John Edwards Waves Stick at Dads, Pushes the '$4 for $1' Child Support Enforcement Myth

GlennSacks.com ^ | 7/19/07 | Glenn Sacks

[PercivalWalks]

It's the lie that never dies--child support collects $4 for every $1 spent on enforcement, so enforcement efforts should be stepped up. The latest to push this is Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, as part of his new "Initiative to Strengthen Families" [http://campaignsandelections.com/nh/releases/index.cfm?ID=2156]. No, I'm not accusing him of being deceitful--he may well not know the truth about the issue. In my co-authored column "Federal Child Support Enforcement Cuts Will Hurt Bureaucrats, not Children" (Las Vegas Review-Journal & others, 12/17/05) [http://www.glennsacks.com/federal_child_support.htm], I explained:

"It is true that federal figures show that over $20 billion in child support is collected nationwide yearly, and that only $5 billion is spent on enforcement. However, the vast majority of the funds collected are not done through enforcement tactics—they’re simply the payments already being made by law-abiding noncustodial parents. These payments will continue to be made regardless of the cuts. The myth that child support enforcement is a bargain was created by incorrectly counterposing total collections with expenditures on enforcement. In reality, much if not most child support enforcement funds are frittered away in misguided attempts to collect artificially inflated paper arrearages from low-income men who couldn’t possibly pay them."

To give child support enforcement credit for all child support collections is like the collections department at Target being credited every time you buy something and pay at the cash register. It's utterly preposterous.

Edwards says his program seeks to "Encourage and Reward Responsibility from Fathers":

"Welfare reform required mothers to work and helps them find jobs, but it failed to reach low-income fathers. Edwards will require more fathers to help support their children and, in return, help them find work. He will reverse budget cuts in child support enforcement to increase collections by more than $8 billion over the next decade and ensure that payments benefit children."

As I explained in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, this is a fantasy--increased money for enforcement will not lead to a windfall of new collections, but will instead be a further waste of taxpayer money. The Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007 [http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=897], introduced recently by U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN), operates on similarly fallacious assumptions.

Funding for child support enforcement also increases enforcement abuses, which are already a major problem. To learn more, see my co-authored column "Child Support Enforcement System Victimizes Military Personnel, Innocent Citizens" (World Net Daily, 6/27/07) [http://glennsacks.com/blog/?page_id=872].

Thanks to child support expert Jane Spies [NFJAinfo@aol.com] of the National Family Justice Association [http://www.nfja.org/index.shtml] for pointing out the Edwards story to me.

[billybudd]

So, “strengthen families” by providing additional financial incentives for divorce, and by financially crippling men. Brilliant.

[GoldCountryRedneck]

Looking out for his liawer buddies as those folks pick up biz when your ex finds out your earning more now then back when.

Here in Kalif, the amount is/was determined by the payors' gross (pre-tax) W-2.

Payments are not tax-deductable to the payor nor taxable income to the payee as opposed to straight alimony which is.

Meant, to me personally over the years, a tidy $100,000 tax-free income to my ex which I never had any voice at all as to how it was spent.

Dads' really get the shaft in this State...

[chae]

Actually, my ex-husband only married the mother of his second child because she told him if he married her, she would drop the child-support lawsuit she had against him.
I’m in the process of going back to court because my ex hasn’t paid me any since March 2005. My ex has financially crippled himself by drugging, and sleeping around without a condom. Also, to avoid paying child support, he works at various fast food places in the STL area and once I track his employment down, he quits and moves elsewhere. I have to rely on the court for help because hunting him down is job in and of itself.

[festus]

If they stepped up punishing women who keep the kids from Dad too then I’d support it.

But last I checked no moms were in jail for keeping the kids from Dad.

[billybudd]

So, you were with a guy who’s a druggie and sleeps around without a condom and you’re complaining? There are normal, caring dads who are having their kids taken from them for *no good reason* and you have cause to complain?