Connect with us

Politics

Column: California must stop taking away child support from kids and families

Published

on

Column: California must stop taking away child support from kids and families

This appears counterintuitive in such a liberal state, nevertheless it’s a truth: California rips off little one help funds supposed for mothers who obtain authorities assist.

It’s largely Washington’s fault due to a federal legislation enacted practically a half-century in the past.

Not solely California, however most states interact on this shameful heist primarily based on federal pointers.

They seize little one help cash not solely from these moms, however others who used to obtain authorities assist and have gotten off it.

Advertisement

To Gov. Gavin Newsom’s credit score, he’s proposing to go partway in righting this improper. He’s asking for laws to permit former assist recipients to obtain all of the little one help they’re entitled to. However present recipients would proceed to have their funds docked.

The governor and Legislature ought to do the morally right factor and allow all little one help — whether or not for former or present assist beneficiaries — to go the place it’s imagined to: the youngsters. Not authorities vaults.

“We now have this huge, elaborate little one help system that doesn’t give the cash to the youngsters,” says Michael Herald, coverage director for the Western Heart on Legislation and Poverty. “They forgot the phrase ‘little one.’

“Ask the general public, ‘The place do you assume the cash goes when the federal government collects little one help?’ ‘It goes to children.’ No. It doesn’t.”

A lot of the public doesn’t have a clue about this, I think. Most, that’s, besides the moms — or in some instances fathers — who’re on CalWORKs, the state’s main monetary help program. They’re well-aware of the shortchanging.

Advertisement

So are the dads — or typically the mothers — who’re ordered to pay little one help. They resent — and infrequently resist — spending meager cash to pad authorities checking accounts reasonably than assist their children.

This sorry authorities observe had escaped me till lately, once I learn Instances reporter Mackenzie Mays’ completely researched piece.

To resolve this, you’ve acquired to wade via numerous indecipherable gunk crafted in obscure governmentese. I’ll attempt to keep away from that entice right here.

Mainly, the federal authorities in 1975 required that every one mothers or dads who utilized for money help additionally open a toddler help case. Even when the non-custodial dad or mum was already making common funds. And no matter whether or not the mother didn’t wish to, maybe fearing the dad’s reprisal.

The feds wished to verify the kid help funds stored flowing. States had been assigned the job of amassing the cash, typically via counties.

Advertisement

Then the mugging: Governments break up a lot of the gathering to partially reimburse themselves for his or her public help prices.

This scheme was reaffirmed in President Clinton’s 1996 “Welfare to Work” reform.

Till January, California allowed solely $50 of month-to-month little one help to “move via” to the households. Then the quantity was raised to $100 for a household with one little one and $200 for these with two or extra children. Any funds above that, the state grabs.

Sacramento retains half for itself, sends 45% to Washington and the counties get 5%.

It’s a bit completely different for mothers who’ve gotten off assist however are nonetheless owed little one help. If it’s cash that’s overdue — funds that had been skipped whereas the household was receiving CalWORKs checks — the state takes all of it. If a cost is updated, all of it goes to the household.

Advertisement

However that is getting too deep within the weeds.

Greg Wilson, govt director of the Little one Help Administrators Assn., places it in perspective: “The state and federal governments acquired used to the income that this program generates. It’s troublesome to shift coverage.”

“However that is 2022,” he provides. “In 1975, we didn’t assume this was rooster. Our understanding of easy methods to help kids has developed. It’d be horrible if what we thought was good in ’75, we nonetheless thought was good.”

Newsom agrees, at the least partly.

He proposes to permit all former CalWORKs households to obtain the complete little one help they’re entitled to, whether or not it’s in arrears or on time. The state Legislative Analyst Workplace estimates that 69,000 households would profit.

Advertisement

Neither the state, the feds or counties would take a lower. Federal legislation permits that.

It could imply $187 million for households. And the state basic fund can be $105 million quick in “reimbursements.”

However that doesn’t assist the households at present receiving CalWORKs advantages. They’d nonetheless be stiffed.

Month-to-month assist is round $800 for many households of a mom and little one residing in a high-cost county, in accordance with state knowledge. Newsom has proposed a 7% enhance. However they need to additionally get their full little one help.

That might price the state an estimated $150 million — half of it a required kickback to the feds.

Advertisement

“It’s nice to present cash to households that was on welfare,” Herald says. “However they’re typically doing higher than households nonetheless on it — the poorest households within the state. We’re not saying don’t do what the governor proposed. Go forward. However don’t go away these different children out, for God’s sake.”

Colorado determined 5 years in the past to permit assist recipients their full share of kid help. To nobody’s shock, the dads felt higher about paying — and more and more did.

“Collections went up way over anticipated,” says Chaer Robert, legislative director for the Colorado Heart on Legislation and Coverage. “Fathers knew the cash was going to their children, not the federal government.”

Newsom and Democratic legislators are all the time pushing children’ packages — little one improvement, transitional kindergarten …

They need to cease snatching the youngsters’ little one help.

Advertisement

Politics

Appeals court will not block partial release of special counsel Jack Smith's Trump report

Published

on

Appeals court will not block partial release of special counsel Jack Smith's Trump report

A federal appeals court rejected a bid to block the release of a portion of special counsel Jack Smith’s final report detailing his investigation and prosecution of President-elect Trump’s alleged 2020 election interference and alleged improper retention of classified records. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit denied a request from Walt Nauta, an aide to Trump, and Carlos de Oliveira, the former property manager at Mar-a-Lago, who were charged with obstructing a separate federal investigation into Trump’s handling of sensitive government records. 

The court left a three-day hold on DOJ’s release of the report.

JUDGE GRANTS JACK SMITH REQUEST TO DISMISS JAN. 6 CHARGES AGAINST TRUMP, APPEAL DROPPED IN FLORIDA DOCS CASE

Jack Smith, U.S. special counsel, speaks during a news conference in Washington, D.C., Aug. 1, 2023. (Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The Justice Department said it would proceed with plans to release the first of two volumes centered on the election interference case but would make the classified documents section of the report available only to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees for their private review as long as the case against Trump’s co-defendants is ongoing.

It was not immediately clear when the election interference report might be released.

The election interference case was narrowed by a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, which ruled that former presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Following Trump’s presidential victory, Smith’s team abandoned both cases in November, citing Justice Department policy that prohibits federal prosecutions of sitting presidents.

TRUMP SAYS HE RESPECTS SUPREME COURT’S DECISION TO DENY HIS RESQUEST TO STOP SENTENCING, VOWS TO APPEAL

Advertisement

Justice Department regulations call for special counsels appointed by the attorney general to submit a confidential report at the conclusion of their investigations. It is then up to the attorney general to decide what to make public.

Attorney General Merrick Garland has made public in their entirety the reports produced by special counsels who operated under his watch, including Robert Hur’s report on President Joe Biden’s handling of classified information and John Durham’s report on the FBI’s Russian election interference investigation.

Trump mar-a-lago

President-elect Donald Trump speaks during a news conference at Mar-a-Lago, Tuesday, Jan. 7, 2025, in Palm Beach, Fla.  (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

In a statement, Trump Communications Director Steven Cheung said that it was time to “put a final stop to the political weaponiziation of our Justice system.”

“Deranged Jack Smith was sent packing after losing both of his Witch Hunts against President Trump. Deranged was unconstitutionally appointed and paid for, so he cannot be allowed to do anything more in perpetuation of his election-interfering hoaxes, let alone prepare an unconstitutional, one-sided, falsehood-ridden screed,” he said.

Advertisement

“Today’s decision by the 11th Circuit keeps Judge Cannon’s injunction in place and prevents any report from being issued. It is time for Joe Biden and Merrick Garland to do the right thing and put a final stop to the political weaponization of our Justice system,” Cheung said. “The American People elected President Trump with a historic and overwhelming mandate, and we look forward to uniting our country in the new Administration as President Trump makes America great again.” 

Fox News’ Brooke Signman and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court turns down Trump plea to block New York sentencing for hush money conviction

Published

on

Supreme Court turns down Trump plea to block New York sentencing for hush money conviction

The Supreme Court on Thursday turned down President-elect Donald Trump’s plea to block a New York judge from sentencing him Friday on his felony conviction in a hush-money case.

The vote was 5-4, with conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh saying they would have granted Trump’s request.

The decision means Trump will be the first president to have a felony on his record when he takes the oath of office on Jan. 20.

The majority in an unsigned opinion said Trump is still free to appeal his conviction later and said the sentencing hearing will not pose much of a burden, since he need not attend.

Trump’s lawyers filed an emergency appeal on Wednesday that rested on a thin claim of immunity.

Advertisement

Last year, the justices ruled that a president or ex-president was immune from criminal charges for his “official acts” while in office.

This week, Trump’s lawyers argued the justices should extend the immunity rule to shield the president-elect from being held accountable now for a private criminal scheme that began before his election as president.

A New York jury found Trump guilty of falsifying business records, a crime under New York law. He wrote checks to Michael Cohen, his former personal lawyer, to repay him for a $130,000 payment to an adult film star to buy her silence prior to the 2016 election. The payments were listed as legal expenses.

Jurors convicted him on 34 counts.

Trump’s trial lawyers urged Judge Juan Merchan to delay his sentencing until after the November election.

Advertisement

Once Trump won the election, they argued the incoming president had an immunity from all the pending criminal cases, including his felony conviction.

New York prosecutors had urged the court on Thursday to deny Trump’s “extraordinary immunity claim.”

“While he was a private citizen, defendant [Trump] was charged, tried, and convicted for conduct that he concedes is wholly unofficial,” they said. In his appeal, he “makes the unprecedented claim that the temporary presidential immunity he will possess in the future fully immunizes him now,” before he is sworn in as president again, they said.

On Tuesday, the day before his attorneys filed their emergency appeal in the high court, Trump arranged to speak with Alito about one of his former clerks. Alito confirmed the call to ABC News.

“William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding [Levi’s] qualifications to serve in a government position,” Alito said. “I agreed to discuss this matter with President-elect Trump, and he called me yesterday afternoon.”

Advertisement

He said they did not discuss the “emergency application” regarding Trump’s New York sentencing, which had not been filed yet at the court.

“I was not even aware at the time of our conversation that such an application would be filed,” Alito said. “We also did not discuss any other matter that is pending or might in the future come before the Supreme Court or any past Supreme Court decisions involving the president-elect.”

Alito cast a vote in favor of Trump.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Inside Trump’s Search for a Health Threat to Justify His Immigration Crackdown

Published

on

Inside Trump’s Search for a Health Threat to Justify His Immigration Crackdown

President-elect Donald J. Trump is likely to justify his plans to seal off the border with Mexico by citing a public health emergency from immigrants bringing disease into the United States.

Now he just has to find one.

Mr. Trump last invoked public health restrictions, known as Title 42, in the early days of the pandemic in 2020, when the coronavirus was tearing across the globe. As he prepares to enter office again, Mr. Trump has no such public health disaster to point to.

Still, his advisers have spent recent months trying to find the right disease to build their case, according to four people familiar with the discussions. They have looked at tuberculosis and other respiratory diseases as options and have asked allies inside the Border Patrol for examples of illnesses that are being detected among migrants.

They also have considered trying to rationalize Title 42 by arguing broadly that migrants at the border come from various countries and may carry unfamiliar disease — an assertion that echoes a racist notion with a long history in the United States that minorities transmit infections. Mr. Trump’s team did not respond to a request for comment.

Advertisement

The plan to invoke the border restrictions based on sporadic cases of illness or even a vague fear of illness — rather than a major disease outbreak or pandemic — would amount to a radical use of the public health measure in pursuit of an immigration crackdown. Even when the coronavirus was spreading, the use of the health authority to turn away migrants prompted scrutiny from the courts and public health officials.

But Mr. Trump’s immigration advisers, led by Stephen Miller, his pick to be deputy chief of staff, believe they are entering a political environment that will welcome more aggressive border enforcement, particularly after some Democrats embraced using restrictions like Title 42, according to people familiar with the planning. President Biden used it to turn away thousands of migrants before eventually deciding to lift it, well after his public health advisers said the restrictions were no longer useful for the purpose of stopping the spread of disease.

Title 42, which is part of the Public Service Act of 1944, grants power to health authorities to block people from entering the United States when it is necessary to avert a “serious danger” posed by the presence of a communicable disease in foreign countries.

Mr. Miller has long considered Title 42 a key tool for his goal of shuttering the border to migration. He has essentially been on a yearslong quest to find enough examples of diseases among migrants to justify the use of the law.

Even before the spread of the coronavirus, Mr. Miller asked aides to keep tabs on American communities that welcomed migrants to see if diseases broke out there. He seized on an outbreak of mumps in immigration detention facilities in 2019 to push for using the public health law to seal the border. He was talked down in most of the cases by cabinet secretaries and lawyers — until the advent of the coronavirus.

Advertisement

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, not the White House, is responsible for assessing whether the public health rule is necessary at the border. And even when the pandemic spread throughout the United States, C.D.C. officials pushed back on the Trump White House’s position that turning away migrants was an effective way to prevent the spread of diseases.

Martin Cetron, the director of the agency’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine, told a House committee that the implementation of the border restrictions “came from outside the C.D.C. subject matter experts” and was “handed to us” by the White House.

When Mr. Biden came into office, he initially kept the public health rule in place at the border, even when C.D.C. officials told his top aides there was no clear public health rationale for keeping the border shut to asylum seekers. Both the Biden and Trump administrations argued the rule was needed to prevent the spread of diseases in detention facilities at the border. But Mr. Biden’s top White House aides were privately concerned that lifting the rule would lead to a surge in migration.

During his second stint in the White House, Mr. Trump’s team will focus on avoiding such pushback. He is intent on installing loyalists throughout his administration who are unlikely to try to stop his more aggressive proposals.

In an interview with The New York Times in 2023, Mr. Miller sounded confident that the public would be accepting of Mr. Trump’s invoking Title 42. He said the new administration intended to use the law, citing “severe strains of the flu, tuberculosis, scabies, other respiratory illnesses like R.S.V. and so on, or just a general issue of mass migration being a public health threat and conveying a variety of communicable diseases.”

Advertisement

Mr. Trump’s attempt to deter migration based on public health, even without a clear disease to justify its use, is just one expected piece of a flurry of Day 1 executive actions that his team is developing to crack down on immigration.

Mr. Trump’s advisers have also discussed declaring a national emergency to free up Department of Defense funds and move military personnel, aircraft and other resources to the border. They also want to revive a policy that forced migrants to wait in Mexico, rather than the United States, until their immigration court date — although they would need Mexico to agree to such a deal.

Mr. Trump’s immigration advisers received a briefing on such border restrictions — as well as the use of the public health emergency restrictions — during a recent meeting with homeland security officials as a part of the transition between administrations, according to a person familiar with the matter. After exiting a meeting with Senate Republicans on Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump said he would close the border on his first day in office.

Some immigration experts have questioned how effective the public health rule was in driving down border crossings.

From the time Title 42 was enacted in 2020 until it was lifted in 2023, border officials expelled people more than 2.5 million times. Biden administration officials have publicly argued that the use of Title 42 at the southern border drove an increase in migrants attempting to cross the border multiple times, a practice known as recidivism.

Advertisement

Blas Nuñez-Neto, a White House official, said that in that way, Title 42 “may have” actually led to an increase in border crossings that the administration struggled to handle.

The current state at the border has been particularly calm, especially when compared to the numbers seen a year ago. Border agents made more than 47,000 arrests in December, according to a senior U.S. Customs and Border Protection official, a major drop from the previous year when nearly 250,000 such arrests were made.

Biden officials put into place a measure banning asylum for those who crossed the southern border starting this summer. It can only be lifted if crossing numbers drop to a certain threshold for several weeks, something that still has yet to happen.

Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan contributed reporting.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending