Schwarzenegger Attempting to Stop Exploitation of Children for Money
in CA
California may be setting the example for the rest of the
nation
March 5, 2004
by
Jim Untershine
California Governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, is attempting to change
the purpose of Department of Social Services (DSS) and that of the
Attorney General. DSS will be rewarded for allowing the children to
stay with their family, rather that taking them away. The Attorney
General will be allowed to keep his job by enforcing the laws of his
state, rather than allowing illegal marriage between gays.
The impoverishment of the family caring for their own children is
becoming apparent and disturbing: As reported in the Sacramento
Bee, " In a ruling that will cost California and its 58 counties
more than $80 million, a Sacramento federal judge has ordered the
payment of unlawfully withheld foster care benefits for children living
with relatives.", "the California Department of Social Services estimates
that $30 million will have to be taken from the state general fund
and another $42 million from county treasuries to cover the back payments.
The federal government will be obligated to match those amounts"
The supply side of the Foster care industry is finally being recognized
and scorned. As reported in Star
News, " Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has called for an overhaul
of California's foster care system to end financial incentives that
critics say encourage counties and their contractors to make money
off children in their care.", "State and federal laws create financial
incentives for placing children in foster care because counties receive
$30,000 to $150,000 annually in state and federal funds for each child,
say officials and critics."
The demand side of the Foster care industry is becoming obvious and
creepy: As reported in the Press
Telegram:" The California Supreme Court declined a request Friday
by Attorney General Bill Lockyer to immediately shut down San Francisco's
gay weddings. ", " Pressure on Lockyer, a Democrat and the state's
top law enforcer, intensified when Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
directed him to "take immediate steps' to halt San Francisco's marriage
march. ", " Regardless of Friday's order, the San Francisco-based
Supreme Court did not indicate whether it would decide the issue.
The seven justices usually are loath to decide cases until they work
their way up through the lower courts, which this case has not."
DSS, operating in each state, is paid by the taxpayers to actively
pursue removing children from their families and permanently giving
them to strangers. As reported by the California
Children's Services, most of these children were not victims of
abuse:
- 45% of the 498,720 children that were referred to CA DSS in 2003
alleged general/severe neglect or caretaker absence/incapacity.
- 23% of the 498,720 children that were referred to CA DSS in 2003
were substantiated.
- 53% of the 113,702 children that were substantiated by CA DSS
in 2003 confirmed general/severe neglect or caretaker absence/incapacity
The California child pay-off can be presented using the net per capita
income (PCI) of California in 2000 as $26,422/yr ($2,202/mo). [Net
PCI across all states are found in Table
SA51-52 provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for
2000]
- $550/mo (25% net PCI) in child support for one child, and $881/mo
(40% net PCI) for 2, is payable to a financially dependent parent
who is ordered to care for the children. [Child support awards across
all states are found using the calculators provided
by AllLaw.com using the state PCI.]
- $627/mo (28% net PCI) in TANF and food stamps for one child, and
$813/mo (37% net PCI) for two, is available to a financially impoverished
parent who is not receiving child support. [TANF and food stamps
provided by all states are found in Table 7-9 of the Committee
on Ways and Means Greenbook 2000.]
- $446/mo (20% net PCI) in Foster care benefits for one child, and
$892/mo (41% net PCI) for two, is payable to a financially stable
stranger with a spare room. [Foster care benefits provided by all
states are found in Table 11-8 of the Committee
on Ways and Means Greenbook 2000.]
Foster care and Welfare are paid for by the taxpayers, and are subject
to repayment by the parents who are separated from their children.
The state share (USC 42 1396d b)
of these collections depends on the state's PCI relative to that of
the nation. The state share of Foster care and Welfare collections
= 45%*(PCI _state / PCI _nation)^2 and cannot exceed 50%. California
is allowed to keep 50% of the Foster care and Welfare collections
with a gross PCI of $32,363/yr ($29,760/yr nationally). [Gross PCI
across all states are found in Table
SA1-3 provided by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) for 2000.]
Child Support Enforcement (CSE), operating in each state, is paid
to actively prevent the payment of child support and drive both parents
to poverty. The new and improved state incentive calculation (USC 42 658a
b) doubles the Foster care (IV-E) and Welfare (IV-A) collections
compared to child support (IV-D) collections.
It is not hard to understand why states, like Utah,
have opened the floodgates regarding unwed mothers giving babies up
for adoption. The exploitation of children for money is more palatable
if the children are supplied willingly. The new demand for children
by same-sex customers may allow some states to distribute a catalogue,
complete with a schedule of tax-free income that will be provided
by the taxpayers or the parents roped into repaying it.
Same-sex marriage would be a public policy wasted on a group of people
who are proud of a lifestyle that precludes children. The institution
of marriage does not confer commitment (in this no-fault divorce era
we are forced to live in) it is simply a means to get free health
care from the breadwinning partner's employer. State Attorney Generals
of the Executive branch, who wish to ignore the law in an effort to
force a new group of people into the divorce courts, only serves to
feed the officers and agencies of the Judicial branch.
Schwarzenegger may see through his Attorney General's murky motive,
in hesitating to enforce the laws uniformly and adequately throughout
the state of California. Attorney General Bill Lockyer must choose
to put the 'smack down' on Mayors and Judges who choose to ignore
the Legislative branch, or he must choose to resign his office.
Is the California Attorney General a puppet of the California Bar
Association or does he report to the California Governor?