Website: cpr-mn.org Email: info@cpr-mn.org
October 2003
(4TH
IN SERIES)
Dear
_______________________________________ Legislative Education Notice
RE: BILL # - HF 1031/SF 974
Do IV-D ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS
have your attention yet?
Good Public Policy
Should Be Based on Two Things:
i.
Is there an unmet
“need” that requires or justifies public spending?
ii.
Can the taxpayers
afford it – does it make financial sense?
Title IV-D welfare services to everyone who applies,
with
no means-testing, regardless of how high their income is!
(see reverse side for a specific example of how
and why ineligible applicants receive services)
unfair to the
truly needy and fiscally irresponsible!
The purpose of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act is to REDUCE TAXPAYER EXPENSE by:
a) recovering costs for those on public assistance and
b) preventing
those “at risk” from going on public assistance.
(The compelling government pecuniary interest starts and STOPS there)
Since this program is
perpetually INCREASING TAXPAYER EXPENSE
the
program has been rendered ineffective and MAJOR REFORM IS REQUIRED.
Eligibility Standards are NEEDED for IV-D welfare
services!
The Title IV-D
welfare services are the ONLY welfare services with
NO ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS
in
WHEN WILL THE
Please Help Your Constituents PASS HF
1031 and SF 974
And clarify the eligibility
standards consistent with federal law, which require
eligibility standards for Title IV-D
Welfare to be consistent with eligibility standards for other welfare services.
Special thanks to
legislators who have responded, we are interested in your position!
Name:_________________________________(print)
____________________________________(signature)
Address:___________________________________ City:
Phone
Number: ____________________________ Email:
____________________________
Page
Legislative Education Notice
RE: BILL # - HF 1031/SF 974
Page TWO
Look at this NEW “actual”
PUBLIC CASE JUST OPENED:
This is how PRIVATE CASES improperly become PUBLIC
CASES!
Why do STATE
Taxpayers Subsidize Welfare Programs for People Making $75,000+ a year?
Upon close scrutiny, this appears to
be unlawful spending of public money on a private case!