Where liberals go wrong: About a dozen years ago, the hot topic was Deadbeat Dads, divorced fathers who failed to pay their child support. The image of the divorced father, whether he had custody of his children or not, fell on ultra hard times. All divorced men were made to feel like selfish children who had cheated their sybs out of their lunch money. Amost half of all divorced fathers, it was argued, either failed to pay child support or a portion of their child support. (A footnote included women who fell into the same category.)
Consequently, liberals and conservative governments set about attempting to rectifying the situation by actively persuing deadbeat dads and enacting laws that would prohibit this sort of bad behavior. In today's New York Times Leslie Kaufman reports in an article, "When Child Support Is Due, Even the Poor Find Little Mercy," some of the consequences of liberal laws gone wild, to coin a phrase.
Kaufman reports that about a decade ago the federal government said fathers owed something like 31 billion dollars in back support; as of 2003 (last year for data) some 96 billion dollars was owed. According to government figures, 70 percent of this money is owed by men who earn less than 10,000 dollars per year, meaning they can't afford to pay rent for themselves, much less child support. Only around 4 percent of the money is owed by men earning over 40,000 dollars per year. (The government can attach their wages.)
Obviously, laws that were enacted to help children by providing divorced mothers who have custody of their children have failed to do so, and it seems that judges and lawmakers in the various states have any intention to alter the situation.
One begins to understand that the laws enacted in these particular cases have nothing whatsoever to do with helping children and everything to do with feeling self-righteous. It seems conservatives aren't the only ones capable of being sanctimonious. But you already knew that, didn't you.
Speaking of conservatives: When David Brooks, one of the few truly intelligent apologists for the Republicans, starts to complain about the administration and congress, you know something is truly awry.
It seems that fiscal conservatives (sic) like Judd Gregg and Lindsey Graham are actually proposing legislation that George Bush campaigned on in 2000. So what's Bush's response? He has promissed to veto any bills sent to him that include proposals he made in his first campaign.
This has Brooks wondering if we "Have … entered another a world, where up is down and rationality is irrational?"
Where have you been, Brooks? We've been living in this Orwellian world now for four years, and you are just now realizing it?
Consequently, liberals and conservative governments set about attempting to rectifying the situation by actively persuing deadbeat dads and enacting laws that would prohibit this sort of bad behavior. In today's New York Times Leslie Kaufman reports in an article, "When Child Support Is Due, Even the Poor Find Little Mercy," some of the consequences of liberal laws gone wild, to coin a phrase.
Kaufman reports that about a decade ago the federal government said fathers owed something like 31 billion dollars in back support; as of 2003 (last year for data) some 96 billion dollars was owed. According to government figures, 70 percent of this money is owed by men who earn less than 10,000 dollars per year, meaning they can't afford to pay rent for themselves, much less child support. Only around 4 percent of the money is owed by men earning over 40,000 dollars per year. (The government can attach their wages.)
Obviously, laws that were enacted to help children by providing divorced mothers who have custody of their children have failed to do so, and it seems that judges and lawmakers in the various states have any intention to alter the situation.
One begins to understand that the laws enacted in these particular cases have nothing whatsoever to do with helping children and everything to do with feeling self-righteous. It seems conservatives aren't the only ones capable of being sanctimonious. But you already knew that, didn't you.
Speaking of conservatives: When David Brooks, one of the few truly intelligent apologists for the Republicans, starts to complain about the administration and congress, you know something is truly awry.
It seems that fiscal conservatives (sic) like Judd Gregg and Lindsey Graham are actually proposing legislation that George Bush campaigned on in 2000. So what's Bush's response? He has promissed to veto any bills sent to him that include proposals he made in his first campaign.
This has Brooks wondering if we "Have … entered another a world, where up is down and rationality is irrational?"
Where have you been, Brooks? We've been living in this Orwellian world now for four years, and you are just now realizing it?
posted by Jim | 2:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home