The New York Times reports this morning that many states are withholding part or all of child support payments from absent parents to their children in order to refund the federal government for welfare. Wait, can that be true? The Bush administration is now taking money from the father but not giving all of it to the child?
Karla Hart, a struggling mother of four here, held out her monthly statement from the county child-support office.
Paid by the father: $229.40.
Amount deducted to repay federal costs of welfare: $132.18.
Her share: $97.22. “That extra money was a bill I could pay,” said Ms. Hart, 56, who has lupus and other serious ailments but against her doctor’s advice has started working at a day care center, in a failing effort to achieve solvency.
Reflecting a growing, bipartisan sense that diverting child support money to government coffers is counterproductive, Congress, in the Deficit Reduction Act passed in early 2006, took a modest step toward change. Beginning in 2009, states will be permitted to pass along up to $100 for one child and $200 for two or more children, with the state and federal governments giving up a share of welfare repayments they have received in the past.
The Bush administration has set a goal of increasing the share of collections distributed to families and reducing the amount retained by the government. But the drive to reduce the budget deficit has gotten in the way.
Aha. This more detailed look at how we're paying off the debt for the war in Iraq gives us a better sense of our priorities. Is diverting child support money to government coffers merely "counterproductive" or just plain lousy policy?
Comments