The Woefully Distorted Federal Policies on Child Abuse
Here’s something just in from the world of grossly distorted government policy:
Every year, roughly 680,000 children are reported victims of neglect or abuse by their parents in this country – a tragic statistic reflective of troubling societal, psychological and economic problems. Even worse, 1,520 children died from maltreatment in 2013, nearly 80 percent of them at the hands of their own parents.
Related: Feds Blow $100 Billion Annually on Incorrect Payments
Federal and state authorities over the years have developed a large and costly system for reporting and investigating maltreatment, removing endangered children from their homes, and preventing and treating problems of parents and children.
But as a new study touted on Wednesday by the Brookings Institution concludes, the federal government provides states with far more money to support kids once they have been removed from their homes and placed in foster care than it provides for prevention and treatment programs to keep the kids out of foster homes in the first place.
And the disparity is startling.
Two of the largest grant programs in Title IV-B of the Social Security Act provide states with funding totaling around $650 million annually for “front end” services designed to prevent or treat parent and child problems that contribute to abuse and neglect. They address problems such as substance abuse, family violence and mental health issues.
Related: Time to Stop Social Safety Net Child Abuse
Yet another series of programs in Title IV-E of the Social Security law provides states with open-ended funding that totaled about $6.9 billion in 2014. Those funds pay almost exclusively for out-of-home care for children from poor families, along with the administrative and training expenses associated with foster care, adoption, and guardianship.
That’s a 10 to 1 disparity in funding for the two efforts – one to try to hold families together and the other to move children out of their homes and into foster care.
“Congress has the opportunity to change the funding formula under Title IV of the Social Security Act so that states have the flexibility to put money where it will be most effective at keeping at-risk children safe, ensuring that they have a permanent home, and promoting their well-being,” wrote Ron Haskins, Lawrence M. Berger and Janet Currie, the authors of the study.
In their policy brief, “Can States Improve Children’s Health by Preventing Abuse and Neglect,” Haskins, a Senior Fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings, Currie of Princeton University and Berger of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, write that revising the grant programs could improve the welfare of children who are at risk of abuse or neglect.
This is something else that lawmakers might consider later this year when they begin to focus on disability insurance and other programs within the Social Security law.
Trump and Schumer Will Try to Scrap the Debt Ceiling
The president and the Senate Democratic leader agreed to seek out a more permanent debt ceiling solution that would end the perpetual cycle of fiscal standoffs. “There are a lot of good reasons to do that, so certainly that’s something that will be discussed," Trump said Thursday. It might not be easy, though, as conservatives see the borrowing limit as a way to keep government spending in check. Paul Ryan said Thursday he opposes doing away with the debt ceiling.
Is a Fix for Obamacare Taking Shape?
Senators on the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions heard from governors Thursday in the second of four scheduled hearings on stabilizing Obamacare. The common theme emerging from the testimony was flexibility: "Returning control to the states is prudent policy but also prudent politics," said Utah Gov. Gary Herbert, a Republican. He was joined by Democrat John Hickenlooper of Colorado, who said that states need room to innovate and learn from their mistakes. Much of what the governors said was in line with what the Senate panel is already considering, including the continuation of cost-sharing subsidies to insurance companies. (CBS News, Axios)
Senate Approves Trump's Deal with Dems. Will the House Go Along?
The Senate on Thursday voted to fund the government and increase the federal borrowing limit through December 8 as part of a deal that also included $15.25 billion in hurricane disaster relief funding and a short-term extension of the National Flood Insurance Program. The bill passed by a vote of 80-to-17, with only Republicans voting against the bill.
The package now goes back to the House, where it likely faces more strenuous resistance. The Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus with more than 155 members, on Thursday announced it opposed the deal because it does not include spending cuts. Rep. Mark Walker, the group's chairman, sent a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan listing 19 policy changes to "address the growing debt burden" or "begin draining the swamp" that could win conservative support for raising the debt ceiling. Some Democrats may also vote against the deal to signal their frustration with an agreement that they say weakened their hand in trying to protect undocumented immigrants who were brought into the country as children.
White House Backs Off Shutdown Threat…for Now
“Believe me, if we have to close down our government, we’re building that wall,” President Trump said of his planned border wall with Mexico 10 days ago. Just two days later, though, White House officials told Congress that a short-term spending bill to fund the government into December wouldn’t have to include $1.6 billion for the wall, The Washington Post reports.
Trump still wants money for the wall to be included in a December budget bill, and he could follow through on his shutdown threat at that point. For now, though, an agreement on a “continuing resolution” to keep the government running after September 30 seems likelier, allowing Congress to deal with some of the other pressing issues it faces this month.
Which Trump Agenda Items Are Companies Talking About With Wall Street?
Hamilton Place Strategies, a public affairs consulting firm, analyzed transcripts of earnings calls by publicly traded U.S. companies over the last three quarters. They found that tax reform was the policy issue companies discussed most on those calls with Wall Street analysts — but that mentions of the subject dropped by 38 percent from the fourth quarter of 2016 to the second quarter of 2017. Overall, the percentage of earnings calls mentioning government or policy issues fell from 41 percent to 16 percent. Health-care reform saw the largest increase.
Does this mean that businesses have given up on tax reform this year? Perhaps. More likely, it's simply the result of a lack of action on the tax overhaul. Hamilton Place notes that mentions of tax policy peaked in February just after the Senate Finance Committee advanced Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin's nomination and have spiked after other tax-related announcements. So mentions of tax reform on earnings calls could surge again the fall.
One other note about what businesses have been discussing: Calls mentioning President Trump fell by 84 percent from January to late August.
08312017_HPS_Chart_of_the_day.PNG
