It would probably be helpful if you would stick to your own proposals and stop putting words in the other fellow's mouth. You're not being persuasive with that act, you're just sounding like a guy waving his arms around emotionally.
Your proposal to turn debt collection over to what amounts to private collection agencies is one that few conservatives should object to, especially since the government appears to be wasting most of the money they are currently spending on enforcement. Your proposal does not, however, deal with the other piece of the puzzle, which is that the award amounts themselves are being set by systems and procedures that date from an era when bogus research produced by feminist activists with little regard for truth ruled the day. We have a bunch of horrible laws that date from that era, and these support-level algorithms are among them. Mr. Gay appears to have spent considerable time working and researching in this area, and if you were a little less intent on labeling him instead of hearing what he has to say, you might learn something. It is simply not true that all attempts to make child support awards less onerous are motivated by a secret desire to abandon. You keep going there, and it's annoying. Please stop it.
I'm not saying to turn it over to collection agencies across the board, that's excessive. When it comes to the dads that actually pay their child support I think we should go back to the old way. Let dad send the check to mom and there's no reason to involve any third parties. That part wasn't broke.
What I'm saying is just for those cases where dad refuses to pay, that's it. The initial problem 20+ years ago (the problem that people tried to fix with a psychotic federal agency, which is never a good idea) was that mom had no ability to get money out of a dad that refused to pay. And that's really bad. In the 70s if a guy stopped paying his electric bill and his child support the electric company could hound him to the ends of the earth with collection agencies and civil suits and all kinds of other stuff (in 1990 I had a bad stretch and didn't pay my electric bill, they made my mother provide proof that I didn't live with her or they were gonna cut her off, I didn't even live in the state when that happened so it wasn't too hard... and I paid as soon as I had the money) and the mother of his children had to learn to live without that money. No matter how you slice it that's not an acceptable system.
So all I'm putting forth is a system almost identical to the one that existed before (ie, no federal agency, no federal control) except for one point: we treat the debt between former spouses JUST LIKE debt between citizens and corporations. All the burden of enforcement is on the ex-wife (just like it is with the electric company) but she actually has the ability to do something (much like the electric company). Nothing "like a collection agency" in this, the wife would hire an actual collection agency (we'll need some tweaking in the law to figure out how collection agencies handle continually incurring debt but that shouldn't be tough).
See I think you guys would like that system. Other than the changes to the current debt law there is no government involvement over and above the level government currently gets involved in bad debt situations (which is at the invitation of the creditor and the government has some serious limits on what they can do), no third party involvement when the father is paying (or can work out the situation with his ex).
I think it gives everybody what they want. You guys get to lose a federal agency you hate, I get the enforcement of payment that shows we're not a totally screwed up society.
Under joint custody there is considerably less and often none at all child support payments. Of course, it does require money to support the child in your direct custody but that is to be expected.
Again, why don't activists concerned with paying less in CS enthusiastically support JPC?