Monday, November 24, 2008

God Bless the USA, Part 2

Click here to see Part 1.

News of the $20 billion Citigroup bailout took me back to a phone conversation I had a couple months ago. After moving into my new house, I figured I'd better call Idaho Child Support Services and give them my new address. Following is the phone conversation I had with the operator, as close to word-for-word as I can recall:

"Idaho Child Support Services, this is Myrtle, can I help you?"

"Hi there, Myrtle. I just moved, and figured I better update my address."

"Okay, we can do that. Let me pull up your account here."

Gave her my personal info.

"Wow! It looks like you pay your child support regularly!"

"Ummm... I guess I didn't realize it was optional!"

(laughs)... "Well, it seems to be to some people."

"Well, Myrtle, while I have you on the phone... I wanted to ask about my statements. I stopped receiving them several months ago, and kept asking for one when I sent my check. But, I've never received one."

"Oh, yes. You won't be receiving a statement anymore, because you always pay."


"I guess I'm a little confused."

"New legislation was passed that only allows us to pay for postage on cases that have to be enforced."


"So.... what you're saying, is that as long as I keep paying, I'll never receive a statement?"

"That's correct."




"How come I never received anything letting me know that?"

"We couldn't use government funds to send a notice out, either."



"Well... uh... thanks for your help, Myrtle."

"Thanks for calling."

End of call

Here's how I see it. The government can't afford its own postage to send me a child support statement once a month, of which I always pay. But, it can afford to give Citigroup $20 billion, who in turn junk mails me at least twice a week, which I promptly throw away.


God bless us all. Everyone.


Anonymous said...

Washington state has a $25 annual fee now that gets taken directly out of your child support money. That's a x-mas present or a meal my son will never get... ok maybe that's a bit dramatic but why is it that the parent receiving the support has to pay all of that? Shouldn't it be a split cost at least? Or does that make me sound like a greedy B*!@h?.

Anonymous said...

Makes you sounds like a greedy B* ... um, whatever.

Otis G, There is no government like no government. Never forget it.