House Delivers Child-Support Package To Senate Critics Say Measures Are Federal Blackmail, But Supporters Don’t Want To Miss Out On Funds

The Idaho House approved a package of legislation Tuesday to meet a requirement that the state improve child-support enforcement or risk losing more than $43 million of federal money.

Opponents argued the measure was federal blackmail that would threaten the privacy of thousands, but Democratic state Rep. Roger Chase of Pocatello said the objectives justified passage.

“We have many opportunities to make statements to the federal government,” he said. “I would hope we don’t put this soapbox on the backs of the children.”

Chase was with the majority voting for seven bills making changes to Idaho’s child-support laws.

Five of the measures are mandated by the federal government. That rubbed as many as 23 lawmakers the wrong way on some changes they said would allow the government to gather information about every aspect of many people’s lives in the name of enforcing child-support orders.

Rep. Jeff Alltus, R-Hayden, opposed the bill.

“The founding fathers gave their lives for this little bit of freedom,” he said. “We shouldn’t be selling them short.”

Alltus, like the other opponents, fears federal government intrusion and would rather forfeit federal cash than choke down its mandates.

“The issue is not the money. The issue is: For any amount of money, should we pass bills that implement the kind of system George Orwell warned us about?” said Republican Rep. Bill Sali of Meridian, referring to the totalitarian regime depicted in Orwell’s novel “1984.”

“I’m ready to say we don’t need the $43 million,” said Rep. Tim Ridinger, R-Shoshone. “It’s time we looked at the federal government and told them we can govern our state. We don’t need their solutions, because their solutions are one-size-fits-all.”

Others argued that tightening existing laws to more effectively crack down on violators would unfairly penalize those trying to meet their responsibilities while doing little about hard-core deadbeat parents.

“The ones who are going to pay for child support are already paying,” said GOP Rep. Diana Richman of Sugar City. “The ones who aren’t are in an underground mode anyway.”

But most accepted that losing the money involved would serve only to punish the people most in need. The entire package was sent to the Senate, including amendments aimed at meeting the federal requirements with the minimum impact on parents already meeting child-support obligations.

The federal money potentially at risk would pay for child-support enforcement programs covering about 100,000 children, for cash welfare grants to about 2,000 families, and for a proposed school-based program to reduce child abuse and neglect.

Most of the money would pay for programs already in place, but some would be used to expand programs.

Rep. Jim Stoicheff, D-Sandpoint, supported the bill.

“This time we’re talking about children, and I’m going to be the coward of the county and vote yes,” he said.

Stoicheff said he is against many federal mandates and has voted against measures such as raising the drinking age to 21 and requiring adults to wear seat belts even though Idaho would have lost federal highway dollars.

But he said he can’t vote that way when it comes to cash for Idaho’s children.

, DataTimes