ONLY ON 3: DSS cuts daycare help for hundreds of families

Tags: , , ,

Submitted: Thu, 09/13/2012 - 9:38pm
Updated: Fri, 09/14/2012 - 3:17pm

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) — Bad news is waiting in the mailbox for many families in New Hanover County. The Department of Social Services is dropping 288 children from its Childcare Subsidy Program.

Cynthia Boulay got quite a shock when she picked up her kids from daycare Wednesday.

“Literally when I was walking out the door to take my kids home, I found out from the director she had gotten an email that said my daycare would be terminated as of September 30,” Boulay said.

Thanks to the New Hanover County Childcare Subsidy Program, Boulay pays just $400 a month for daycare for her twin infants and afterschool care for her son in Pre-K. Once that ends, her cost will go up to more than $300 a week. It’s an expense she and her husband can’t afford.

“I clear about $500 after taxes and after everything is taken out, so I would wind up losing money to send them to daycare,” Boulay said.

DSS Director LaVaughn Nesmith says this is the first time in several years the agency has had to drop families like this, but with the number of families being served, the program will not have enough money to complete the fiscal year.

“We are 30 percent above where we should be, and at the rate we are, it will take a lot to balance between now and May 30,” Nesmith said.

The first families dropped are those who were told they would only be eligible to receive benefits for a short period of time, but more will follow.

“We will continue to cut until the budget is balanced, so I don’t know how many that will be,” Nesmith said.

Leaving parents like Boulay in a difficult situation. She said if she can’t get help, she’ll have to quit her job to stay home with her kids. Her family’s lower total income would then qualify them for more government aid.

DSS asked the state for more money to avoid these cuts, but it was denied.

The next round of cuts will begin next month.


  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    The wealthy did well, so let’s punish them?

    The wonderful thing about the American freedom you people are trying to kill is that you are free to succeed AND free to fail. Nowhere in the Constitution is it written that the government must take from those who succeed and give to those who fail.

    I’ve had a marvelously successful life because of MY efforts. You are not entitled to one penny of it. YOU didn’t earn it.

  • Regular Folk says:

    ENOUGH! We were a middle-class family. Not anymore. We are in debt up to our ears and I have to worry everyday how we are am going to pay our bills. We have never taken any handouts. To those who are getting assistance, suck it up – WE DON’T HAVE ANYMORE MONEY TO GIVE YOU. To the 1 percenters that are trying to get in office so they can tax me more and tax themselves less, stop being such greedy bastards – WE DON’T HAVE ANYMORE MONEY TO GIVE YOU.

  • Guesty1 says:

    That’s one of the reasons my wife and I elected to NOT have children. Our work schedules and income made it unfeasable. It sucks but sometimes in life you have to make tuff decisions. Why are they continuing to have children? Do they just expect the Gov & taxpayers to pay for their children. Perhaps it’s time to tie those tubes??

  • mom of two boys says:

    I understand that everyone struggles
    This child care assistance was taken from me
    I work and a full time student. Trying to better myself for my family. As a result I am now looking at dropping out of school and foreclose on my house. On limited income i need that assistance for the sake of my children.and me doing something with education so I don’t have to be on assistance Yes it was my choice to have kids.but god gave me my kids.

  • Guestarticulatore says:

    Common, how can you infer that my “cut and paste” is calling to punish the wealthy who did well? Congratulations on your marvelously successful life because of YOUR efforts! I’m most certain that you never benefited from any corporate welfare whatsoever….

    Maybe you haven’t lined your pockets with agribusiness subsidies, oil subsidies or profited by rigged, overpriced government contracts but many of your precious rich have. Maybe you never increased your wealth by outsourcing jobs or chopping benefits, but many of the precious rich you defend have. Maybe you never benefited from political barriers sheltering your business from real competition but again, many of the precious rich you defend have as well.

    I agree, welfare NEEDS to be cut; but I am much more in favor of cutting welfare to corporations and shareholders rather than begrudging child care assistance to a working family.

    Henry Ford is at the top of the list of historical capitalists I admire. He got rich, very rich, but in a way that expanded the economy by providing affordable goods and creating wealth by increasing wages. Ford just took a little less than what today’s capitalists feel they’re entitled.

  • Guestk says:

    Child care costs are so out of hand. A co-worker pays $1200.00 per month for two children…and has to pay this regardless of whether or not her children are even there “to hold their space”. If the provider is closed for a holiday she pays. If her child is out sick she pays. If they close for bad weather she pays. There are no breaks. And she can’t possibly be bringing home much afterwards. But she does it. She does it because if it means an extra $50.00 a month to feed her family it is worth it. She does it to kept herself in the workforce so when the kids are both in school she has a work history and growth. She does it because in the long run her family is better for it. Now THAT is making a tough decision! Not just deciding against having children so you can live free of the obligation. These days are tougher for young families than they have ever been. If my taxes are going up…and they will…for people to watch baseball… I would much rather help people trying to make a living by offsetting some of the exorbitant costs of doing so.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    You’d likely receive a few thousand.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    Straight from the IRS, for tax year 2009:

    The top 1% of earners pay 40.4% of all federal income tax.

    The top 10% of earners pay 71.2% of all federal income tax.

    The wealthy are getting soaked and providing far more to support these societal leeches that you can even dream of.

    Your enemy isn’t the people who are successful or those who want to see them treated more fairly. Your enemies are the entitlement mentality of the Democrats and the people they bribe in return for their votes.

    “I have never understood why it is greed to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else’s money.” – Thomas Sowell

  • Guest2020 says:

    The daycare gave this woman notice and she has seventeen days to make other arrangements. It doesn’t take that long to find a suitable daycare/sitter. I don’t know which daycare costs more than three hundred a week, but I never paid nearly that much.

  • Guest123456 says:

    My prayers are with you and your family and don’t listen to these dumb jerks because they never had to struggle how in the hell can they judge someone else situation. All you hear is my tax dollars this, but if the family is employed your tax dollars go toward those programs as well.

  • Guest123456 says:

    I agree dumb jerks don’t realize they will need some assistance one day, you have to get old and who’s going to pay for their care???????

  • Melissa says:

    If you are under 25 or have less than 3 children you can’t get your tubes tied(in NY anyway) some young women who are responsible and take birth control sometimes get pregnant anyways, food for thought before you judge.

  • Jennifer says:

    You have serious issues. All caps means your yelling basically right? Over taxes? They would take the same amount of taxes away from you anyway, trust me. And in this day and age, most people will end up needing help at some point in there life. I wonder if there will be any help for you when you need it one day. I just don’t get people like you, your going to give yourself a heart attack over someone getting assistance? The real problem is how daycare and most basic needs cost so much yet the majority of people have to work for barely any wages. Daycare costs more than people are getting paid. They can’t help that and working more won’t solve anything when you make $7-$8 an hour while daycare will cost you closer to $10 an hour. I hope one day you can channel all that energy/anger to a more worthy cause….

  • Common$$$cents says:

    You can not judge someone for their decisions when it comes to having kids. it is a sad day for humanity when we allow money to dictate life. You sound as if your liberty is attached to how much money you make. I feel for you.

  • Guestarticulatore says:

    This article provides a more complete view of the concentration of wealth than the isolated presentation of the 2009 statistics:

    According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275%. During the same time period, the 60% of Americans in the middle of the income scale saw their income rise by 40%. Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive. From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.[15] In 2009, the average income of the top 1% was $960,000 with a minimum income of $343,927.[16][17][18]

    In 2007 the richest 1% of the American population owned 34.6% of the country’s total wealth, and the next 19% owned 50.5%. Thus, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country’s wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15%. Financial inequality was greater than inequality in total wealth, with the top 1% of the population owning 42.7%, the next 19% of Americans owning 50.3%, and the bottom 80% owning 7%.[19] However, after the Great Recession which started in 2007, the share of total wealth owned by the top 1% of the population grew from 34.6% to 37.1%, and that owned by the top 20% of Americans grew from 85% to 87.7%. The Great Recession also caused a drop of 36.1% in median household wealth but a drop of only 11.1% for the top 1%, further widening the gap between the 1% and the 99%.[19][20][21]

    During the economic expansion between 2002 and 2007, the income of the top 1% grew 10 times faster than the income of the bottom 90%. In this period 66% of total income gains went to the 1%, who in 2007 had a larger share of total income than at any time since 1928.

  • Guest58695 says:

    I can not afford many of the things I need BECAUSE I HAVE TO PAY TAXES FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN NOT GET OFF THEY BEHINDS AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE IT ON WHAT THEY EARN. I had to do that when my kids were young and still having to do it because of LAZY LAZY PEOPLE. I need so many things that I can not afford and there are lots and lots of things I just want that I can not have. So what do I do? I do without things I need and don’t even think about the things I want. SUPPORT YOURSELF AND STOP TAKING MY TAX DOLLARS, I AM GOING POOR GIVING YOU THINGS I CAN NOT EVEN AFFORD AND THE SAD THING IS IT IS THINGS I NEED NOT WANT.

  • Grand Ole Party says:

    You sure can judge someone for their decisions when it comes to having kids, if you can’t afford to raise them right you have no business having them.

  • Das Weibstück says:

    Oh Boo HOO.. I guess NOT having MORE kids never crossed your minds?

    I am so sick of supporting everyone’s stupid failed attempts at family planning.

  • SurfCityTom says:

    I know the entitlement recipients will not like these thoughts.

    She knew, per the article, her benefits would end; they were only to be provided for a short time frame. Was she not seeking alternative options during this time? Why was she shocked?

    She has 3 children under the age of 5. I assume the age for the eldest as he is in Pre-K. He may only be 4.

    If you’re on a fixed or limited income, why have additional children for whom you apparently will not be able to afford the minimum necessities?

    What type of government aid would she be eligible if she voluntarily walked away from her current job?

    Sorry, but everyone is scrambling in this economy. How can anyone think about walking away from a job so they can qualify for more government subsidies? Sooner or later, the hemoraging government check book will be out of blood for those who do truly need assistance.

    This one has other options.

    Have she and her husband considered alternate work schedules so there is an adult available 24/7? One could work days and one could work nights and week-ends. I hope DSS takes that topic up with her before they open up the coffers.

    Now the confusion. If the benefits are being cut due to funding; how in the world can DSS pay more to her if she stops working when their funds are limited and they will be making further cuts?

  • Wilmington Observer says:

    “It’s an expense she and her husband can’t afford”. I can’t afford it either, but yet, the government keeps taking the money from my paycheck (taxes) to pay for other’s childcare, birth control, transportation, health care, housing, utilities, food, and (my biggest pet peeve) cellular telephone service. I am not, at all, against helping others whom I feel need / deserve the help. However, I am, totally, against the government taking my (tax) money and MAKING me. If the government stopped all forms of (tax payer funded) welfare programs, the citizens would have the money to lend assistance in the way that it should be lent; through family, church and civic groups and on an as needed, temporary, basis until the needy could figure out how to do for themself and then thank the “giver” by becoming the “giver” instead of always being the “taker”

    Wilmington Observer

  • Guest2020 says:

    My thoughts exactly. We took care of each other long before the government stepped in. And we help those who are actually in need, for things they need. I know what it’s like to need help, but when my family needed help, our church did most of the helping. We lost our home to a fire when I was young. Withing two days my sisters and I had clothes to wear to school. Within two weeks, we had a roof over our heads in a fully furnished home including washer and dryer and even dishes and silverware. Part of it came from renter’s insurance and the rest came through donations from the church.

  • Guest123456 says:

    Good luck finding a church in this day and age that is genuinely concerned about anything but a building fund. I partially agree with this comment. However, I feel child care should be for WORKING FAMILIES ONLY !!!!!! If your not against helping others why are you complaining??? The government just takes it upon themselves to do what you said you would do help needy families. I hope people like you get the pleasure of eating your words one day, before you judge take a walk in that families shoes, see how you like it……..

  • Guest51 says:

    Sounds about right, the government cuts funding to those who are working, qualifing them for more benefits, thus a bigger stress on the middle class.

    Instead of cutting programs that allow people to work, why not cut benefits to those who just take? If you have a job and are trying then we should help, if you are just leeching off the system, and refuse to better yourself, you get kicked to the curb.

    “Benefits” from the governement should only be for those trying to get out of a bad situation, not a way of life. For those who have no desire to move up, and have always lived on hand outs, let them do without, maybe that you motivate them to be productive members of society.

  • Guest9743 says:

    From my point of view leeching is leeching, you’re still getting a check form the government, this is no different from welfare. If people can’t afford to take care of their own children without getting help from the government (taxpayers) then they don’t need to have them. These people are TAKERS….spin this situation any way you want to, it’s still taking money from taxpayers!! Quit having children that you can’t afford to have!!

  • Common$$$cents says:

    as a former investigator who dealt with welfare fraud i think i have a unique perspective in that i believe all benefits should be very temporary, your qualifyinf information should be scrutinized and verified via 3rd party, a life plan should be established to allow individuals hope of recovery, and strict enforcment of the law and rules. Fraud hurts those who are really in need, those who are honest and simply found themselves down and out…..temporarily. However, my perspective is not realistic…..why you may ask…..first the politicians i worked for care more about image not fiscal responsibility, second, gov’t is too tangled and messy to work out a clear strategy for this, and thirdly people are just not committed enough to stand together to force our gov’t to enact real changes. say hello to the forever corporate world.

  • Guest5656 says:

    Young people in NC get very poor sex education,if any at all.Few young people are utilizing effective birth control.When pregnant they have and keep the child regardless of their financial, emotional or educational status in life. The cycle of poverty begins or is perpetuated with uneducated and uninformed children have children…is it any more morally right to bring a child into brutal poverty with few choices, than it is to prevent the birth in the first place?

  • Common$$$cents says:

    so every poor person should be childless????? think about what you are saying. income determines your family size? this world too shall pass….and i cant wait.

  • mark c says:

    Another reason to not have children if you can’t afford them…

  • SurfCityTom says:

    for one of the entitlement seekers to stick his head up from his burrow.

    But then I guess that is why you don’t get it.

  • GuestMan. says:

    for validating my comment.

  • GuestMan. says:

    for you because you certainly have the qualifications to see it.

  • SurfCityTom says:

    throw in the underfunded state obligations such as underfunded health plan for state retirees of about $200 Million and underfunded state pension plan, I believe at $500 Million. Those are the top 2 which come to mind. There are others.

    Anyone with half a brain should be able to see just how deep the abyss is.

  • Das Weibstück says:

    Yeah, they should be childless. Why should the rest of us have to pay for their nose miners? Problem is the poor are the ones breeding like rabbits !

  • SurfCityTom says:

    right on the head.

    If they can not afford to feed, clothe or care for them, then do not have children.

    Aren’t children born into those circumstances more likely to be victims of child abuse; have fewer educational opportunities available; and more likely to continue on that same path into childhood and their own parenthood?

    The cycle has to stop somewhere.

  • Commonsensenotcommontoday says:

    Throw in unfunded entitlements and you arrive at almost $57 trillion.

  • Ryan says:


  • Foresight is Everything says:

    “Not having Children” is a great plan going forward, unfortunately it ignores one very real fact. Those children are already here, and we have to deal with this now.

    IMHO I’d rather use tax payer money to help a working family than completely support a non-working family.

  • RSimmons says:

    With all due respect to the Boulay’s. They have twin infants and nothing in the story suggests they have suffered a recent sudden financial crisis. Why are they having children they cannot afford?

    Mrs Boulay says that she is “losing money” if she has to pay $300 of her $500 take home pay for daycare. Excuse me, but what is the other $200 for? My wife and I raised two children and put them through college on a teacher’s and a carpenter’s salary with not a nickle from DSS.

    If you can’t feed’em, don’t breed’em!

  • Guest7969 says:

    taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for your children anyway!

  • Guest61246 says:

    Taxpayers should not be paying for child care in the first place. If you cannot afford to take care of your kids, don’t have them. Another great argument for free birth control.

Leave a Reply