- More Columns
- Newman Center column
- Capitol Correspondent
Capitol Correspondent
Last weekend, in lieu of yard work and household chores, which rank highly
among all things to be in lieu of, we spent time catching up on reading
material that had occupied a secure place in a briefcase that was toted back
and forth between home and office for days and weeks, but hardly disturbed.
It is interesting what one can learn by taking time to catch up on items that were intriguing enough initially to be retained rather than tossed.
For example, a newsletter from the Center for Rural Affairs (CFRA), which is located here in Nebraska, but has a strong national reputation on policy issues affecting agriculture and rural life, had a lead article about how weak enforcement practices by the U.S. Department of Agriculture have made a virtual joke out of payment limitations, which supposedly keep government farm programs in check. The conclusion stems from an investigation by the U.S. General Accounting Office.
The policy behind payment limitations requires that recipients be actively involved in managing the farm. That requirement was instituted by congressional action in 1987, after it came to light that farming operations were being divided into many corporations on paper in order to receive many times the payment limit.
The new investigation reveals that the 1987 reforms have not been effectively implemented. There are indications that the active management test has been more sham than substance. According to CFRA, one published report revealed that a 30,000-acre farm with more than 50 partners received $20 million in payments, presumably because every partner was regarded as an active farmer. That prompted Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley to request the GAO investigation.
Child Support from Prisoners
The June 2004 issue of Nebraska Criminal Justice Review includes an interesting article on an issue that perhaps is a little obscure in the big, complex picture of correctional concerns, but certainly must have a social impact. That issue is prisoners' child support payments.
As described by the article, here's the situation:
"In Nebraska, prisoners who are already under court order to make child support payments at the time they are incarcerated are not eligible for any reduction in those payments on the basis of their drastically reduced income in prison. On the other hand, if one goes to prison without a court order for child support, and then is sued for child support, the monthly payments can be determined on the basis of the prisoner's present earnings rather than pre-incarceration earnings."
A 1985 ruling by the Nebraska Supreme Court is cited as the source of this public policy. A prisoner sought to have his divorce decree modified in a way that would suspend his obligation to pay child support. His reason was that his incarceration, obviously, caused a material change in circumstances relating to income. The Court denied the request, with the majority opinion stating as follows:
"...[W]e find no sound reason to relieve one of a child support obligation by virtue of the fact that he or she engaged in criminal conduct.
There is no reason those who have had to step in and assume the applicant's obligation should not be reimbursed by the applicant should his future position enable him to do so. Further, we do not see how the best interests of the children for whom the support was ordered would be served by temporarily terminating the applicant's child support obligation." The Court's ruling was not unanimous. In fact, then Chief Justice Norman Krivosha wrote a dissent that presented the opposite point of view.
In part, he wrote:
"We obviously recognize that the child support judgment will not be paid during the time that the parent is incarcerated, and therefore the judgment will simply accrue with interest. Such a situation provides little or no benefit to anyone....
"The fact that a parent is incarcerated should...not, in an of itself, preclude a district court from considering whether the facts justify a reduction in child support. Certainly, if the evidence reflects that the incarcerated parent has any assets, those assets should first be made available for the support of the child. But where, as here, it is made clear that at the present time the incarcerated parent has no assets and can do nothing about paying the child support judgment, the district court should, at a minimum, be permitted to consider that fact and not be automatically barred as we have now held...."
The NCJR concludes its article with a suggestion that perhaps the question of modification of prisoners' child support payments should be studied by the Legislature.
Right on, Sen. Bourne
We also took note of publicity given to efforts by state Sen. Pat Bourne to ensure that rules and regulations promulgated by administrative agencies do not exceed statutory authority. Sen. Bourne's point is that agency rules and regulations should not cross the line into making law instead of implementing the law. If that does happen, then the Constitution's separation of powers has been violated.
Kudos to Sen. Bourne for giving attention to this issue. His case is credible. From our own experience, we have lost count of the number of times we have testified at administrative agency hearings that proposed regulations exceed the scope of statutory authority. Religious ministries have to be sensitive to this, because the non-governmental delivery of education and social services especially can be intruded upon and squeezed by excessive policies and overly assertive bureaucrats.
And Finally
From the bulletin of a parish we visited for Sunday Mass during a recent out-of-state trip: "The Low Self-Esteem Support Group will meet Thursday evening at 7 p.m. in the social hall. Please use the back door."