails have been edited only to remove all identifying information.
We now understand why South Carolina is the only State in the country without a computerized child support tracking and collection system and why the State cannot manage to comply with Federal Mandates despite having been given fourteen (14) years to do so.
___________________________________
Senator:
I have put up with your rudeness and name-calling for about a year and a half now. I now have no more time for your insults and lectures. And while I agree that you should not have shared Mr. L's e-mail with me, I DISAGREE with your position on whether I can communicate directly with Mr. L. Moreover, now that you have publicly disseminated Mr. L's e-mail, I think I have a right to share Mr. L's name and legal opinion with whomever I choose. Still, I am not interested in embarrassing either you or Mr. L. Instead, I am interested only in getting the necessary remedial Legislation passed. Once that is accomplished you, Mr. L, and I may have something to celebrate with the citizens of this great State, particularly the 70,000 South Carolinians who are not receiving child support from the non-custodial parent.
From:
To:
Sent: Thu, February 25, 2010 10:44:35 AM
Subject: RE: 42 U.S.C. § 653a and New Hire Reporting.
Mr. ,
It is entirely possible for someone to agree with part of what you say but not all of what you say. Therefore, it is not true that Mr. L either agrees with you or disagrees with you. While your world may be that black and white, that does not mean reality is as you see it.
I would have let you see what Mr. L said but I fear you would react to him with hostility with him as you do with me. Therefore, I am trying to insulate/ protect him from your negativity, and continue to sacrifice only myself to learn what I can from you that is accurate, for the benefit of the State of SC.
I regret giving you Mr. L’s name. Please do not contact him, but deal only with me. As staff, he is to deal only with a Senator or state employee. It is only I as an elected official who has offered to deal directly with you.
Senator
From:
It is entirely possible for someone to agree with part of what you say but not all of what you say. Therefore, it is not true that Mr. L either agrees with you or disagrees with you. While your world may be that black and white, that does not mean reality is as you see it.
I would have let you see what Mr. L said but I fear you would react to him with hostility with him as you do with me. Therefore, I am trying to insulate/ protect him from your negativity, and continue to sacrifice only myself to learn what I can from you that is accurate, for the benefit of the State of SC.
I regret giving you Mr. L’s name. Please do not contact him, but deal only with me. As staff, he is to deal only with a Senator or state employee. It is only I as an elected official who has offered to deal directly with you.
Senator
From:
Sent: Thursday, February 25, 2010 9:31 AM
To:
Subject: Fw: 42 U.S.C. § 653a and New Hire Reporting.
Senator :
Senator :
You did not answer my question. And, in any case, Mr. L either agrees with me or he disagrees with me. I say that Federal Law mandates that:
fire departments, school districts, roofers, the Office of the Attorney General, homebuilders, lawyers, developers, newspapers, the South Carolina Legislature, and Dorchester County “shall furnish to the Directory of New Hires of the State in which a newly hired employee works, a report that contains the name, address, and social security number of the employee, and the name and address of, and identifying number assigned under section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to, the employer."
I also say that:
First, § 63-17-1210 conflicts with 42 U.S.C. § 653a. Second, in adopting this particular statute rather than the mandated statute South Carolina has violated Federal Law. And third, South Carolina employers who are not filing the appropriate reports are themselves in violation of Federal Law and may be facing severe fines.I look forward to reading your proposed Legislation.
----- Forwarded Message ----
From:
Cc: Sent: Wed, February 24, 2010 10:36:18 AM
Subject: RE: 42 U.S.C. § 653a and New Hire Reporting.
Mr. ,
Mr. L. no longer disagree with you completely. There are two state statutes, one that is permissive and one that is mandatory. Remedial legislation will be introduced by me in a few days that may please you.
Senator
Mr. L. no longer disagree with you completely. There are two state statutes, one that is permissive and one that is mandatory. Remedial legislation will be introduced by me in a few days that may please you.
Senator
From:
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2010 9:27 AM
To:
Cc: Tom Davis; Kathleen Hayes; Tony Bartelme; Yvonne Wenger; joconnor@thestate.com; Virginia Williamson; Rebecca Hamil; Will Folks; Seanna Adcox; Mike Fair; Gilda Cobb-Hunter; Anton Gunn; Joel Lourie; Phil P. Leventis
Subject: 42 U.S.C. § 653a and New Hire Reporting.
Senator :
Attached is a hard copy of the latest version of 42 U.S.C. § 653a.
Senator :
Attached is a hard copy of the latest version of 42 U.S.C. § 653a.
I understand that L disagrees with my interpretation of this statute regarding whether it mandates the filing of the New Hire Reporting Form* in South Carolina. And, while I continue to believe that South Carolina is on a disastrous course, I note that the Governor appoints the DSS Director and that DSS has its own well-paid General Counsel to assist it in complying with federal mandates. Therefore, I suggest that you present my “concerns” to Ms. Williamson and see what she has to say on this issue. Alternately, I suggest that you contact the Director of the Office of Child Support Enforcement of the United States Department of Health and Human Services on the subject. I tried to speak with her myself, but the switchboard operator would neither connect me with her nor provide a direct number.
For you information, the main number to CSE is 202-401-9200.
Good luck to you.
*See, second attachment.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Thursday, February 25, 2010
MORE USER FEES MAY BE ON THE WAY IN SOUTH CAROLINA
We call the readers' attention to "SC Fee Hike Alert: Court Cost Increases." We also call the readers' attention to "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE."
As readers may recall, Mr. Bardes takes exception to what he considers to be unlawful fee assessments by the South Carolina Family Courts. And while, as we have said before, we do not necessarily agree with either some of his methods or some of his conclusions, we think that Mr. Bardes has raised some interesting questions about unmonitored slush funds and hidden taxes in the form of Family Court "user fees." And, we also think that he has raised some interesting questions about the legality of some of the "fees" being levied in South Carolina Family Court.
We call the readers' attention to "SC Fee Hike Alert: Court Cost Increases." We also call the readers' attention to "DAVID BARDES: ANOTHER FATHER WHO IS MAD AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE."
As readers may recall, Mr. Bardes takes exception to what he considers to be unlawful fee assessments by the South Carolina Family Courts. And while, as we have said before, we do not necessarily agree with either some of his methods or some of his conclusions, we think that Mr. Bardes has raised some interesting questions about unmonitored slush funds and hidden taxes in the form of Family Court "user fees." And, we also think that he has raised some interesting questions about the legality of some of the "fees" being levied in South Carolina Family Court.
Labels: Lawsuits, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
MORE ON NEW HIRE REPORTING AND STATUTORY CONFLICTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Let us recap the situation.
Let us recap the situation.
42 U.S.C. § 653a, § 43-5-598 South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended), and this post to the South Carolina Child Support Enforcement Division website all indicate that filing of the New Hire Reporting Form is mandatory in South Carolina. However, the clear language of § 63-17-1210 South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended) indicates that participation in the “Employer New Hire Reporting Program” is discretionary with the employer. Specifically, §63-17-1210 titled "Employer new hire program," provides in relevant part:
(A) By January 1, 1996, the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Social Services shall create and develop an Employer New Hire Reporting program. The Employer New Hire Reporting program shall provide a means for employers to voluntarily assist in the state's efforts to locate absent parents who owe child support and collect child support from those parents by reporting information concerning newly hired and rehired employees directly to the division.
(B) The following provisions apply to the Employer New Hire Reporting program: (1)An employer doing business in this State may participate in the Employer New Hire Reporting program by reporting to the Child Support Enforcement Division (emphasis added).
Clearly this program is voluntary.
In short, there is a conflict between § 43-5-598 and § 63-17-1210 of South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended). The first South Carolina statute provides penalties for failure to file the New Hire Reporting Form. The second South Carolina statute provides that filing of the New Hire Reporting Form is voluntary.
In short, there is a conflict between § 43-5-598 and § 63-17-1210 of South Carolina Code Ann. (1976, as amended). The first South Carolina statute provides penalties for failure to file the New Hire Reporting Form. The second South Carolina statute provides that filing of the New Hire Reporting Form is voluntary.
We advised a South Carolina State Senator of our conclusions regarding the conflicts between these various statutes. We also provided copies of the two conflicting South Carolina statutes as well as a copy of 42 U.S.C. § 653a to him. And this is what he told us:
If a federal law conflicts with a state law, the federal law prevails. If a state law conflicts with a state law, the more recently passed law prevails. If it is possible to interpret two laws in a way they are not inconsistent, that interpretation of consistency must be adopted.
So let us apply these rules.
Again, we have established that § 63-17-1210--South Carolina’s New Hire Reporting Statute--does not mandate reporting of new hires. Moreover, we know that § 43-5-598 and § 63-17-1210 of the South Carolina Code cannot be reconciled. Additionally, it appears that § 63-17-1210 is the more recently enacted statute and is, therefore, the controlling South Carolina statute. So all we have to do is compare § 63-17-1210 with 42 U.S.C § 653a, “State Directory of New Hires” to determine whether South Carolina employers are required to file the New Hire Reporting Form. The federal statute provides in relevant part:
The conclusion that one must reach after comparing these various statutes and applying the rules of statutory construction provided by the un-named South Carolina State Senator is threefold. First, § 63-17-1210 conflicts with 42 U.S.C. § 653a. Second, in adopting this particular statute rather than the mandated statute South Carolina has violated Federal Law. And third, South Carolina employers who are not filing the appropriate reports are themselves in violation of Federal Law and may be facing severe fines.
(a) Establishment42 U. S. C § 653a required South Carolina, which had no New Hire Directory in 1996, to create such a Directory. Such a Directory now exists. However another provision of the PRWORA provides:
(1) In general
(A) Requirement for States that have no directory
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), not later than October 1, 1997, each State shall establish an automated directory (to be known as the “State Directory of New Hires”) which shall contain information supplied in accordance with subsection (b) of this section by employers on each newly hired employee (emphasis added).
(b) Employer informationThe referenced subparagraphs (B) and (C) set forth the duties of multi-state and federal employees and have no bearing on the duties of non-federal government employers who operate solely within the State of South Carolina. Those categories of employers—including fire departments, school districts, roofers, the Office of the Attorney General, homebuilders, lawyers, developers, newspapers, the South Carolina Legislature, and Dorchester County “shall furnish to the Directory of New Hires of the State in which a newly hired employee works, a report that contains the name, address, and social security number of the employee, and the name and address of, and identifying number assigned under section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to, the employer.”
(1) Reporting requirement
(A) In general
Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C), each employer shall furnish to the directory of New Hires of the State in which a newly hired employee works, a report that contains the name, address, and social security number of the employee, and the name and address of, and identifying number assigned under section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to, the employer (emphasis added).
The conclusion that one must reach after comparing these various statutes and applying the rules of statutory construction provided by the un-named South Carolina State Senator is threefold. First, § 63-17-1210 conflicts with 42 U.S.C. § 653a. Second, in adopting this particular statute rather than the mandated statute South Carolina has violated Federal Law. And third, South Carolina employers who are not filing the appropriate reports are themselves in violation of Federal Law and may be facing severe fines.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
ALABAMA V. SOUTH CAROLINA--A RACE TO THE BOTTOM
The population of Alabama and the population of South Carolina are similar in size, although Alabama's population is slightly higher. Each state has 1.4 % of the total child support cases in the United States. And, according to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, the amount of child support arrears in Alabama as of the end of FY 2008 was $2,391,239,402, whereas, the amount of child support arrears in South Carolina was $1,175,425,929.
At first blush, it appears that South Carolina is head and shoulders above Alabama in the area of child support collection. However, closer examination of the AFC data reveals that South Carolina's total child support arrearage is increasing by approximately $80,000,000 a year, whereas Alabama's total child support arrearage is increasing by approximately $40,000,000 a year. More important, unlike South Carolina, Alabama has instituted a mandatory New Hire Reporting Program and has also installed a computerized child support tracking and collection system to help reduce the child support arrearages and increase overall child support collection rates. Additionally, whereas Alabama has not been fined for its child support collection inadequacies, South Carolina has been fined in excess of $72,000,000 by the federal government with another $20,000,000 expected to be levied.
The population of Alabama and the population of South Carolina are similar in size, although Alabama's population is slightly higher. Each state has 1.4 % of the total child support cases in the United States. And, according to the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, the amount of child support arrears in Alabama as of the end of FY 2008 was $2,391,239,402, whereas, the amount of child support arrears in South Carolina was $1,175,425,929.
At first blush, it appears that South Carolina is head and shoulders above Alabama in the area of child support collection. However, closer examination of the AFC data reveals that South Carolina's total child support arrearage is increasing by approximately $80,000,000 a year, whereas Alabama's total child support arrearage is increasing by approximately $40,000,000 a year. More important, unlike South Carolina, Alabama has instituted a mandatory New Hire Reporting Program and has also installed a computerized child support tracking and collection system to help reduce the child support arrearages and increase overall child support collection rates. Additionally, whereas Alabama has not been fined for its child support collection inadequacies, South Carolina has been fined in excess of $72,000,000 by the federal government with another $20,000,000 expected to be levied.
A snapshot shows that Alabama is closer to the bottom than South Carolina. However, a motion picture shows South Carolina gaining in the race to the bottom.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Monday, February 22, 2010
THE REASON WHY SOUTH CAROLINA MAY NOT UNDERSTAND THE PRWORA
We--meaning the editorial "we"--were provided a copy of an e-mail to a South Carolina State Senator--who shall remain un-named--from an attorney for the South Carolina Senate--who shall also remain un-named. The e-mail was apparently a response to the Senator's request for an interpretation of the PRWORA and provided in relevant part:
We--meaning the editorial "we"--were provided a copy of an e-mail to a South Carolina State Senator--who shall remain un-named--from an attorney for the South Carolina Senate--who shall also remain un-named. The e-mail was apparently a response to the Senator's request for an interpretation of the PRWORA and provided in relevant part:
I have reviewed the information that [you provided].First, the federal law referred to in [the materials you provided] is the Personal Responsibility Work Reconcilliation [sic] Act of 1996. This was the welfare reform act enacted during the Clinton administration (1996) that significantly altered most welfare programs and eliminated many entitlements.I have not read the entire act, however, I have now thoroughly reviewed several summaries of the legislation, and I can find no requirement in the Act that mandates that state’s create and maintain a database like the one [described in the materials you provided] or that the State of Florida has enacted.
We were surprised to learn this attorney's opinion. But we were more surprised to learn that he had not read the applicable statute in its entirety and had instead relied upon unnamed secondary sources for his conclusion.
As our readers may have surmised, we disagree with the conclusions reached by the un-named attorney. We believe that there is support for our contention that federal law mandates that States enact legislation requiring new hire reporting both in the plain language of US CODE: Title 42, Section 653a. State Directory of New Hires and HHS fact sheet PRWORA. Additionally, we note that the Patterson letter posted on the South Carolina CSED website and additional information posted on the CSED website are both consistent information posted by HHS as well as our interpretation of the PRWORA.
We could very well be wrong in our interpretation of the new hire reporting requirements of the PRWORA. After all, we are not licensed to practice law and, as we have said before, do not even play a lawyer on T.V. Still, we know two things that the attorney for the South Carolina Senate apparently does not know. First, we know that a fundamental rule in statutory interpretation is that one first reads the statute at issue in its entirety before offering an opinion on the effect and substance of that statute. Second, we know of the existence of this link and have read the materials posted thereon. And because of what we know, we cannot help thinking that had the un-named South Carolina State Senator carefully reviewed the materials we provided to him, including the entire text of the PRWORA, he would understand the PRWORA himself.
We could very well be wrong in our interpretation of the new hire reporting requirements of the PRWORA. After all, we are not licensed to practice law and, as we have said before, do not even play a lawyer on T.V. Still, we know two things that the attorney for the South Carolina Senate apparently does not know. First, we know that a fundamental rule in statutory interpretation is that one first reads the statute at issue in its entirety before offering an opinion on the effect and substance of that statute. Second, we know of the existence of this link and have read the materials posted thereon. And because of what we know, we cannot help thinking that had the un-named South Carolina State Senator carefully reviewed the materials we provided to him, including the entire text of the PRWORA, he would understand the PRWORA himself.
In fairness to the un-named State Senator, however, we note that the South Carolina Department of Social Services employs a highly-paid General Counsel who has been aware of this problem for almost a year. Certainly, she is capable of alerting the part-time members of the South Carolina General Assembly--many of whom are not attorneys--of the potential problems with current or proposed legislation related to child support collection.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Sunday, February 21, 2010
"DEADBEAT" TABS ADDING UP IN SOUTH CAROLINA
We read the post “Deadbeat” Tabs Adding Up and would like to comment on it.
For the readers' information, most of the current South Carolina child support arrearage accrued before the recession hit. And the reason that it accrued has less to do with the current high unemployment rate in South Carolina than it does with the mismanagement at DSS. Simply stated, if the folks at DSS had been doing their jobs, South Carolina would not have been fined $72,000,000 by the federal government with another $20,000,000 in fines expected to come. Nor would there be an arrearage in excess of $1,200,000,000. Nor would there be 70,000 South Carolinians dodging their child support obligations.
It would take us hours to explain the severity of the Mess at the South Carolina DSS, but those who want a little taste of the magnitude of the problems and their causes might want to read "DEADBEAT PARENTS" TARGETED IN SOUTH CAROLINA, CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE CAMPBELL MAY HAVE MISSED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS, LINKS TO THE COMPLETE RESPONSES OF SC DSS TO BUDGET PROVISOS REGARDING COMPUTERIZED CHILD SUPPORT TRACKING AND COLLECTION SYSTEM, SOUTH CAROLINA CHILD (NON) SUPPORT--A CONTINUING PROBLEM, and THE MESS AT SC DSS--HOW THEY GOT THERE AND SOME THINGS TO DO ABOUT IT.
For the readers' information, most of the current South Carolina child support arrearage accrued before the recession hit. And the reason that it accrued has less to do with the current high unemployment rate in South Carolina than it does with the mismanagement at DSS. Simply stated, if the folks at DSS had been doing their jobs, South Carolina would not have been fined $72,000,000 by the federal government with another $20,000,000 in fines expected to come. Nor would there be an arrearage in excess of $1,200,000,000. Nor would there be 70,000 South Carolinians dodging their child support obligations.
It would take us hours to explain the severity of the Mess at the South Carolina DSS, but those who want a little taste of the magnitude of the problems and their causes might want to read "DEADBEAT PARENTS" TARGETED IN SOUTH CAROLINA, CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE CAMPBELL MAY HAVE MISSED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS, LINKS TO THE COMPLETE RESPONSES OF SC DSS TO BUDGET PROVISOS REGARDING COMPUTERIZED CHILD SUPPORT TRACKING AND COLLECTION SYSTEM, SOUTH CAROLINA CHILD (NON) SUPPORT--A CONTINUING PROBLEM, and THE MESS AT SC DSS--HOW THEY GOT THERE AND SOME THINGS TO DO ABOUT IT.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Dodging Child Support, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Welfare Reform
Saturday, February 20, 2010
PENNSYLVANIA REMAINS ON THE SOUTH CAROLINA DSS ABANDONED PROPERTY LIST
On April 9, 2009, we noted in "PENNSYLVANIA IS STILL LISTED ON SOUTH CAROLINA DSS ABANDONED PROPERTY LIST":
On April 9, 2009, we noted in "PENNSYLVANIA IS STILL LISTED ON SOUTH CAROLINA DSS ABANDONED PROPERTY LIST":
According to information posted at this site, South Carolina still has a check (or four) for Pennsylvania. If anyone knows how to get in touch with Pennsylvania, please provide that information to Larry McKeown at either 1-800-768-5858 or Larry.McKeown@dss.sc.gov.
The South Carolina Department of Social Services has come under fire lately and apparently no one at the CSED knows how to either conduct GOOGLE searches or to use Nationwide Directory assistance. So they can use all the help that they can get.
Out of curiosity, we checked the South Carolina Abandoned Property List this morning. To our surprise, Pennsylvania remains on that list.
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement
Friday, February 19, 2010
TABLE 6: CASES WITH ARREARS DUE AND CASES PAYING TOWARDS ARREARS, FY 2008
Members of the South Carolina General Assembly and the Director of the South Carolina CSED may want to review "Table 6: Cases With Arrears Due And Cases Paying Towards Arrears, FY 2008." This official federal government document indicates that over 62,000 South Carolinians are making no payments towards their child support arrears. Bad as this appears, it should be kept in mind that these figures only include active DSS cases and that they were compiled prior to the onset of the recession. Our guess is that there are currently another 20,000 to 30,000 non-custodial parents who are making no payments toward their child support arrears in South Carolina. And this does not include the private cases that are not handled by DSS.
Readers should keep in mind both that most custodial parents are women and that MANY SOUTH CAROLINA "DEADBEATS" ARE JUST "DEAD." So nobody may ever get money from some fathers. Additionally, as The Wall Street Journal reports, the recession may be hitting men harder than women. These combined facts should stimulate South Carolina to make more vigorous efforts to "get 'em while they're hot." The longer South Carolina waits to implement its computerized child support tracking and collection system and to require new hire reporting, the more difficulty it will have in collecting past due child support on behalf of some of its most needy and vulnerable citizens.
Members of the South Carolina General Assembly and the Director of the South Carolina CSED may want to review "Table 6: Cases With Arrears Due And Cases Paying Towards Arrears, FY 2008." This official federal government document indicates that over 62,000 South Carolinians are making no payments towards their child support arrears. Bad as this appears, it should be kept in mind that these figures only include active DSS cases and that they were compiled prior to the onset of the recession. Our guess is that there are currently another 20,000 to 30,000 non-custodial parents who are making no payments toward their child support arrears in South Carolina. And this does not include the private cases that are not handled by DSS.
Readers should keep in mind both that most custodial parents are women and that MANY SOUTH CAROLINA "DEADBEATS" ARE JUST "DEAD." So nobody may ever get money from some fathers. Additionally, as The Wall Street Journal reports, the recession may be hitting men harder than women. These combined facts should stimulate South Carolina to make more vigorous efforts to "get 'em while they're hot." The longer South Carolina waits to implement its computerized child support tracking and collection system and to require new hire reporting, the more difficulty it will have in collecting past due child support on behalf of some of its most needy and vulnerable citizens.
Labels: "Deadbeat Dads", Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Dodging Child Support, Institutional Mismanagement, Welfare Reform
Thursday, February 18, 2010
WASHINGTON STATE UNDERSTANDS THE NEW HIRE REPORTING PROVISIONS OF THE PRWORA
Not only does Washington State understand the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 related to new hire reporting, but it has enacted the legislation required of those states that desire to continue to receive federal aid for their welfare programs.
Compare the Washington statute with South Carolina Code Ann. §63-17-1210 (1976, as amended) titled "Employer new hire program." The South Carolina statute provides in relevant part:
Not only does Washington State understand the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 related to new hire reporting, but it has enacted the legislation required of those states that desire to continue to receive federal aid for their welfare programs.
Compare the Washington statute with South Carolina Code Ann. §63-17-1210 (1976, as amended) titled "Employer new hire program." The South Carolina statute provides in relevant part:
Obviously, South Carolina's New Hire Reporting Statute does not conform with the mandates set forth in the PRWORA. However, a simple fix is readily available. All South Carolina has to do is adopt the statutory scheme of Washington State. Or North Carolina. Or Georgia. Or Alabama. Or Florida. Or...(A) By January 1, 1996, the Child Support Enforcement Division of the Department of Social Services shall create and develop an Employer New Hire Reporting program. The Employer New Hire Reporting program shall provide a means for employers to voluntarily assist in the state's efforts to locate absent parents who owe child support and collect child support from those parents by reporting information concerning newly hired and rehired employees directly to the division.(B) The following provisions apply to the Employer New Hire Reporting program: (1) An employer doing business in this State may participate in the Employer New Hire Reporting program by reporting to the Child Support Enforcement Division(emphasis added).
Given that South Carolina has already been fined over $72 Million for its failure to come into compliance with the PRWORA--not to mention the national attention generated by the recent remarks of South Carolina's Lt. Governor on the need for welfare reform--one would think that South Carolina would want to make sure that it is abiding by previously enacted welfare reform laws. And, if South Carolina is incapable of creating the mandated legislation on its own, maybe it should look to the legislation of another State for guidance.
Labels: Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Problems at DSS, Welfare Reform
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
NC G.S. 110-129.2 CONFORMS WITH FEDERAL LAW
There is no question that the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Law fails to comply with the mandates of Federal Law because it does not require that South Carolina employers report new hires. And anyone who disagrees with us on this point is simply wrong. Moreover, not only does the South Carolina Depatment of Social Services agree that Federal Law requires new hire reporting in South Carolina, but the Legislatures of 49 other States apparently agree that Federal Law mandates that all States that accept Federal funding for welfare must both establish a New Hire Reporting Directory and require employers to report new hires and rehires.
We do not have time to either debate the issue or to try to convince the South Carolina Legislature of the correctness of our view concerning the deficiencies in the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Law. Still, we are hereby providing a model statute for South Carolina's use. Click here to access NC G.S. 110-129.2, which conforms with Federal Law.
We do not have time to either debate the issue or to try to convince the South Carolina Legislature of the correctness of our view concerning the deficiencies in the South Carolina New Hire Reporting Law. Still, we are hereby providing a model statute for South Carolina's use. Click here to access NC G.S. 110-129.2, which conforms with Federal Law.
Labels: Child Support Collection, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
NORTH CAROLINA UNDERSTANDS FEDERAL LAW--SOUTH CAROLINA DOES NOT
"New Hire Reporting Requirements" provides in relevant part:
"New Hire Reporting Requirements" provides in relevant part:
(NC) House Bill 301 is a mandatory State adaptation of the Welfare Reform Reconciliation Act of 1996 (HR. 3734). This act created a federal new hire reporting system to help locate employees who are subject to a child support withholding orders, and requires adoption of uniform state laws regarding interstate enforcement of child support orders. This act requires States to establish a Directory of New Hires by October 1, 1997. This state directories (sic) will report new hire information they receive to a National Directory of New Hires (emphasis added).
Thirteen years after the federal government mandated adoption of uniform state laws regarding interstate enforcement of child support orders, South Carolina still does not require that employers report new hires.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Monday, February 15, 2010
FLORIDA UNDERSTANDS THE NEW HIRE REPORTING PROVISIONS OF PRWORA
Not only does Florida understand the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 related to new hire reporting, but has enacted the legislation required of those states that desire to continue to receive federal aid for their welfare programs.
Hey, South Carolina, get with the program!
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Sunday, February 14, 2010
GEORGIA UNDERSTANDS THE FEDERAL NEW HIRE REPORTING LAW
Obviously, the State of Georgia understands the New Hire Reporting provisions of the PRWOR as set forth in US CODE Title 42, Section 653a. And not only does Georgia understand the Law, but it has enacted the legislation required by the PRWOR.
We wonder why South Carolina is having so much difficulty complying with US CODE, Title 42, Section 653a. One would think that the Federal Government's imposition of fines totalling $72 Million would convince South Carolina that the Feds are serious about welfare reform.
Labels: Federal Fines, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Saturday, February 13, 2010
ARIZONA UNDERSTANDS THE NEW HIRE REPORTING PROVISIONS OF PRWORA
Arizona understands the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 related to new hire reporting, Moreover, Arizona has enacted the legislation required of those states that desire to continue to receive federal aid for their child support programs.
Hey, South Carolina, get with the program!
Arizona understands the provisions of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 related to new hire reporting, Moreover, Arizona has enacted the legislation required of those states that desire to continue to receive federal aid for their child support programs.
Hey, South Carolina, get with the program!
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Friday, February 12, 2010
ALABAMA UNDERSTANDS THE FEDERAL NEW HIRE REPORTING LAW
Alabama understands the Federal New Hire Reporting Law and has made it easy for its citizens to both understand the law and comply with it. If Alabama can manage to do this, why can't South Carolina manage to do this?
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Thursday, February 11, 2010
TABLE 5--CURRENT AND ARREARS COLLECTIONS DUE AND DISTRIBUTED, FY 2008
Those who are interested, can click Table 5--Current and Arrears Collections Due and Distributed, FY 2008 to obtain the latest ACF statistics for child support arrearages throughout the United States. They will note that, according to the ACF, the total amount of back child support owed to South Carolinians was $1,175,425,929 as of the end of FY 2008. Although, this is a significant amount and the ACF calculations indicate that the total arrearage in South Carolina is increasing at about $80,000,000 per year, ACF fails to take into account that the past due child support accrues interest at 14% per annum; therefore, the current total child support arrearage in South Carolina is probably closer to $2,000,000,000.
South Carolina continues to be the only State that has failed to install the mandated computerized child support collection and tracking system. And as far as we can ascertain, South Carolina is the only State that does not require mandatory new hire reporting as mandated by the PRWORA.
South Carolina continues to be the only State that has failed to install the mandated computerized child support collection and tracking system. And as far as we can ascertain, South Carolina is the only State that does not require mandatory new hire reporting as mandated by the PRWORA.
Labels: Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
"STOP PUNISHING TAXPAYERS FOR CRIMINALS' ACTIONS"
We think "Stop punishing taxpayers for criminals' actions" sums it up pretty well. Unfortunately, we doubt that the South Carolina Legislature will ever make the recommended changes to the State prison system. There appear to be too many Law and Order panderers in the General Assembly who fail to see the big picture for real reform to occur. They are focused more on getting re-elected than on solving problems. They do not appear to understand that they are spending the State into poverty by jailing people who do not belong in jail.
We think "Stop punishing taxpayers for criminals' actions" sums it up pretty well. Unfortunately, we doubt that the South Carolina Legislature will ever make the recommended changes to the State prison system. There appear to be too many Law and Order panderers in the General Assembly who fail to see the big picture for real reform to occur. They are focused more on getting re-elected than on solving problems. They do not appear to understand that they are spending the State into poverty by jailing people who do not belong in jail.
We would like to be more hopeful on this topic. However, rather than creative problem solving, we anticipate the enactment of more Law and Order Legislation "designed to take criminals off the streets" and "stop the moral decay in America."
We are about to give up--throw in the towel. So we are hereby suggesting some new legislation to prevent more killings and violence. As The New York Times revealed, recent events in the Philippines clearly establish the need to outlaw the deadly combination of Karaoke and Sinatra before the epidemic of violence spreads to the United States.
Labels: Jail Overcrowding, Judicial Reform, Silly Laws
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
SEVERAL CHARLESTON AREA JUDGES ELECTED TO NEW TERMS
According to "Several Charleston area judges were elected to new terms Wednesday by the Legislature," "Lawmakers re-elected 9th Circuit Family Court judges Judy L. McMahon of Charleston and Jack A. Landis of Moncks Corner, while 1st Circuit Judge Diane Goodstein and 1st Circuit Family Court judges William J. Wylie Jr. and Nancy McLin, all of Summerville, also won new six-year terms."
Previously, State Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, had proposed delaying the elections because a lawsuit filed on behalf of Judge "Charlie" F. P. Andrews questioned the legality of the state's judicial screening process. However, "McConnell said legal research found there was 'minimal risk' in moving ahead with the elections."
Labels: Election of Judges, Judicial Reform
Monday, February 08, 2010
PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME RESOURCES
We have previously referenced the "Parental Alienation Syndrome" on a couple of occasions, but know little about it. So thanks to our reader Jeff for providing this link.
Labels: Parental Alienation Syndrome
Sunday, February 07, 2010
CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE CAMPBELL MAY HAVE MISSED CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS
Will Folks, former spokesman for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford, writes in "Campbell Child Support Questioned":
Anyway, giving [sic] that Campbell’s elevator has always stopped several floors short of the top, it wouldn’t surprise in the least to learn that he may have missed a child support payment here or there – as is being alleged by several sources close to the law firm where his former wife is employed.
From our perspective, the fact that Mr. Campbell may have gotten behind in his child support or may have missed a payment does not make him a "Deadbeat." As we have noted before, in these difficult economic times, many otherwise responsible folks are finding it difficult to meet their child support obligations. We would be concerned, however, if Mr. Campbell were to publicly demonstrate his ignorance of the Welfare Reform Act as did South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer. And, we would be more concerned if we were to learn that Mr. Campbell's businesses are not complying with the federal new hire reporting law and are helping 70,000 South Carolina "Deadbeats" avoid their responsibilities to their children.
Labels: "Deadbeat Dads", Child Support, Dodging Child Support, New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Saturday, February 06, 2010
"DEADBEAT PARENTS" TARGETED IN SOUTH CAROLINA
Phillip Caston of the Post and Courier wrote that South Carolina has approved $25 Million for a statewide computer system to track people who are delinquent in their child support payments. As explained in "Deadbeat parents targeted" :
Phillip Caston of the Post and Courier wrote that South Carolina has approved $25 Million for a statewide computer system to track people who are delinquent in their child support payments. As explained in "Deadbeat parents targeted" :
This is good news indeed for the South Carolina parents who are now collectively owed more than $1.5 Billion in back child support. Or it would have been if something had actually been done on this front after the article was first published on January 27, 2005. As it is, the child total support arrearage has more than doubled, additional federal fines have been levied, the economy has tanked, and the same incompetents who were in charge in 2005 are currently running the show at the South Carolina Child Support Enforcement Division. And to add insult to injury, South Carolina now owns the "distinction" of being the only State in the whole U. S. of A. that has failed to install a computerized child support collection and tracking system.South Carolina will spend $25 million on a computer database to record and track down deadbeat parents after being hit with more than $42 million in federal fines since 2001 for failing to implement such a system.The state Budget and Control Board on Tuesday approved the move, which will allow state and county governments to work together in collecting money from parents who are delinquent in their child support payments. The state will continue to pay the fines until the system is in place.
"We at DSS will have a partnership with the 46 clerks of courts for enforcing child support payments," said Larry McKeown, director of the child support enforcement division at the state Department of Social Services. "Rather than having to go to another county, they can access the information from anywhere."
Today, DSS and each of the state's 46 counties have their own computer systems. The new system will improve communication between DSS and county clerks of court.
"For example," McKeown said, "if we find a person and input them into our system, Charleston County can quit looking for them."
South Carolina parents owe more than $700 million in back child-support payments, with more than 70,000 people in the state dodging payments each year.
DSS had 17,446 active cases of non-custodial parents owing child support in 2004 for Charleston County. The department also had 6,517 active cases for Berkeley County and 3,681 active cases for Dorchester County last year.
DSS collected more than $247 million in payments last year. More than $35 million of that came from Charleston, Berkeley and Dorchester counties.
"The system will allow us to monitor and remediate delinquent accounts more rapidly," McKeown said. "Quicker response to a missed payment will accelerate efforts to get the non-custodial parent paying again."
South Carolina and California are the only states out of compliance with tracking deadbeat parents through a computer database. South Carolina tried to build a $43 million system in 1994, but the private contractor hired to do the work didn't create it. The state sued the contractor, getting back $17 million.
The Budget and Control Board on Tuesday authorized a 10-year contract for the database, with South Carolina paying about $25 million and the federal government picking up the rest of the more than $100 million cost, according to Michael Sponhour, spokesman for the Budget and Control Board.
Gov. Mark Sanford has proposed using $11.5 million from the state's capital reserve fund to pay some of the cost.
One of the more effective ways of getting child-support payments is by withholding wages, a method that should work even more efficiently with the new system, McKeown said.
"With a statewide system," McKeown said, "DSS will enter the data and when it matches a case anywhere in the state, the automated system will generate a wage withholding notice to the employer the same day."
Labels: Child Support Collection, Custody, Federal Fines, Institutional Mismanagement, Welfare Reform
Friday, February 05, 2010
SC DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES RECEIVES FEDERAL GRANT
According to "SC agency gets grant to help with social services," South Carolina is getting a federal grant to, among other things, "help foster children turning 18 make an easier transition into adulthood." Some of this grant money will be spent on locating mentors for children who are about to "age" out of foster care to assist them in making the transition to adulthood.
On its face, this appears to be a wise allocation of limited government resources. But wouldn't it be even better if South Carolina would make even a modest effort to locate the 70,000 or so "Deadbeats" who owe approximately $1.5 Billion in child support to South Carolinians and make them abide by their legal and moral obligations?
Labels: Child Support Collection, Computerized Child Support System, Institutional Mismanagement, Welfare Reform
Thursday, February 04, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY ATTEMPTS TO REIN IN HIDDEN FEES AND TAXES
The South Carolina Senate recently passed Senate Bill 517. This bill now goes to the South Carolina House, where the similar House Bill 3576 is still under consideration. Both bills would require that all fee increases by state agencies, departments, and entities be approved by the General Assembly before their implementation.
We applaud the South Carolina General Assembly for its efforts in this area. While some folks argue that implementation of "user fees" is sound public policy, we oppose them because, among other things, we are cognisant both of the potential for abuse and the difficulty in monitoring the practice of imposing user fees.
The South Carolina Senate recently passed Senate Bill 517. This bill now goes to the South Carolina House, where the similar House Bill 3576 is still under consideration. Both bills would require that all fee increases by state agencies, departments, and entities be approved by the General Assembly before their implementation.
We applaud the South Carolina General Assembly for its efforts in this area. While some folks argue that implementation of "user fees" is sound public policy, we oppose them because, among other things, we are cognisant both of the potential for abuse and the difficulty in monitoring the practice of imposing user fees.
Labels: User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Wednesday, February 03, 2010
SOUTH CAROLINA PANEL URGES CHANGES IN SENTENCING
According to an article* in The Post and Courier, "South Carolina prison beds should be reserved for the most violent offenders, the state's Sentencing Reform Commission recommended Tuesday." The article continues:
We agree-South Carolina "can do better" in adressing the related issues of jail overcrowding and budget shortfalls. Whether it will or not is the question. Unfortunately, our prediction is that as long as incarcerating people for minor offenses is a profit-making enterprise and allows for the imposition of unmonitored "user fees," reforms will not occur. This is especially true in the area of child support collection.Certain nonviolent offenders, such as drug users, should be given alternative sentences, including probation and community service, and geriatric and terminally ill inmates should be released to make room for murderers, drug traffickers and rapists, according to the commission's long-awaited report (emphasis added).
Such moves would save more than $92 million dollars in prison operations in the next five years and prevent the need to build a $317 million jailhouse, the report said.
The savings could be shifted to the currently overwhelmed probation and parole system, but the money to keep a better watch on criminals out on the street won't be immediately available.
The report** calls for the Legislature to adopt a package of 24 recommendations that came from the commission's study of the upsurge in repeat offenders, the overcrowding of state and local jails, the increase in inmates incarcerated for nonviolent offenses, the lack of alternative sentences and the impact of the prolonged budget slump in South Carolina.
Key findings also include classifying 24 additional crimes as violent offenses and requiring probation and parole agents to perform specific risk assessments that evidence has found strongly indicate a person's likelihood to commit future crimes.
State Sen. Gerald Malloy, a Hartsville Democrat who led the commission through it's yearlong study, said he is optimistic that the Legislature can put significant reforms in place before its adjourn this summer.
"We can do better," he said. "'We cannot afford to build new prisons in South Carolina, but we also can't afford not to keep our citizens safe."
*Read the entire article here.
Labels: Child Support Collection, User Fees/Hidden Taxes
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
NEW HIRE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS OF PRWORA AS EXPLAINED BY NORTH CAROLINA
As indicated here, "Under...the Federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) all public, private, non-profit, and government employers are required to report the following individuals":
New employees: Employers must report all employees who reside or work in the State of North Carolina to whom the employer anticipates paying earnings. Employees should be reported even if they work only one day and are terminated (prior to the employer fulfilling the new hire reporting requirement).
Re-hires or Re-called employees: Employers must report re-hires, or employees who return to work after being laid off, furloughed, separated, granted a leave without pay, or terminated from employment. Employers must also report any employee who remains on the payroll during a break in service or gap in pay, and then returns to work. This includes teachers, substitutes, seasonal workers, etc.
Temporary employees: Temporary agencies are responsible for reporting any employee who they hire to report for an assignment. Employees need to be reported only once; they do not need to be re-reported each time they report to a new client. They do need to be reported as a re-hire if the worker has a break in service or gap in wages from your company.
Labels: New Hire Reporting, Welfare Reform
Monday, February 01, 2010
SC LT. GOV. BAUER IS IGNORANT AND "DON'T CARE"
According to Reporter Tim Smith of The Greenville News, "Records don't support Bauer's remarks on needy.
According to Reporter Tim Smith of The Greenville News, "Records don't support Bauer's remarks on needy.
For the readers' convenience, we have posted the entire text of Mr. Smith's article hereinbelow and highlighted what we consider to be the most shocking sections of the article--the ones that support our contention that South Carolina Lt. Governor Andre Bauer is ignorant and "don't care."
________________________________________________________________
Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer's comments that welfare programs in the state are out of control and recipients face no repercussions once enrolled largely don't square with the numbers, a review of state records shows.
People on welfare don't get rewarded for having babies, the number of those receiving benefits has declined dramatically and South Carolina welfare recipients face some of the toughest limitations in the nation, according to records of the state Department of Social Services.
Bauer ignited controversy when he drew comparisons between people receiving government assistance and "stray animals" during a recent appearance at a Fountain Inn town hall meeting.
The lieutenant governor later said he could have chosen a better "metaphor," though he stood behind his basic position that more needs to be done to break the cycle of government dependency.
The Greenville News checked Bauer's speech and statements on government aid against available records and information about government programs operating in South Carolina to separate fact from political myth.
Some of his assertions were correct, such as the number of voters now outnumbering the number of workers in the state. However, other statements appeared tied to the welfare programs of the 1980s and early 1990s that were overhauled in a 1996 federal reform effort.
"A lot of what was said was somewhat true prior to welfare reform," said Linda Martin, state director of DSS welfare, food stamps and child-care programs. "But we have worked really hard to change the program and I think we really have."
Records show the state's primary welfare program rolls are less than half the number they were before federal welfare reform.
Bauer issued a two-sentence statement defending his position.
"While reform efforts of the early '90s were a good start, they were only mildly effective and frankly, we still have a cycle of dependency," he said. "There are numerous public assistance programs and some of them hurt as much as they help."
Bauer's most controversial passage in the speech used a metaphor to address the issue of government dependency.
"My grandmother was not a highly educated woman, but she told me as a small child to quit feeding stray animals," he said. "You know why? Because they breed. You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a person ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that. And so what you've got to do is you've got to curtail that type of behavior. They don't know any better."
Bauer later said he did not regret his comments at the town hall meeting but said "maybe the 'stray animals' wasn't the best metaphor."
Bauer's major argument, then and since, is that dependency on government benefit programs needs to be addressed. In the speech, he suggested that parents of children participating in free or reduced-price meal programs at school be required to attend PTA meetings and parent-teacher conferences.
"Look, folks, if you receive goods or services from the government and you don't attend a parent-teacher conference, bam, you lose your benefits," Bauer told the crowd of about 115.
In 1995, the last full year before reform, the state had 50,025 welfare cases. That number declined to a low of 14,313 cases in 2007 and has since risen to 20,648 with the recession, according to DSS records.
The amount spent on welfare also is a small fraction of the state's budget. The annual cost of the state's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, what most people think of as welfare, is about $38 million for the state, $32 million in various support services offered by state agencies and $6 million in direct welfare aid.
The federal government pays $44 million for the program, Martin said. The $38 million amounts to less than 1 percent of the state's $5 billion General Fund budget, most of which is spent on K-12 education and Medicaid.
The numbers of people on food stamps, welfare and subsidized school meals have increased in recent years, officials say. Statewide, 58 percent of students participate in the free and reduced-price school meal program, up from 54 percent two years ago.
But the increases, they say, are due to a recession and a record 12.6 percent unemployment rate that has left nearly 300,000 people in the state without jobs and ranks as the fourth-highest jobless rate in the nation.
Bauer noted in his speech that schools in which high numbers of students participate in the Free and Reduced Meals Program also have the worst test scores.
True enough, said Jim Foster, spokesman for the state Department of Education, who said there is a direct correlation between schools with the poorest students and schools with the poorest scores. But he said the problem is chiefly one of parents of poor students who are uneducated, not that most do not care about what their children do in school.
Debbie Elmore, spokeswoman for the South Carolina School Boards Association, said the issue is far more complicated than requiring drug tests and meeting attendance for parents.
"I don't think it's as simple as pointing to one thing," she said. "It's not just parental participation. It's a lot of things."
The amount of instruction time, the quality of teachers and leaders at the school, attendance by students, the health of students and after-school instruction are among the factors that determine a school's success where most of the students come from a background of poverty, she said.
Bauer said in his speech that fixing the problem of poor students' low scores is one of holding parents more accountable for their benefits and fixing the system so that recipients can't take advantage of it.
"We are a compassionate people, and we will always take care of those who are truly needy, as we should," he said in a statement posted on his campaign blog. "But there are also those who are not truly needy, merely lazy or greedy, who are taking advantage of the system. And, unfortunately, the system is actually designed to encourage them to take advantage of it."
In his speech, Bauer said much the same thing. Right now, he argued, "If you receive goods and services from the government, there are no repercussions."
Not true, according to DSS welfare requirements.
Those receiving benefits can only receive them for two years during any 10-year stretch. Able-bodied recipients must work or be in job training at least 30 hours per week or their benefits stop. Parents are asked to attend school meetings, help with homework and request help if their children are having school difficulties.
Recipients who are identified with alcohol or drugs are ineligible for benefits, unless they agree to participate in a treatment program and make good progress in the program.
South Carolina provides one of the lowest assistance checks in the nation, according to DSS. A mother of two children receives a maximum of $271 per month to pay for rent, utilities, clothing and all other needs except food.
Labels: Welfare Reform
