FAQ: Marital Master Amendment to the TANF Fix Bill (SB 198) NH

FAQ: Marital Master Amendment to the TANF Fix Bill (SB 198) | ConcordFactCheck.com:

Please write to your State Representatives and tell them to OPPOSE this Amendment!

FAQ: Marital Master Amendment to the TANF Fix Bill (SB 198)
Posted by FactCheck in Frequently Asked Questions on Oct 10th, 2011
Why is House leadership so committed to the amendment to address the issue of marital masters?

During the discussions surrounding the court innovation bill, House leadership and the Judiciary Committee agreed to support the legislation (HB 609) so long as marital masters were removed. The Judiciary Committee put in place a mechanism to eliminate those positions and give the Judiciary an opportunity to request that each position, as it was eliminated, could be converted into a new circuit court justice.

In June, the House learned that the Judiciary felt that there was still an opportunity to appoint new marital masters despite the new law. The House inserted additional language clarifying the position in HB 2.

Last month, and despite this clarifying language, the Judiciary again stated that they felt they had the chance to appoint new marital masters. Normally, if this were another state agency, it would be no big deal. However, since the Judiciary interprets law, it became immediately apparent that there would need to be unambiguous law that made abundantly clear that no more marital masters may be appointed. The House position is that action is needed now and, like the TANF fix, this is a clean up to the state budget, so SB 198 is the appropriate location for this amendment.

This need is timely, because the Judiciary already reappointed two marital masters after HB 2 was enacted by the House and came forward with the possibility of another marital master reappointment this Fall unless a new circuit judgeship was created. This latest “opportunity” was based on a resignation of a marital master effective December 1, 2011. While the Fiscal Committee did approve the conversion of the position to a circuit court judgeship, implementation of this law, which was to take effect on July 1, 2011, should not wait until sometime in 2012, leaving the Judiciary to continue the marital master system through any additional resignations.

Is the state “wasting” $2 million in taxpayer money by not passing the Senate bill cleanly and immediately?

In a word – NO. The Senate bill would make an adjustment to eligibility for and amounts received from the Aid to the Permanently and Totally Disabled (APTD). By not passing this bill immediately, individuals receiving these payments would continue to get higher payments from the state, totaling, some claim, over $600,000 each month. When the fix is passed, their payments will drop.

At the same time, the state is currently seeing an increase in revenues, thanks in part to using responsible revenue estimates and New Hampshire employers having more confidence in light of the pro-economic growth budget that we passed. It is becoming increasingly likely that the state will see a surplus this year.

Given the strong possibility of a surplus, the possible loss of $2 million would come out of these funds. However, a “better day” amendment to the budget states that the surplus for 2012 would be given to the hospitals of the state, not go towards tax relief or the Rainy Day Fund.

This means that if the Senate does not come back to take up SB 198, $2 million will go to seriously disabled individuals instead of the hospitals. Either way, these funds would not result in savings to taxpayers or an improved Rainy Day Fund.

Certainly, it is the hope of the House that the Senate would come back and finish up work on the legislation that they felt so strongly that they decided it needed immediate action. However, in no way does waiting until January cost the taxpayers any additional money; it simply changes the winners and losers of who would receive taxpayer funds.

It should be noted that the Senate went forward with passing SB 198 without a fiscal note and no fiscal note has been provided to the House. As a consequence, at this point it is unclear how much in state expenditures would be transferred from Social Security supplemental income recipients to the hospitals when SB 198 is enacted.

What is clear is that neither the enactment of SB 198 nor a delay in its enactment will reduce or increase state spending or in any way change the overall spending under the budget.

My comment:
First of all, TANF has nothing to do with APTD or the Marital Masters. Why would anyone want such an amendment? Is this the only way to get rid of the Marital Masters? Passing this amendment will harm the GOP. Granted, the Marital Master program is a huge waste of money, but it has nothing to do with TANF or APTD. Cutting the disableds APTD and giving the money to the Hospitals makes no sense. The Hospitals ALWAYS make a profit. The disabled people in NH can't survive now.
Fixing TANF is a whole different problem. Why aren't people set a limit of three years on TANF? Don't any of you realize people move here from Ma. once their three year limit on TANF is up and then come here and get five more years of TANF? Do you realize these mother's keep having babies so their TANF goes up? Years ago, you weren't eligible to get help from the state unless you had lived here six months. Whats wrong with putting that back into affect? Go check out the welfare office sometime. What you see will shock you. Brand new cars with Ma. plates. All applying for TANF.
Would you like to save the state more money? Stop the illegal removal of children by DCYF. Every report that get's called in, the child is removed and placed in foster care, because supposedly every child is in imminent danger. That's BS! Children are NOT placed with relatives because DCYF would lose state money as well as federal funding. And stop the Judges from letting DCYF pull their strings. Do you realize how many children have been kept from their families because the Judges will NOT admit evidence proving innocence? Will not let the parents fire their court-appointed puppet Lawyers who admit the court is their boss when asked why they wouldn't fight? Will not release court CD/s that prove perjury by DCYF and their Lawyer's. Judges who lie in their decisions? Judges who terminate fictitious father's rights, knowing all along they have the wrong man? Granting adoption of children while appeals are pending? And paying Childrens Homes $300.00 a day for each child placed by DCYF is another waste of money, especially when the children have family members fighting for them.
How about a bill to elect Judges? It seems NH Judges are way too comfortable, knowing there isn't much chance of them ever getting impeached? So of course they do whatever they want.