Court Opinion

ID: 9464432
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:32:58.853404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:37.311943
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I would affirm on' the basis of the well reasoned opinion of Earl R. Larson, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Minnesota. It is clear that the purpose of Congress in enacting the earned income disregard provisions of the Social Security Act was to encourage adult AFDC recipients to obtain gainful employment and to reduce or eliminate their dependence on AFDC benefits. 42 U.S.C. § 601; Report of the Senate Finance Committee, S.Rep. No. 744, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967), reprinted in [1967] U.S.Code Cong. & Ad.News 2834, 2982-2985, 2994-2996.
It cannot be disputed that recoupment involves a reduction in benefits to the recipients. That reduction necessarily reduces the work incentive provided by the earned income disregard provisions.1 Moreover, we note that the closer the recipient is to self-sufficiency, the more he or she is penalized by recoupment. The continued operation of other work incentive provisions, including sanctions for quitting, is not sufficient to achieve the clear congressional purpose. Indeed, as the District Court noted, “Congress regarded the value of the carrot [the earned income disregard] as possibly greater than that of the stick [the sanctions], for the disregard provision was found to be necessary despite its high cost (particularly in comparison to the cost-reducing effect of negative sanctions).”
We recognize that the State of Minnesota is entitled to maintain the fiscal integrity of its AFDC program. However, it should do so by improving the administration of its AFDC program so that agency errors neces*87sitating recoupment do not occur. The gain to the State of Minnesota through recoupment in instances where there is no recipient fault is minimal and is not sufficient to justify a recoupment scheme which contravenes the clear congressional purpose of reducing and eventually eliminating the reliance of adult AFDC recipients on the dole. Indeed, recoupment in such circumstances will discourage ablebodied men and women from seeking and retaining employment.

. In Minnesota, the total income available to recipients remains at or above the standard of need, even during recoupment because of the decision of the State to fund at full need levels. However, as the District Court noted, in states that do not fund at full need level, recoupment “robs the working poor of their only chance to achieve a standard of living that approximates subsistence level.”