Connect with us

Politics

Why flush California still takes child support from low-income families 

Published

on

Even in a time of funds surplus, California takes cash from baby assist meant for low-income households and retains it in state coffers.

The state typically requires households enrolled in CalWORKs, the state’s public help program, to open a baby assist case in order that the federal government can later “get better” the price from the noncustodial father or mother — normally the father — as a kind of reimbursement to itself for that money assist.

Now, Gov. Gavin Newsom is attempting to chip away on the coverage, formed by a 1975 federal legislation that created a baby assist enforcement program with a give attention to “welfare value restoration.” However the governor’s plans cease in need of giving households on public help full entry to their baby assist funds with out state intervention.

Advertisement

Public help and baby assist are all however inextricable. The packages are so intertwined that when a baby’s major caretaker, who is usually the mom, seeks to enroll in CalWORKs, she’s usually pressured to open a baby assist case with the intention to guarantee the federal government is reimbursed — even when she doesn’t wish to.

One mom in San Diego County, who requested to not be named for security causes, stated she was proof against pursue baby assist for her 4-year-old as a result of she has a restraining order towards his father, but it surely was the one approach she may obtain money assist and providers from CalWORKs.

“When you don’t have [a child support case] open, they mechanically pursue it for you. It’s non-negotiable, and the logic is: We’ll assist you to, however any individual’s obtained to pay us again,” she stated. “So many individuals that I do know don’t pursue getting assist due to that requirement.”

States can provide extra money to low-income households than the federal authorities typically permits — so long as they’re keen to pay for it.

In an effort to give these households full baby assist funds, the state must discover a method to make up for the income that baby assist collections usher in, plus ship the federal authorities a examine for its portion, totaling no less than $150 million, in response to the California Division of Little one Help Companies.

Advertisement

The state’s funds for the 2022-23 12 months is $286.4 billion.

No less than 175,000 low-income households in California are eligible for less than a portion of kid assist as a result of in addition they obtain public help. The remainder goes to the state, counties and the federal authorities.

As much as 620,000 further households may obtain entry to their full baby assist quantity beneath a proposal in Newsom’s funds unveiled final month. The proposal would direct baby assist to oldsters who beforehand obtained public help — lots of whom not qualify although they keep low incomes.

When a father or mother leaves the CalWORKs program, the state can not hold a few of their baby assist funds. But when the noncustodial father or mother did not sustain with the required funds, the state continues to take a portion of the cash to cowl the price of the sooner help.

Mother and father who at present or beforehand obtained authorities help represent greater than 75% of the kid assist caseload in California, in response to the state Division of Finance.

Advertisement

“When the father or mother who’s not dwelling with the kids makes a cost, which all of us need them to do, the kids don’t get the cash,” stated Mike Herald, director of coverage advocacy for the Western Heart on Legislation & Poverty. “The general public doesn’t perceive this. Individuals suppose that the explanation we now have a harsh baby assist system is so we will get cash to children, however really it’s to get cash to the federal government.”

A custodial father or mother who has by no means obtained CalWORKs assist will get to maintain the complete quantity of baby assist.

Dana Maciel, a scholar on the West Hills Neighborhood Faculty District in Coalinga who has 4 kids ages 1 to 12, known as the coverage “emotionally draining.”

Maciel, a CalWORKs recipient, stated that she feels punished for being poor. The system pushes dad and mom to work their approach out of needing public help solely to proceed to take from them once they not want it, she stated.

“You labored so onerous for nothing. The state nonetheless takes it away. It’s pointless,” she stated. “It comes to some extent the place you find yourself being again within the system. They are saying they wish to assist you to but it surely doesn’t actually really feel like that.”

Advertisement

In 2020, Newsom moved to extend the quantity that households enrolled in CalWORKs obtain in baby assist from $50 to $100 for one baby and $200 for 2 or extra kids — the utmost quantity the federal authorities is keen to cross via to households with out requiring the state to backfill the monetary loss.

Different states, together with Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, provide that very same most quantity to households.

Within the San Diego County mom’s case, her baby’s father pays about $350 a month in baby assist, primarily based on his revenue, however she is solely eligible to obtain as much as $100. Earlier than Newsom’s coverage kicked in final month, she obtained simply $50 per thirty days.

Colorado offers 100% of kid assist to households on help, and to make up for it, dedicates a portion of its state funds every year to cowl the federal requirement. The Colorado Division of Human Companies reported that within the first two years of implementation, households obtained $11.7 million greater than that they had earlier than and baby assist funds elevated as paying dad and mom had been extra inclined to pay once they knew the cash went on to households and never the federal government.

Half of all states don’t cross on any baby assist to households on help, and a few states present lower than California, in response to the Nationwide Convention of State Legislatures.

Advertisement

Newsom’s funds proposes that the California Division of Little one Help Companies waive its share of “recoupment” for households that previously obtained CalWORKs help, which might end in a income lack of $52.3 million for the state within the coming fiscal 12 months and greater than $104 million in ongoing funds by redirecting the cash to the meant households as a substitute of maintaining it in state coffers.

“Offering these funds on to households could assist low-income households scale back the burden of high-cost debt and stabilize their monetary place,” Newsom wrote in his funds.

However households at present enrolled in CalWORKs would nonetheless have a portion of their baby assist funds intercepted by the state.

The Newsom administration has pointed to federal guidelines as a hindrance to doing extra, however father or mother and anti-poverty advocates are pushing the state, which is now flush with money, to observe Colorado’s lead.

Newsom’s give attention to households previously on help, as a substitute of these at present on help, permits the state to keep away from having to pay the federal authorities a multimillion-dollar invoice every year.

Advertisement

Nevertheless, directing extra money to these at present on CalWORKs makes extra sense, in response to a report launched by the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Workplace this month.

The common former CalWORKs recipient who would profit from Newsom’s proposal is a low-income 52-year-old father or mother with grownup kids, in response to the report. An estimated 75% of former CalWORKs circumstances not have an energetic baby assist order, most likely as a result of the kid has reached maturity, in response to the report.

Regardless of the federal guidelines, the state has discretion over how a lot baby assist it offers to households, and Newsom’s proposal “doesn’t establish a transparent purpose” to have completely different insurance policies for various households, the report states. Giving extra money to each present and former CalWORKs households is “not mutually unique,” in response to the report.

At a legislative listening to about Newsom’s proposal on Wednesday, David Kilgore, director of the California Division of Little one Help Companies, stated the state has had intensive conversations with Colorado officers about their extra expansive coverage.

Kilgore stated that “there’s a number of deserves to the concept” and that “we wish to be there sooner or later in time,” however reiterated the state would “need to make the federal authorities complete” by doing so.

Advertisement

Greg Wilson, government director of the California Little one Help Administrators Assn., known as Newsom’s proposals “actually sturdy family-centered coverage,” however stated the tendency in charge the federal authorities for not doing extra is “a little bit of mythology.”

A invoice that might have absolved states of getting to pay the federal authorities and given low-income dad and mom 100% of kid assist funds failed in Congress in 2020.

“The state may determine to cross all of it via to households, it simply comes with a price ticket,” Wilson stated. “That’s the double-edged sword for California. If Congress ever modified that to make it a greater choice for states, I consider that California would soar on the prospect, completely.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Supreme Court rules to allow emergency exceptions to Idaho's abortion ban

Published

on

Supreme Court rules to allow emergency exceptions to Idaho's abortion ban

The Supreme Court Thursday ruled that doctors in Idaho must – at least for now – be allowed to provide emergency abortions despite the state’s near-total ban, in order comport with the federal law that requires emergency rooms to give “stabilizing treatments” to patients in critical condition. 

In an unsigned opinion, the Court held that writs of certiorari in two cases involving the law were “improvidently granted,” and vacated stays the Court granted earlier this year. 

The consolidated cases, Moyle v. U.S. and Idaho v. U.S., had national attention following the high court’s 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. 

SCOTUS TO HEAR ARGUMENTS IN BIDEN’S LAWSUIT ‘SUBVERTING STATES’ RIGHTS’ ON ABORTION

Abortion rights demonstrators protest outside the US Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., US, on Friday, June 24, 2022.  (Ting Shen/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Advertisement

Idaho’s newly enacted Defense of Life Act makes it a crime for any medical provider to perform an abortion with exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother.  

The Justice Department argued that the state’s law does not go far enough to allow abortions in more medical emergency circumstances.

The DOJ sued the state, saying that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) requires health care providers to give “stabilizing treatment” – including abortions – for patients when needed to treat an emergency medical condition, even if doing so might conflict with a state’s abortion restrictions.

The state had argued that “construing EMTALA as a federal abortion mandate raises grave questions under the major questions doctrine that affect both Congress and this Court.” Proponents of the state’s abortion restriction accused the Biden administration of “subverting states’ rights,” citing the Dobb’s decision which allowed states to regulate abortion access.

Advertisement

This is a developing story. Please check back here for more updates.

Continue Reading

Politics

Supreme Court rejects Idaho's appeal — for now — to ban abortions in medical emergencies

Published

on

Supreme Court rejects Idaho's appeal — for now — to ban abortions in medical emergencies

The Supreme Court retreated Thursday from ruling on Idaho’s near total ban on abortions, leaving in place a judge’s order that for now allows doctors to perform abortions when necessary in medical emergencies.

The justices in an unsigned order said they had “improvidently granted” Idaho’s appeal in its dispute with the Biden administration over emergency care.

A draft of the order was inadvertently posted on the court’s website on Wednesday.

Justices were sharply divided when they heard the Idaho case in April. Justice Amy Coney Barrett accused the state’s attorney of giving shifting answers on whether certain emergencies could justify an abortion.

Advertisement

The justices were unable to agree on a majority ruling.

On Thursday, the justices split four ways in explaining their views. Barrett, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, said the court made a “miscalculation” by intervening too soon. She said both sides have continued to change their positions on what the state and federal laws require when it comes to emergency abortions.

Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor said the court was right to step back and allow emergency abortions to resume. They noted that because of the strict ban, women have been airlifted out of Idaho to have abortions in other states.

Dissenting, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said the Biden administration would say hospitals “must perform abortions on request when the ‘health’ of a pregnant woman is serious jeopardy.” That cannot be right, he said, because the law refers to protecting an “unborn child.” Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch agreed.

Dissenting alone, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court should have ruled for the administration and held hospitals must provide emergency abortions if needed to stabilize a patient. “Today’s decision is not a victory for pregnant patients in Idaho. It is delay,” she wrote.

Advertisement

In January, the court issued an order that allowed Idaho to temporarily enforce its law. That too was set aside on Thursday.

Idaho’s abortion ban is among the nation’s strictest. It permits abortions only when “necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman.” It makes no exception for emergencies or medical conditions which could endanger a patient’s health.

The Biden administration sued Idaho in 2022, arguing that the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act requires hospitals to provide “necessary stabilizing treatment” to patients who arrived there. And in rare cases, U.S. health officials said, doctors may be required to perform abortion if a woman is suffering from a severe infection or uncontrolled bleeding.

Idaho’s state attorneys and state legislators sharply disagreed. They said the federal law has nothing to do with abortions.

But a federal judge in Idaho ruled for the administration and handed down a narrow order that permits abortions in certain medical emergencies. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to lift that order while it weighed the state’s appeal.

Advertisement

The case of Moyle vs. United States posed a clash between the federal law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care and the state’s authority to regulate doctors and the practice of medicine.

Arguing for the administration, Solicitor Gen. Elizabeth Prelogar said pregnant woman “can suffer dangerous conditions that require immediate medical treatment to prevent death or serious injury, including organ failure or loss of fertility. And in some tragic cases, the required stabilizing care—the only treatment that can save the woman’s life or prevent grave harm to her health—involves terminating the pregnancy.”

She said Idaho was among only six states that make no exceptions for protecting the health of a pregnant patient.

After Idaho’s law took effect, doctors reported that six women who needed an abortion because of medical complications were transported to hospitals outside the state.

Doctors in Idaho contended that the state’s law endangers patients, and they spoke out against it during the court battle.

Advertisement

In medical emergencies, “delay puts the patient’s life and health at risk. But the lack of clarity in the law is creating fear in our physicians,” Dr. Jim Souza, chief physician executive for St. Luke’s Health System in Boise, said in an earlier interview.

He said doctors in emergency rooms often see pregnant women whose water has broken, or who have a severe infection or are bleeding badly. An abortion may be called for in such a situation, but doctors know they could be subject to criminal prosecution if they act too soon, he said.

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden, Trump face off at CNN Presidential Debate which may 'change the narrative in a massive way'

Published

on

Biden, Trump face off at CNN Presidential Debate which may 'change the narrative in a massive way'

ATLANTA — In a presidential election rematch that remains extremely close and where every vote may count come November, it’s no understatement to say that there’s an incredible amount at stake in Thursday’s first of two debates between President Biden and former President Trump.

The two presumptive major party nominees will face off on the same stage at the CNN Presidential Debate, which is being held at the cable news network’s studios in Atlanta, the largest city and capital of the crucial southeastern battleground state of Georgia.

“This is a toss-up race and there’s over two months until the next debate. This showdown is going to set a tone and a narrative heading into this summer’s conventions,” longtime Republican strategist and communications adviser Matt Gorman told Fox News, as he pointed to the earliest general election presidential debate in modern history. 

And Gorman, a veteran of numerous GOP presidential campaigns, emphasized that the debate, which will be simulcast on the Fox News Channel and on other networks, has the potential “to change the narrative in a massive way” as Biden and Trump “try to break out” from the current status quo.

WHICH DONALD TRUMP WILL SHOW UP AT THURSDAY’S FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE

Advertisement

Signage for the upcoming presidential debate is seen at the media file center near the CNN Techwood campus in Atlanta on Tuesday, June 25, 2024.  (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

The debate, which kicks off at 9pm ET, will be 90 minutes in length, with two commercial breaks. 

Only the Democratic incumbent and his Republican predecessor will be on the stage, as the third party and independent candidates running for the White House – including Robert F. Kennedy Jr. – failed to reach the qualifying thresholds. 

To make the stage, candidates needed to reach at least 15% in four approved national surveys and to make the ballot in enough states to reach 270 electoral votes, which is the number needed to win the White House.

HOW TO WATCH THE CNN PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE SIMULCAST ON THE FOX NEWS CHANNEL

Advertisement

Trump and Biden bypassed the Commission on Presidential Debates – which had organized these quadrennial showdowns for over three decades – and instead mutually agreed on the rules and conditions.

Those include no studio audience, each candidate’s microphone will be muted except when it’s their turn to answer questions, no props or notes allowed on stage, and no opening statements.

There will be closing statements and a coin flip determined that Trump will get the final word.

The debate comes as polls indicate a very tight race between Biden and Trump, with the former president holding the slight edge in many national polls and surveys in the roughly half-dozen or so battleground states that will likely determine the election’s outcome.

“To put it very simply – debates move numbers in a way few other events do. Period,” Gorman highlighted. “And with over two months to go until the second debate [an ABC News hosted showdown scheduled for Sept. 10], the narratives formed on Thursday night may harden into concrete, so showing up and performing well in Atlanta is crucial.”

Advertisement

Both candidates come into the debate with an ample amount of baggage that will offer their rival plenty of potential ammunition.

The 81-year-old Biden, the oldest president in the nation’s history, for months has faced serious concerns from voters over his age and physical and mental durability. He’s also been dealing for nearly three years with underwater job approval ratings as he’s struggled to combat persistent inflation and a crisis at the nation’s southern border, as well as plenty of overseas hot spots.

FIRST ON FOX: BIDEN CAMPAIGN RIPS TRUMP OVER ‘NEGLECT OF DUTY’ ON EVE OF FIRST 2024 DEBATE

Meanwhile, Trump made history for all the wrong reasons last month, as he was convicted of 34 felony counts in the first criminal trial ever of a former or current president.

Three and a half years after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters trying to upend congressional certification of Biden’s 2020 election victory, Trump faces criminal charges of trying to overturn the results of the last presidential contest. His promises of second-term retribution against his political enemies have created a backlash, and he’s struggled along with plenty of other Republicans to deal with the combustible issue of abortion two years after the Supreme Court struck down the decades-old Roe v. Wade ruling. 

Advertisement

Arguably the biggest question surrounding Thursday night’s debate is which version of Trump will show up?

Trump, Biden debate

Then-former Vice President Joe Biden and then-President Donald Trump debate at Belmont University in Nashville, Tennessee, on Oct. 22, 2020. (Kevin Dietsch/UPI/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Will it be the undisciplined candidate who continuously interrupted Biden and debate moderator Chris Wallace dozens and dozens of times at their first debate in the 2020 election? 

Trump appeared to lose his cool, failed to condemn white supremacists, and his performance was widely panned by political pundits and viewers alike.

Or will it be the Trump of the second 2020 debate, when the then-president re-worked his strategy and his disciplined and measured performance was a vast improvement.

“If he replicates that performance, Donald Trump’s going to have a very good night,” longtime Republican consultant and veteran debate coach Brett O’Donnell told Fox News.

Advertisement

BIDEN AND TRUMP CAMPAIGNS MAKE MOVES ON THE EVE OF THE DEBATE 

O’Donnell said his advice to Trump is “watch the second debate you had with Joe Biden in 2020 and replicate that performance. Watch it over and over and replicate that performance in this debate.”

“He was measured but firm,” O’Donnell said of Trump. “You can be aggressive and passionate without being offensive.”

O’Donnell knows a bit about coaching presidential candidates ahead of their debates. He assisted in debate preparations for George W. Bush in 2004, GOP presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona in 2008, and Republican standard-bearer and then-former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in 2012. 

This election cycle, O’Donnell coached Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis ahead of his debate performances in the Republican presidential primaries.

Advertisement

O’Donnell said Biden needs to be careful not “to fall into the incumbent trap… Many if not most incumbents in their first debate, whether it’s Ronald Reagan or George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush or Barack Obama, most incumbents perform poorly in their first debate going for the second term.”

“So the advice to Biden is avoid the incumbent trap because if he falls into it, it’s doubly bad because of all the age arguments,” he added.

And O’Donnell emphasized that Biden has “got to somehow frame the race as a choice in defense of his record over the past four years. That is a tall order, but that’s something he has to do in order to justify picking him over Donald Trump.”

Get the latest updates from the 2024 campaign trail, exclusive interviews and more at our Fox News Digital election hub.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Trending