Legislative::R. Mark Rogers Economic Review MN2006 of PSI Report
From R-KIDS of MN and GPF
Contents |
Introduction
R. Mark Rogers was employed by R-KIDS of MN to review the economic report performed by PSI.
PSI was employed by the State of Minnesota to review the new child support guidelines in the law going into effect on the first of 2007.
Download the report here it is an Adobe PDF.
Background
The law, passed in the spring of 2005, requires an economic review. The legislators were lobbied to include language requiring that an economic review be performed of the law before it may go into effect. The legislators obliged this request. It is federal law that child support guidelines are reviewed by an economist before a state may collect awards from the federal government reimbursing the costs of collecting child support on behalf of custodial parents. The review performed by PSI for the State of Minnesota does not meet federal guidelines therefore Minnesota still is not in compliance.
- There still has been no economic study done that meets the criteria established by the federal government.
- The PSI review did not accomplish the stated purposes of the new state law.
Since the department of human services is able to generate large amounts of revenue and thus expand their breadth and power by maximizing the amount of funds to collect on behalf of custodial parents, it is in the best interest of the department to lobby for unreasonable child support awards.
Departments of human services across the nation have been able to circumvent this federal requirement for an economic review by hiring a firm that guarantees a positive review for any law that grants large amounts of money to be transferred between parties through their department. They have been able to do this by hiring an 'insider firm' to provide the results desired.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services played an important role in 'advising' the legislature and senate of how to conscript this law. The DHS's aim was to ensure the new law does not reduce their revenue. They were consulted on how to meet the federal legal requirements for their activities. The law was written so that an economic review would be performed before it goes into effect, however, it was worded such that PSI is the only company that meets the criteria under the language. It was worded to trick lobbyists representing non-custodial parents into thinking they have achieved fairness in the statutes. Of course this trick needed not endure. The law is now codified. The unfairness of Minnesota's new law is hidden in the cost tables, this is what R-KIDS is focused upon.
Summary of Roger's Economic Review
R. Mark Rogers is a professional economist able to interpret tax tables and deductions for individuals in every situation. The primary method to gauge this new law is to represent it in terms of the current guidelines of 25% + 5%*(n-1) of Net income. The new law is written in terms of Gross income therefore makes it difficult to understand in terms of 'take-home'. Mark was able to re-interpret the new law in terms of net take home pay, and thus allow persons living under the present law to understand how this new law will cause change. He was also able to describe the methods used by PSI to 'evaluate' the new MN law, and why these methods are invalid and inconsequential by design. This is the essential contents of this review.
To summarize PSI's report in a few words; PSI used two 'formulas', one that is considered (by them) to be too low, and the other to be too high. PSI found that the new MN law is 'above the line' in some cases, and 'below the line' in others. We can handle 'below the line' since their 'low line' is much higher than it should be, but the fact that there are some cases 'above the line' is unacceptable.
By the standards of fairness and shared parenting responsibility, both models are much higher than R-KIDS fairness standard. Our new child support guideline law does not achieve equal protection nor fairness. Many cases under the new cost tables set awards above the Federal Creditor Limitations collections restriction of 50%. With these cost tables, many individuals will find themselves paying back-support for decades after their child has reached adulthood even if they have faithfully paid more than 50% of their net take home pay for the entire period of obligation. Mark underscores this point in his review.
Problem
Our Legislators largely do not understand the complexity of the child support problem. The simplest solution for them is to trust the 'experts' in the field. Most experts in field of Family Law are vested in the implications of the current law.
The problem is, the current law has established a multifaceted institution to facilitate the separation of parents, that changing this law will be painful for those subsisting on the inequality created by the current practices. It has also become not only socially acceptable, but socially expected, that there be a single custodial parent and the non custodial parent be alienated and thrown to the wolves. And the wolves are indeed not an abstract concept, but a large and powerful hierarchical institution bent on the suppression of the loser of the custody game. The loser is preferably the parent making moderately greater income than the other, but not so much that they could pay for a properly argued legal case.
Legislators should understand that close to 12% of the current population of Minnesota is paying or has paid excessive child support awards. As generations pass through this disastrous policy, the future of Minnesota will see this statistic rise to levels approaching 50% where the majority of children will live without both of their parents in their home. This group of constituents generally are silent due to demoralization and being denigrated for not being able to support a family, and being intimidated from spending time with their children by angry custodial parents. They have nowhere to go in order disseminate their experiences because they are stigmatized as deadbeats or someone that has abandoned their children. In recent studies it is evident how important it is to have two responsible parents in their children's lives, and how it impacts our society as a whole. Children are harmed by having one of their parents discouraged from providing guidance in their development. Setting excessive or unfair child support awards harms children.
What Is Next?
The report we have requested from R. Mark Rogers could best cause change if EVERY resident in Minnesota were to read it. It seems in order to ensure fairness in our statutes, every resident of Minnesota needs to have a working understanding of this very complex issue. This is unfortunate as the purpose of a representative government is to avoid this need. It is information such as this that the populous needs to witness the kinds of subterranean activities they are forced to fund.
It is crucial that every member of our Legislature and Senate is informed of the contents and background of this report so that they might be able to better understand this issue. It is up to R-KIDS and YOU to deliver this report to your senator and legislator. Your representative is obliged to listen to your concerns. You must encourage him or her to bring fairness into child support legislation. Now is the time, it cannot wait. You are free to use the contents of this report to this end.
