Michigan Budget Crisis:
The federal government has already cut funding for the child support enforcement program because of how it operates.
Michigan has been left with the choice of either making up for the federal cuts by using funds from state/local budgets, or to follow in-step with the federal cuts and reduce spending on the state child support program.
Cutting spending on the state program makes sense, because the program is not serving the population originally intended by Congress.
An overwhelming majority of recipient of state child support services are middle and upper class parents who are not facing poverty - and not because they are receiving child support, but because they are simply self-sufficient.
If Michigan were to tighten up the state child support program by refusing to provide these welfare services to affluent divorcing parents who simply don't need them, then the state could get rid of a huge bulk of an unnecessary bureaucracy which eats away at millions of dollars from our state and local budgets every year.
The bureaucratic response to this will surely be that 'children might starve if they don't get their child support'. And the reality is that kids ARE starving - but only because child support bureaucrats have to spend too much time being babysitters who referee
arguments between affluent divorcing parents. This leaves little resources left to go after the ones really at fault: The willfully absent parents who have abandoned their children to poverty.
The not-so-obvious answer here is to ignore the fear-mongering special interests of the child support bureaucracy and do what's right for the state budget. Start by getting rid of government bloat where necessary. Child support bureaucrats are not helping kids - they're babysitting affluent arguing adults instead.
Kick the affluent out of the state's welfare system by removing them from the child support program. That will save the state millions, and help the children who really need help in the process.
The federal government has already cut funding for the child support enforcement program because of how it operates.
Michigan has been left with the choice of either making up for the federal cuts by using funds from state/local budgets, or to follow in-step with the federal cuts and reduce spending on the state child support program.
Cutting spending on the state program makes sense, because the program is not serving the population originally intended by Congress.
An overwhelming majority of recipient of state child support services are middle and upper class parents who are not facing poverty - and not because they are receiving child support, but because they are simply self-sufficient.
If Michigan were to tighten up the state child support program by refusing to provide these welfare services to affluent divorcing parents who simply don't need them, then the state could get rid of a huge bulk of an unnecessary bureaucracy which eats away at millions of dollars from our state and local budgets every year.
The bureaucratic response to this will surely be that 'children might starve if they don't get their child support'. And the reality is that kids ARE starving - but only because child support bureaucrats have to spend too much time being babysitters who referee
arguments between affluent divorcing parents. This leaves little resources left to go after the ones really at fault: The willfully absent parents who have abandoned their children to poverty.
The not-so-obvious answer here is to ignore the fear-mongering special interests of the child support bureaucracy and do what's right for the state budget. Start by getting rid of government bloat where necessary. Child support bureaucrats are not helping kids - they're babysitting affluent arguing adults instead.
Kick the affluent out of the state's welfare system by removing them from the child support program. That will save the state millions, and help the children who really need help in the process.
topics:
Politics,
WTF,
Children,
Law,
Activism,
Parental Rights,
fatherlessness
+ add
-
-
-
-
- regjoeschmo
- added this
- added August 04, 2008
- flag
Login/Registration is required to add a response
