The ASPIRE Act: A Plan to Help Parents Save for Their Kids, or More "Government as Parent?"

Some members of Congress recently decided to aspire to new heights by sponsoring a new bill to help parents save money from their children. Known as the ASPIRE Act, the bill calls for the federal government to invest $500.00 in a savings account for every child born in the United States.

The idea behind the bill is to create an account that would grow tax-free until the child is 18. Parents would be allowed to supplement the account to as much as $20,000, which could be used for education, a first home, or retirement. And, depending on income level, the government could also toss more into the pot.

"It's a vehicle for investing in every child and providing parents a platform to save on behalf of their children," says Reid Cramer, research director of the Asset Building Program at New America Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based Think tank that is taking a lead role in promoting the legislation.

ASPIRE, which stands for America Saving for Personal Investment, Retirement and Education, is similar to the Child Trust Fund created in 2005 in the United Kingdom. That program covers every British child born on or after Sept. 1, 2002.

Support for the legislation has cut across the political and ideological spectrum. Sponsors of the ASPIRE Act range from conservatives like Senators Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Jim DeMint (R-SC) to liberal Democrats like Charles Schumer (D-NY). Sponsors of the House version of the bill include Reps. Harold Ford (D-TN), Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), and Phil English (R-PA.).

The idea of helping parents save for their children is amassing support, according to the New America Foundation.

Capitol Hill is also percolating with other child-centered savings measures including:

● The "Savings Competitiveness Act of 2006," sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) last January, who proposed expanding the Roth Individual Retirement Accounts to children.
Roth IRAs allow penalty-free withdrawals before retirement age for post-secondary education and first-time home purchases. Under today's rules, Roths can only be opened by people who have earned income.

● The "401Kids Family Savings Act of 2006," sponsored by Florida Republican lawmaker E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-Fla.) introduced last May, would allow parents to establish savings accounts for their children at birth. These accounts would grow tax-free and be used for college, first-time home purchases, or rolled over into a retirement account.

The proposals all share two common goals: to encourage families to start saving early for their children, and to teach families sound financial habits.

For low income families, these bills help give children more equal footing as young adults. The ASPIRE Act allows families to supplement the accounts. The government would match contributions for the lowest-income households.

For middle-income families, the program would make savings for kids a clear priority. "The savings rate in our country is so poor that people don't have savings for themselves, much less any kind of savings for their kids," says Veena Kutler of Mosaic Wealth Management, a financial advisory firm in Bethesda, Md. "Although $500 doesn't seem like much, the compounding of returns over time results in an amazing growth in money."

Kutler says that a single deposit of $500 invested over the last 25 years in an index portfolio would have grown to just under $10,000 today.

A pilot project for kids' savings programs known as the SEED initiative (Saving for Education, Entrepreneurship, and Downpayment), has been operating since 2003 in 12 sites around the country. the program has set up tax-free accounts of $200 to $1,000 for approximately 1,300 disadvantaged young children. Financial education and incentives is a key feature, with children getting additional contributions if, for example, they join their parents in a financial literacy class or get straight A's in school. SEED administrators notice that many participating families are saving more and changing spending behavior.

To learn more about the SEED program visit www.cfed.org.

Among the challenges to implementing a full-scale public savings plan are the
logistics and expense of providing $500 to each of four million American newborns a year at the taxpayers' expense.

The ASPIRE Act would require accountholders to return the initial $500 donation once they reach the age of 30, raising further questions about how the repayment plan would be administered and enforced. Other issues include how to provide adequate financial education--a key piece of the proposed legislation--to so many children.

Proponents say the returns would be worth the effort. Commentary from other conservative and liberal groups should be forthcoming by January.

DCFS Reform Advocates Buzzing about Ruling Barring Hearsay

DCFS reform advocates made quite a buzz on the Internet today by disseminating what appears to be an important ruling in A.G.G. v. Commonwealth of Kentucky.

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky vacated and remanded a decision by a lower court which terminated parental rights because of sexual abuse. The court found that a child's statements to a counselor during therapy and a physician during a physical examination were hearsay and inadmissible at trial under the U.S. Supreme Court case, citing Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004), because the child did not testify at trial and there was no opportunity for cross-examination of the child.

Because the child's statements were inadmissible, the child welfare agency failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the child had been sexually abused. Cite: NO. 2004-CA-001979-ME and NO. 2004-CA-002032-ME, 2005 Ky. App. LEXIS 163 (Ky. Ct. App 2005)

Advocates also noted a District of Columbia case, in re TY.B & In re TI.B, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed a lower court's order terminating a father's parental rights to his children, based on that court's finding of neglect; the appeals court holding that the erroneous termination order was based on inadmissible hearsay testimony.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the father adequately preserved his objection to admission of the testimony, and consequently reversed the termination order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Cite: No. 01-FS-1307; No. 01-FS-1320; 2005 D.C. App. LEXIS 390 (D.C. July 21, 2005)

Some view this as an interesting scenario when domestic violence charges are levelled and a police arrest is made--and they don't testify as to what they saw, or if they testify that they weren't there to see the incident occur, it is considered hearsay and inadmissable.

Some advocates argue that this scenario would mean throwing the case out based on the U.S. Supreme Court case of Crawford v. Washington, and creating a potential legal liability for law enforcement and the accuser for false swearing and making false statements to law enforcement officials; malicious prosecution and malicious abuse/use/misuse of process, harassment, and assault, false arrest and false imprisonment.

Lawsuit Sparks Debate from Parental Rights Groups on Circumcision

The Chicago Tribune reports that a Chicago-area lawsuit may cut apart the medical community and parental rights' groups.

In July, an undisclosed father of an 8 year-old boy is suing his ex-wife in an attempt to prevent his son's circumcision. The parents were divorced in 2003 and awarded joint custody, giving them equal input on medical decisions.

The boy's father believes the circumcision is unneeded and describes the operation as mutilation. The mother claims that the operation is medically necessary as the boy has suffered at least 4 genital infections in the last year.

Doctors for both sides have testified, with one side arguing there is no medical reason to remove the boy's foreskin, and the other side offering expert advice on circumcision as a way to prevent further problems.

Tracy Rizzo, the mother's lawyer, says that the father is opposed to procedure because he resents his former wife's remarriage to a Jewish man.

"The father has made this more of a political issue and nothing to do with medicine," she said.

Pennsylvania School Sticks to Zero Tolerance Policy on... Chewing Gum?

As reported by the Pittsburgh Tribune Review, a Pennsylvania middle school student recently received a 3-day suspension for sharing "contraband" with a classmate. Reportedly, the unnamed student shared a piece of Jolt chewing gum, which contains caffeine. The gum is "a stimulant that has no other redeeming quality," said Superintendent Amy Palermo.

The school policy precludes students from possessing a stimulant on school grounds. The school has soda machines, but they are not turned on during school hours and drinks containing caffeine are not sold in the lunchroom. School officials confirmed that there are no negative consequences for a student who brings a soft drink to school in a packed lunch, noting that the school cannot control what parents put in their children's lunches.

Superintendent Palermo noted that the student got in trouble when she shared the gum with a classmate. "What if the gum had been given to a student with a heart condition?" The Superintendent added, defending her decision. "As a parent, would you want your child to be able to get that type of product?"

Court Rules Medicaid Plaintiffs Lack Standing to Dispute Citizenship Proofs

A US District Court judge in Chicago has held that plaintiffs in a class action suit lack standing to challenge a new federal law requiring Medicaid recipients to present passports, birth certificates or other proof of citizenship at the risk of losing benefits. Plaintiffs have announced that they will appeal the preliminary ruling by Judge Ronald Guzman of the Northern District of Illinois.

The law, which is part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, would allegedly hurt nursing home residents, the disabled, and victims of natural disasters.

A July ruling by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has nonetheless already exempted most previous applicants who are elderly or disabled from having to show proof of citizenship. Guzman indicated in his ruling earlier this week that the issue of whether adopted and foster children have standing to challenge the law will be resolved later.

Filed in June, the lawsuit contends the the law violates plaintiffs' 5th Amendment due process rights. It was filed by the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law and Families USA, who claim that millions of citizens could lose their Medicaid coverage under the measure. Reuters has more.

Domestic Violence Policies Beating-up on Men and Fathers??

Tawny Kitaen had a short-lived acting career that was marked by provocative poses, drug abuse, and run-ins with the police. On April 1, 2002 she was arrested for attacking husband Chuck Finley, pitcher for the Cleveland Indians.

Finley then filed for divorce and was awarded custody of their two children. But hoping to reverse the custody decision, Kitaen accused Finley of domestic violence, even though he had no history of violence or abuse.

When parents make false allegations of domestic abuse, children are harmed the most. And in many cases, a variety of perverse incentives are at work behind those allegations that harm children, according to a report issued today.

“Perverse Incentives, False Allegations, and Forgotten Children” analyzes state domestic violence laws and the incentives they provide to make false claims.

Each year, over 2-3 million restraining orders are issued – in half those, there is not even an allegation of violence. In most cases, the woman is a mutual participant or even instigator of the abuse. Despite that, domestic violence laws in 22 states are often used to deprive children of access to the father.

As a result of being separated from the father, children are placed at higher risk of child abuse, academic difficulties, conduct problems, and involvement with the criminal justice system.

“The rewards are so great and the penalties so minor, is it any wonder false abuse allegations have become a favored tactic in custody disputes?” asks Michael McCormick, director of the Washington DC-based American Coalition for Fathers and Children.

In addition, judges in most states can award a broad range of financial and property benefits to persons who merely claim to be abused. These serve as further incentives to file false or trivial claims. Critically, these allegations also make it harder for true victims of domestic violence to get needed services.

The report was issued by RADAR – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – a non-profit organization devoted to assuring fairness and accuracy in domestic abuse.

“Perverse Incentives, False Allegations, and Forgotten Children” can be viewed at
http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/Perverse-Incentives.pdf

Erring on the Side of Hidden Harm: The Granting of Domestic Violence Restraining Orders

By David Heleniak

On September 19, 2005, Yvette Cade went before Judge Richard A. Palumbo seeking an extension of a domestic violence restraining order against her husband, Roger Hargrave. Palumbo, whether from confusion, clerical error, or a genuine belief that the extension was unwarranted, dismissed the restraining order. One month later, Hargrave walked into the cell phone store where Cade worked, doused her with gasoline, and set her on fire. Two weeks after the attack, Palumbo was removed from all domestic violence cases and placed on administrative duty.

On July 20, 2006, Cade was interviewed by Nancy Grace on CNN’s Headline Prime. Grace, emblematic of the media reaction, introduced the interview with:

Tonight, a primetime exclusive. She went before a trial judge and begged for help, begged for protection. He refused to hear her pleas for help. And then her nightmare came true. Her estranged husband came to her office and set her on fire. But against all odds, she lived, and tonight she wants justice. And PS, to the judge that sentenced her to being burned alive, Maryland judge Richard Palumbo, you are in contempt!

Adding to this, one of Grace’s other guests, Congressman Ted Poe, commented: “Well, Nancy, you know I believe that judges need to be accountable for their actions just like we make criminals accountable. And this judge, whether it’s a mistake or incompetence on his part, he needs to leave the bench.” A judicial misconduct hearing scheduled for the end of August was cancelled when Palumbo announced he planned to retire on August 4th because of health problems.

Whether or not the horrific criminal act committed by Hargrave would have been prevented had Palumbo extended the restraining order, the Yvette Cade tragedy and the ensuing backlash against Palumbo is likely to have just one result. As if things weren’t bad enough already in the family courts, judges are going to be even more likely to grant restraining orders, regardless of the facts, rather than risk being held responsible for a similar tragedy.

Economists have long realized that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials, in deciding whether to approve a drug, face the possibility of making two errors--they can approve a drug that turns out to be unsafe and/or ineffective, type I, or they can disapprove an effective drug that is, in fact, safe, type II--and have an incentive to make one type of error over the other.

A classic example of type I error, given by former FDA official Henry I. Miller, M.D., is the FDA’s approval in 1976 of the swine flu vaccine.

Although the vaccine was effective at preventing influenza,… it had a major side effect that was unknown at the time of approval: temporary paralysis from Guilain-Barré Syndrome in a small number of patients. This kind of mistake is highly visible and has immediate consequences--the media pounces, the public denounces, and Congress pronounces. Both the developers of the product and the regulators who allowed it to be marketed are excoriated and punished in modern-day pillories: congressional hearings, television news magazines, and newspaper editorials.

A classic example of Type II error, given by economist Walter E. Williams, is the FDA’s failure to approve the use of beta-blockers, available in Europe since 1967, until 1976.

In 1979, Dr. William Wardell, a professor of pharmacology, toxicology and medicine at the University of Rochester, estimated that a single beta-blocker, alprenolol, which had already been sold for three years in Europe, but not approved for use in the U.S., could have saved more than 10,000 lives a year…. Grieving survivors of those 10,000 people who unnecessarily died each year don’t know why their loved one died, and surely they don’t connect the death to FDA over-caution. For FDA officials, these are the best kind of victims--invisible ones.

Economist Thomas W. Hazlett sums it up this way: “Type I deaths result in headlines reading, ‘FDA-Approved Drug Kills Pregnant Mother, Congressional Hearings Slated.’ Type II deaths don’t generate headlines, or even little blurbs. There are no visible victims to lay on the regulator's doorstep when potential beneficiaries are only statistical probabilities.”

As Miller confides, “Because a regulatory official's career might be damaged irreparably by his good faith but mistaken approval of a high-profile product, decisions are often made defensively--in other words, to avoid type 1 errors at any cost.”

Although it is not politically correct to say so, women can and do use false allegations of domestic violence to gain sole custody and to get their children to hate and fear their fathers. Even when a restraining order doesn’t snowball into complete parental alienation, a judge’s declaration that a father is an abuser can permanently tarnish his image in his child’s eyes. The damage to father/child relationships and to children’s mental health caused by the overzealous entering of restraining orders, however, is seldom if ever reported, while the harm caused by overtly violent acts following the failure to enter restraining orders most certainly is.

Just like FDA officials worrying about the headlines, judges deciding whether to enter domestic violence restraining orders have their careers to think about in addition to the merits of the particular cases before them. When in doubt, they err on the side of hidden harm.

Facts should be determined by several fresh, open minds, not one with a career on the line. Jurors, relatively anonymous one-time actors in the judicial system, are far less concerned with extraneous matters than are judges. In the wake of the Yvette Cade tragedy, it is more critical than ever that juries, not judges, be used to decide when domestic violence restraining orders are warranted.

●●●

David Heleniak is an attorney in Morristown, NJ, and the author of “The New Star Chamber: The New Jersey Family Court and the Prevention of Domestic Violence Act.”

RADAR: Almost Anything Now Counts as "Domestic Violence"

RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) has just issued another stunning report, “Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law” which analyzes the civil domestic violence laws in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The report concludes that statutory definitions have been widened over the past decade to the point that in most states--almost any action can be viewed as “violent.”

“Domestic violence has become whatever the man does that the woman doesn’t like,” notes RADAR member Lisa Scott of Washington State. “Finding out she is having an affair and demanding she stop is seen as ‘abuse.’ This often triggers the woman to file for a restraining order, where no real evidence is required. In my 18 years of family law practice, I have seen this pattern occur over and over.”

As many recall, TV talk show host David Letterman found himself named in a restraining order last December. The order was granted at the request of Colleen Nestler of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Nestler alleged that for the past 11 years Mr. Letterman had been sending her “thoughts of love” in the form of mental telepathic messages and televised facial gestures.

Letterman’s actions indeed represent domestic “violence,” at least according to the laws of New Mexico. In that state, domestic violence is defined as “Any incident by a household member against another household member resulting in ... severe emotional distress ... [or] harassment.” The law states “cohabitation is not necessary to be deemed a household member.”

Any “person with whom the petitioner has had a continuing personal relationship” is a “household member.” So Nestler’s decade-long telepathic relationship with Letterman made him a member of her household, even though he had never heard of her.

Each year 2-3 million restraining orders are issued in the United States. Half of all restraining orders are issued without even an allegation of physical abuse. In 85% of cases, it is the husband or boyfriend who the target of the order.

Most orders are issued on an ex parte basis, which precludes the defendant from being present to give his side of the story. Restraining orders require the defendant to vacate the house and restrict contact with his children.

“Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law” can be viewed at http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Restraining-Orders.pdf