mkg4583

Wreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize” – CNN iReport

In Best Interest of the Child, Child Custody, Childrens Rights, Divorce, Domestic Relations, Family Court Reform, Family Rights, Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parents rights on February 25, 2010 at 4:45 pm

Wreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize”

18 hours ago | Knoxville, Tennessee | Vetting explained

Click to view  xzxeddiexzx's profile Posted by:
xzxeddiexzx

    iReport —

    The Law Perverted! Child Support and Politicians alike have taken the  position of Marxist Principal in the Freeworld by dominating and exploiting the  working class. Made to perform more labor than is necessary.

    Alienation-denotes  the estrangement of people from their humanity.

    Child Support has nothing to do  with justice, it is a panoply of plundered pops, and overwhelmingly now more  than ever, Child Support is a regime whereby a father is forced to finance the  filching of his own children.

    What is most striking is that this witch hunt of  zealots has come entirely from government officials. No public outcry ever  preceded these measures. The public never demanded that the government take  action, nor has any public discussion of this alleged problem ever been held in  the national or local media.

    Needless to say the voices of pursued parents are seldom heard amid the  chorus of condemnation. The bipartisan certainty of their guilt is sufficient to  set aside their right to trial and declare them public enemies by general  acclaim. Yet there is reason to believe that this problem is an optical illusion  and that what is being portrayed as irresponsible fathers is in reality a  massive abuse of government power.

    In recent years, a few cracks have appeared  in the monolith. William Comanor writes that “child-support obligations” the  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.”  Attorney Ron Henry characterizes the system “as an obvious sham” a “disaster,”  and “the most onerous form of debt collection practiced in the United States.”  “The overwhelming majority of so-called ‘deadbeat dads’ are judicially created,”  says another attorney. “Why all this talk about so-called ‘deadbeat dads’?  Because there is a lot of money to be made through that myth.”

    When one begins to research the objective data and the research of  independent scholars, it turns out that the problem is mostly the creation of  government officials. In fact the myth of deadbeat dad has already been  discredited conclusively by Sanford Braver and other scholars. We have already  seen that few married or not married fathers seldom voluntarily abandon their  children. Beyond this Braver has also shown that little scientific basis exists  for claims that large numbers of fathers are not paying child support. Braver  found that government claims of nonpayment were derived not from any compiled  database or hard figures but entirely from surveys of mothers, and these alone,  in setting enforcement policy against fathers, and no effort is made to balance  them with surveys of non-custodial parents. Yet Braver found that fathers  overwhelmingly do pay court-ordered child support when they are employed, often  at enormous personal sacrifice.


    STATE REVENUE VIA CHILD SUPPORT

    A look at government machinery reveals that it was created not in response to  claims of widespread nonpayment but before them, and that it was less a response  to “deadbeat dads” than a mechanism to create them. Like new divorce laws (and  shortly after their enactment), the child-support regulations and criminal  enforcement machinery were created while few were paying attention.

    Under pressure from bar associations and feminist groups, President Gerald  Ford signed legislation creating the Office of Child Support Enforcement in  1975, warning at the time that it constituted unwarranted federal intrusion into  families and the role of states. Contrary to professions of concern “for the  children,” the principal purpose was never to provide for abandoned or  impoverished children but to recoup welfare costs for the government. In fact,  no study has ever been undertaken by the Department of Health and Human  Services, Congress, or any branch of government to explain the reason for the  agency’s existence.

    Almost immediately the program began to expand exponentially, increasing  tenfold from 1978 to 1998. The massive growth of law-enforcement machinery and  reach was federally driven. In 1984, the Child Support Enforcement amendment to  the Social Security Act required states to adopt child support guidelines. The  legislation was promoted by the OCSE itself and by private collection  companies—again less to help children than to save the government money under  the theory that it would help get single-mother families off of welfare by  making fathers pay more. Because most unpaid child support is due to  unemployment, and because most “non-custodial parents of AFDC [welfare] children  do not earn enough to pay as much child support as their children are already  receiving in AFDC benefits,” according to researchers Irwin Garfinkel and Sara  McLanahan, higher child-support guidelines could not help these children.

    Then, with no explanation or justification (or constitutional authority),  guidelines and criminal enforcement machinery conceived and created to address  the minority of children in poverty were extended, under pressure from OCSE and  other interests, to all child-support orders, even the majority not receiving  welfare, by the Family Support Act of 1988.

    This vastly enlarged the program and  transformed a welfare provision into an entitlement. Today welfare cases,  consisting mostly of unmarried parents account for only 17 percent of all  child-support cases, and the proportion is shrinking. The remaining 83 percent  of non-welfare cases consist largely of previously married fathers who are  usually divorced involuntarily and who generally can be counted on to pay. With  wage withholding, “the number of dollars passing through the government  collection system exploded,” mostly from non-welfare cases for which the system  was never designed, which currently accounts for 92 percent of the money  collected.

    The 1988 law also made the guidelines presumptive and, for all practical  purposes, compulsory. By one estimate the new guidelines more than doubled the  size of awards. Yet that point was already known among policy makers and  scholars that, with the exception of the relatively small number of poor and  unemployed fathers, no serious problem on nonpayment existed. Not only was  Braver presenting the results of his research, but a federal pilot study  commissioned four years earlier by OCSE itself was published with similar  findings. Originally the full-scale government-sponsored study was planned to  follow up the pilot, but that was quashed by the OCSE when the pilots findings  threatened the justification for the agencies existence by demonstrating that  non-payment of child support was not a serious problem. The Congressional  Research Service also concluded at about the same time that no serious problem  existed.

    Promoted as a program that would reduce government spending, federal  child-support enforcement has incurred a continuously increasing deficit. “The  overall financial impact of the child-support program on taxpayers is negative,”  the House Ways and Means Committee reports. Taxpayers lost $2.7 billion in  2002.

    This money does not vanish. It ends up in the pockets and coffers of state  officials, for whom it constitutes a lucrative source of revenue and income.  “Most states make a profit on their child-support program,” according to Ways  and Means, which notes that “States are free to spend this profit in any manner  the State sees fit.”

    In other words, federal taxpayers (who were supposed to  save money) subsidize state government operations through child-support. This  also transforms family courts from impartial tribunals into revenue-generating  engines for the state government.

    In addition to penalties and interest, states profit through federal  incentive payments based on the amount collected, as well as receiving 66  percent of operating costs and 90 percent of computer costs. (When two states  collaborate, both states qualify for the incentive payment as if each state had  collected 100 percent of the money.) Federal outlays of almost $3.5 billion in  2002 allowed Ohio to collect $228 million and California to collect $640  million. “There is a $200 million per year motive driving this system” in  Michigan alone, attorney Michael Tindall points out. “It dances at the strings  of federal money.”

    To collect these funds states must channel payments through their criminal  enforcement machinery, further criminalizing involuntarily divorced parents and  allowing the government to claim its perennial crackdowns are increasing  collections despite the program operating at an increasing loss. In January  2000, HHS Secretary Donna Shalala announced that “the federal and state  child-support enforcement program broke new records in nationwide collections in  fiscal year 1999, reaching $15.5 billion, nearly doubling the amount collected  in 1992.” Yet these figures are not what they appear.

    In simple accounting terms, the General Accounting Office, which appears at  face value all the official HHS assumptions and data for what is “legally owed  but unpaid,” found that as a percentage of what it claims is owed, collections  actually decreased during this period. “In fiscal year 1996, collections  represented 21 percent of the total amount due but dropped to 17 percent of the  total amount due in fiscal year 2000,” writes GAO? “As a result the amount owed  at the end of the period is greater than the amount owed at the beginning of the  period.”

    These facts are gathered from a book published by Cumberland House Publishing  Inc. The Title is Taken Into Custody- The War Against Fathers, Marriage, and the  Family. By Stephen Baskerville For the sole purpose to stir up concern for  rights of people.

    ((Something needs to be done.))

    Below is contributed by: xzxeddiexzx CNN  I-Reporter

    While the states claim they have increased the collections of unpaid child support. It does not use the actually collected figures. It only relies on the documented back child support claims of over inflated arrears unconstitutionally delivered to the non-custodial parents.

    So the weight of supporting the entire welfare system lands on the backs of a selected group of American citizens that are in turn refused and denied Equal Justice under the law. They are refused the fundamental right to due process and in most cases are limited in the relationship with their very own natural and biological children.

    During this new economic downturn, this very method of miscalculated, mishandled Judiciary infringement of civil and constitutional law on only a select group of society is nothing short of modern day slavery and discrimination from the Governing bodies unto the citizen taxpayers in a bias approach to assault one gender over the other. Putting parents of the children involved, at war destroying the foundation the children rely on and need to become productive members of society.

    Instead of the system finding common ground and exercising equal justice under the law. They infringe on the civil and constitutional rights of a singled out group primarily (men). But cases such as mine has the female gender in the non-custodial position. But all the literature given by the State funded agencies are bias.

    Painting the male gender with a bad brush. The literature does not use the terms when talking of the noncustodial parent (He / She) or (Mother / Father) etc.

    It plainly says if you are having problems collecting money from HIM. We can garnish HIS wages. Issue a offset on HIS tax returns or any state funded monies.

    So you see the biasness? You see how someone in my position of a unwed father with primary residential custody would find this issue insulting and discriminatory?

    When will society understand that one of the primary reasons we are having the economic crisis we as a society are having today has been because of States like Tennessee that have violated public trust in a attempt to cover up the lavish spending on private and personal items on the the taxpayers money, while using the child support systems as their own personal bailout program. This is why we have the over inflated arrearages set in child support cases against the weakest party that does not have the same rights to the judiciary process as the favored party that helps them generate the funds to run the scam on society.

    This is totally unconstitutional and attacks the civil liberties of a singled out group that are suppressed by not being awarded the rights that is awarded to the side that the States have taken up interest in. Which is the custodial parents because they are working together to extort money from the federal government while hiding behind the statue in the child’s best interest. These proceedings have nothing to do with the child’s interest at all. It is only the interest of the state to take any measure to fund their practice of over spending the tax dollars.

    Why should we allow as a society any group to be singled out and destroyed while the evidence is clear that they would violate your rights if they stood a chance to gain a dollar from doing so.

    So today it is the child support issue and once they see that they do not meet any challenge in this matter they will focus on other subjects within our communities.

    I would love to hear some input about this very important issue that effects all of us citizens that pay taxes or have children of our own.

    Do we not deserve to have a fair balanced Justice system?

    Do we not owe our children equal protection and both parents ?

    Do you think a selected group should be singled out and violated by a government either state , local or federal?

    The sums they calculate for the retroactive support orders also take into account the elderly on the welfare system. I personally think that the taxes we all pay covers the cost for them to have the coverage they need. I also think that both parents should be held to 50% of the costs involved with raising the children.

    If this means that the woman that retains custody can not be a full time stay at home mom because she would also have to work and fund her fair share of the obligation then there needs to be provisions that their would be shared time with the child between each others job requirements.

    It took two people to create the child and bring it into this world. If they was not prepared then they both have to work harder in order to become prepared and supportive to the obligation to the child.

    There are other models and methods that would be more beneficial to the child and the family structure but the government would not want to lend a ear to the results because they would not be able to manipulate the taxpayers and profit while lying to the general public and the facts about the fairness and constitutional upholding within the organized crime ring supported by the states via federal funding while the municipalities fall out of compliance with the federal rules and regulations set forth, and continue to collect the federal dollars as if they were complying…

    Embedded Corruption has the Economy in greater risk of crashing. The mishandling of the critical tax dollars that so many are reliant upon are in jeopardy if reform measures are not take swiftly in this area of government corruption to restore equality unto it’s people that it is suppose to protect and serve equally without bias agendas.

    The following link leads to the Social Security Administrations investigation into this very matter. The findings are correct and accurate but have increased since the study was conducted in 2006 before the economy imploded.

    http://www.laryholland.com/ssacse/

    • Tags:

    Comments (11)

    Log in to comment

    iReport welcomes a lively discussion, so comments on iReports are not pre-screened before they post. See the iReport community guidelines for details about content that is not welcome on iReport.

    Click to view  xzxeddiexzx's profile xzxeddiexzx

    57 minutes ago

    Oh why so defensive? Did I strike a nerve?

    Child support issues should never be about a GENDER!

    I am taking her to court for the federal Identity theft charges and many other criminal charges. It has been a long time coming, but I am committed to seeing it through to…

    Read more …

    Click to view Geonite's  profile Geonite

    1 hour ago

    Thentake the mother to court. For every deadbeat mother there are several deadbeat fathers. Your report is biased by your own personal experience.

    As the sole custodial parent of your child you should learn to spell.

    Click to view  xzxeddiexzx's profile xzxeddiexzx

    1 hour ago

    SAD but when you file for Child Support. You waive your right as a parent. You place the child’s needs at the mercy of the greedy self serving Government Agencies that place your child’s basic needs last on the list of priorities.

    The state is more focused on generating revenue for the general fund by jailing as many non-custodial parents…

    Read more …

    Click to view  xzxeddiexzx's profile xzxeddiexzx

    2 hours ago

    Studies show statistics show a 70% increase of MOTHERS losing custody due to DRUG AND ALCOHOL dependency and neglect and abandonment of the child’s needs.

    You can sit here and be bias all you want but the truth is coming out. The facts show that there is just as many women neglecting their families as there are men doing the same.

    Read more …

    Click to view  xzxeddiexzx's profile xzxeddiexzx

    2 hours ago

    Geonite,

    You have the wrong idea! I AM THE SOUL CUSTODIAL PARENT. The child lives with me 100% of the time and I take really good care of her needs.

    The biological MOTHER does not want to pay her responsibility to the child. She has also used my daughter SS# on her…

    Read more …

    Click to view Geonite's  profile Geonite

    4 hours ago

    Few fathers ditch their children? Ridiculous!!!! See how many women a day file for child support because the man won’t pay.

    Whatever the reason is, there’s no reason for a parent to not pay for their childrens needs. I don’t care if it’s foster care or their care. Children need to be fed and clothed and sent to school. Either way it costs…

    Read more …

    Click to view  xzxeddiexzx's profile xzxeddiexzx

    11 hours ago

    With job losses by measured by the millions and increasing daily. Do we really need to be stereotyping a entire class of citizens because of lack of employment options and a weak sufficient minimum wage with the cost of living keeps raising?

    Do we really need to suppress the rights of a individual in order to empower one gender over the…

    Read more …

    Click to view  xzxeddiexzx's profile xzxeddiexzx

    12 hours ago

    Or mothers, But the arrears that is set so high in courts go tot he General fund. Not the children involved….

    They make parents criminals because of this very fact..

    Click to view WIparent's  profile WIparent

    15 hours ago

    Most of the debtors have done nothing to incur? Really, how did they become fathers, then?

    Click to view  xzxeddiexzx's profile xzxeddiexzx

    17 hours ago

    Click to view  TheVideoMan's profile TheVideoMan

    18 hours ago

    // <![CDATA[// // <![CDATA[//

    //

    What is iReport?

    • Share

      Tell a story, offer an opinion, say what’s important to you.

    • Discuss

      Join the conversation on the day’s big issues.

    • Be heard

      The best iReports get vetted and used on CNN platforms.

    iReport is a user-generated section of CNN.com. The stories here come from users. CNN has vetted only the stories marked with the “CNN” badge. MORE…

    // <![CDATA[//

    Wreckless State Governments – “Suppress and Capitalize” – CNN iReport.

    Advertisements

    Leave a Reply

    Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

    WordPress.com Logo

    You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: