[kjhm]

Are you familiar with the article from Stephen Baskervill "From Welfare State to Police State"? It can be found at www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_12_03_03_baskerville.pdf below is just one of the things he says: Perhaps the most striking aspect of this mobilization is that the initiative came entirely from government officials. No public outcry ever preceded these measures, nor did any public perception of such a problem even exist until officials began to say that it does. The public never demanded that government take action, nor was any public discussion of this alleged problem ever conducted in the national or local media. No government or academic study ever documented a nonpayment problem. A media blitz about alleged nonpayment did appear during the 1990s—including “a million stories at the networks on deadbeat dads” (Goldberg 2001, 136)—but it began after, not before, the government campaign, which few journalists questioned. Government officials and government-supported interest groups have taken the initiative at every point. Although child support was presented as a noncontroversial alternative to taxation for raising public revenue, no public discussion has ever been held of such basic questions as what precisely child support is for, who can be forced to pay it, under what circumstances an order can be entered against a citizen, how much a citizen can be required to pay, who decides how much must be paid, who can receive the money, what the money can be used for, what accountability should be required of recipients, or what methods are legal and proper to collect it. Perhaps the most fundamental disconnect between public perceptions and present reality is that whereas child support is invariably presented as a method for requiring men to take responsibility for offspring they have sired and then abandoned, it now functions primarily as a means by which “a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children” (Abraham 1999, 151). Needless to say, the voices of pursued parents themselves were seldom heard amid the chorus of condemnation. Yet cracks have begun to appear in the monolith in recent years. Economist William Comanor writes, “Child support obligations,” the FROM WELFARE STATE TO POLICE STATE ✦ 405 VOLUME XII, NUMBER 3, WINTER 2008 only form of “obligation” or “debt” that most of the debtors have done nothing to incur, “are now treated far more harshly than any other form of debt” (2004, 3). Attorney Ronald Henry more harshly characterizes government claims of widespread nonpayment as “an obvious sham,” a “disaster,” and “the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States” (2004, 135). “The overwhelming majority

[najida]

See the
enter
key.

Hit it a few times.

It’s fun!

[sickoflibs]

I just read :

Taken Into Custody
by Stephen Baskerville, Ph.D.

http://www.conservativebookclub.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7131

How the “divorce industry” destroys families — and threatens the civil rights of every parent
“Must reading for everyone who loves children, family, or justice.” — Phyllis Schlafly

[fanfan]

Although child support was presented as a noncontroversial alternative to taxation for raising public revenue, no public discussion has ever been held of such basic questions as what precisely child support is for, who can be forced to pay it, under what circumstances an order can be entered against a citizen, how much a citizen can be required to pay, who decides how much must be paid, who can receive the money, what the money can be used for, what accountability should be required of recipients, or what methods are legal and proper to collect it.

Perhaps the most fundamental disconnect between public perceptions and present reality is that whereas child support is invariably presented as a method for requiring men to take responsibility for offspring they have sired and then abandoned, it now functions primarily as a means by which “a father is forced to finance the filching of his own children” (Abraham 1999, 151).

Interesting.