Welfare reform meets the law of unintended consequences

Townhall.com ^ | March 27, 2006 | Phyllis Schlafly

[Lorianne]

Parents SHOULD be responsible for their kids.

If the father doesn't work, perhaps he can stay home and take care of the kids while the mother works.

[indianrightwinger]

What planet are you from to suggest that Parents are responsible for children? Government owns them and is fully responsible for them. The government also has the responsibility to brainwash them in communist camps (aka public schools).

</s>

[HaveGunWillTravel]

you are a genius.

[DemforBush]

But, but...I thought it took a village!


/justjokingaround

[beaversmom]

ping

[Paleo Conservative]

But, but...I thought it took a village!

You almost have it right.

It takes a village idiot!

[stopem]

The article is talking about a one parent home.
Either the woman is alone with children because they are divorced or they are single women with children.

Women alone with children can work, the thought that they can't work is BS. I personally know a woman who when she got a divorce went to work when her baby was a few months old, that was 21 years ago and she is still working for Exxon. Never once took one penny from welfare or medicaid.

Women who sit around all day watching soaps and waiting for the government to support her kids and her are lazy leeches.

[ClaireSolt]

Yes, women can work, but children of working women still need fathers and child support, from my experience.

[stopem]

Yes the children need their Father but the point is that it has nothing to do with whether the woman goes to work, that is two separate issues.

If they go to work the father still has to pay support but at least the woman is than taking responsibility to care for herself and her family.

[NutCrackerBoy]

Phyllis Schafly is a national treasure.

[right2parent]

The separate issue is whether there is a public interest in compelling payments from fathers who have not abandoned their children to the welfare roles. This is the means test Phyllis is describing here. The program legitimately compels fathers who do abandon families to the welfare roles to contribute or reimburse the government for public assistance payments they are obligated to provide when they had the means to do so.

Assuming the people gave the power of parens patriae to their state, and it could be argued they did not, the power is at least limited to cases that demonstrate a need to protect a class who are abused or neglected. Without proof of such a need, the state has no power to interfere with our right to be left alone. The issue is this program ignores any limit to the excersize of government power to interfere with private rights.

[conservative cat]

Our state only takes on collecting child support for (non-welfare) children when the non-custodial parent is at least a month behind already on court ordered payments. I (and other middle income working parents I know) appreciate the state collecting it. If it wasn't for that, who knows when these exes would pay up? (It would get expensive to keep dragging him/her in to court.)

[right2parent]

Would you be eligible for welfare if he payed you nothing?

[conservative cat]

Would you be eligible for welfare if he payed you nothing?

Not even close to eligible for any government services.

[RogerFGay]

Actually, the situation is pretty lousy with corruption. The fed pays states a bonus depending on how much is paid through the collection system. So, states have made a special effort to force men into the payment system to collect higher amounts of federal funding.

[conservative cat]

I believe that it probably is corrupt. I don't know about other states, but in WA, I don't see that it really hurts the dads that the state collects (other than they are required to pay.) My ex has gotten behind before (like when he went on 100% paid disability for a month and a half and it took a year for them to get that month's support back from him) and they don't even charge interest (although they are legally allowed to do so.) I am sure that it saves everyone in court costs and lawyer fees, because I don't need to go to court everytime he gets behind. (Before I was paid through the state, he gave me whatever amount of money he felt like paying, at his convenience.)

I don't think it's a great idea for the feds to waste their money on this, but... it is a very helpful service for those of us on the receiving end.

[freedumb2003]

I don't think you understood the situation she described. State governments have a vested financial interest in ensuring that fathers see theit children as little as possible and that interest is flowing into the courts.

It is another cog in the giant anti-male feminizitation of everything. We have suspected the courts favored women -- now we have proof of another reason why.

The "welfare of the children" is NOT on the agenda in Family Court.

[RogerFGay]

Actually, there's no significant difference in "collection" (payment) rates between before the creation of the government collection system and after. Percent of payment of total award amount actually dropped somewhat after the system was created because amounts awarded were artifically inflated at the same time -- something most journalists don't write about -- or at least have never been accurate / honest writing about. Mostly the problem of non-payment due to artifically inflated awards is one experienced by lower income fathers -- mostly, but not exclusively. But there is and never has been any sign of increased percent paid of total awarded related to the creation of the government collection system.

There has always been a history of fathers getting behind because for some reason or another, it's sometimes difficult or impossible to pay all that is owed. Intact families adjust to varying financial circumstances all the time ... whereas divorced fathers are expected to provide the steady stream of payments no matter what. What's worse for them is that it doesn't even matter if they encounter a long term problem, like having a new job that pays less. Often, periods of unemployment are not taken into account to adjust awards according to ability to pay.

Washington State does have a somewhat unique arrangement regarding fathers with other children ("second families") to support. An organization called P.O.P.S. sued the state over its cs guidelines on constitutional grounds. P.O.P.S. was composed primarily of fathers who had remarried and had other children to support in the new family. Their legal process ended after the Washington State legislature passed a law that essentially excluded such cases from guideline decisions by providing an arbitrary deviation from guideline results to account for children of second families.