New Column: Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads
February 5th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families"Clinton also recognizes that many states’ child support guidelines are excessive, noting:
"'Child support payments can represent half of [low-income] men's income, and can provide a strong incentive to work in the underground economy.'
"Clinton’s proposals are a good start, but much more needs to be done to address the problems low-income fathers face."
My new co-authored column, Hillary Clinton’s Youth Opportunity Agenda Will Help Low-Income Fathers (Black Press USA Network, 1/25/08), discusses some small but significant proposals from Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to resolve the child support problems faced by many low-income African-American fathers. The proposals are based on the Urban League’s 2006 report on the state of black America, which concluded that the child support system and its abuses are a major problem for African-American men.
The column, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, is below. Clinton's child support reform proposals are discussed here and here, along with her misguided position in favor of restoring federal child support enforcement budget cuts.
Hillary Clinton’s Youth Opportunity Agenda Will Help Low-Income Fathers
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
It is rare for a major politician to propose well-informed measures about fathers and fatherhood during an election campaign. While Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is not normally a beloved figure in the fatherhood movement, her new Youth Opportunity Agenda reflects a commendable understanding of the problems faced by African-American fathers.
The Urban League’s 2006 report on the state of black America concluded that the child support system and its abuses are a major problem for African-American men. The report found that the system represents a large, hidden “tax” on the already meager earnings of many black men. This tax drives some out of their children’s lives, and either underground or into crime.
Half of uneducated African American men ages 25-34 are non-custodial fathers. The child support they struggle to pay usually does not go to their children, but instead goes to the state to reimburse the cost of public assistance, including welfare, for the mother and children. This is demoralizing for low-income men struggling to make a difference in their kids’ lives. Some of these fathers even live with their children and their children’s mothers, yet their wages are still garnisheed to pay child support to the state.
Research shows that allowing the child support to go directly to the custodial parent promotes fathers’ bonds with their kids. Federal incentive funds mold the states’ child support policies. Clinton pledges to “work with states and counties to ensure that they have support and incentives to pass on every dollar of child support” directly to the men’s children.
Many minority noncustodial fathers have spent time in prison, often for nonviolent drug offenses. Under the current system, these men rack up thousands of dollars in child support arrearages while they are incarcerated. Interest accrues rapidly, and upon release many ex-offenders struggle under a staggering debt they could never hope to pay off. Some even return to jail for nonpayment.
To address this problem, Clinton says she will “encourage states to take more realistic, cooperative approaches to managing arrears, so that fathers leaving prison are not immediately saddled with unrealistic payment obligations.”
Clinton also recognizes that many states’ child support guidelines are excessive, noting:
“Child support payments can represent half of [low-income] men's income, and can provide a strong incentive to work in the underground economy.”
According to the Urban League, low-income men in arrears on child support sometimes keep as little as a third of their paychecks.
Clinton’s proposals are a good start, but much more needs to be done to address the problems low-income fathers face. Economist Harry Holzer, a co-author of the Urban League report, recommends forgiving the arrearages that low-income fathers owe to the government. While this proposal may not be politically popular, it makes very good policy.
Low-income fathers’ arrearages mount in large part because the child support system is impervious to the economic realities low-income fathers face, such as layoffs, wage cuts, chronic unemployment, and work-related injuries. Low-income fathers have very little access to affordable legal help, and an unemployed construction worker usually doesn’t have the money to get professional legal assistance to help him get a child support modification. According to an Urban Institute study, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffer substantial income drops are able to get courts to reduce their child support payments.
California’s Compromise of Arrears Program provides an example of the type of pragmatic approach these men need. According to a California Judicial Council report, 80% of California child support debtors earn poverty level wages, and over a quarter of the arrears total is interest. Under COAP, these obligors can settle their paper debts to the state for realistic amounts.
Sacramento legislative advocate Michael Robinson of the California Alliance for Families and Children, which worked on the legislation, explains:
“Rather than engaging in the ‘we’ll crack down on deadbeats’ chest-thumping so often employed by politicians, COAP is a common sense, everybody wins solution. Instead of hounding and jailing low income dads, the COAP program allows these dads to provide their children real support, both emotional and financial.”
The federal government should use its incentive funds to influence states to institute similar and more extensive programs. The costs of current policies far outweigh the value of the child support collected. Allowing more low-income men to be functional fathers benefits them, their children, and their children’s mothers.
Elections usually are a bad time for family policy, as applause lines about punishing “deadbeat dads” are often substituted for rational, informed thinking about fathers and fatherhood. Several candidates have been bashing so-called "deadbeat dads," including Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Bill Richardson. Clinton’s proposals are a modest but tangible step forward in addressing the weighty issues low-income dads face.
"));
19 queries. 0.513 seconds.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Electioneering, plain and simple. Pandering for the "black vote." She is an enemy, make no mistake about it ... .
February 5th, 2008 at 12:20 am
As much as I may not favor Clinton personally, it would be extremely wise for her to take a pro-fathers stance, and here's why:
1. she is already very strong among women voters, and therefore,
2. she may have very, very, VERY much to gain by getting on the right side of this issue of concern to very large blocks of voters in the U.S.
If she is really smart, she will realize that she would put only a very tiny percentage of the female vote at risk by flanking around and capturing these large blocks of male, and male-sympathetic voters.
As much as I happen to like certain Republican candidates, I would be remiss in not pointing out that in fact, it is Hillary who may have the most to gain by getting on the right side of our issues.
Think about it.
I think you'll agree.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:23 am
Glen;
I admire your work, but if you believe Hillary will do anything to help dads, I've got some nice beachfront property near the "Sea of Tranquility" to sell you. Yeah, the sale sound good until you remember that the Sea of Tranquility is on the MOON!
As far out as this example is, so is Hillary's pandering and lying to become president. Heck, I think she would say anything to anyone just to get a vote.
My father was a very well liked man in our home town. Someone asked him once why he did not run for office since everyone liked him. He said, "That's why I don't run, I want to keep it that way."
Like I tell my kids, you can't be all things to all people. You have to be yourself, stand on your principles and let the chips fall where they may.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:28 am
I have to admit this is a bit unexpected coming from Hillary. Still, the fact that she is prepared to acknowledge one issue hardly negates her strident support of feminist falsehoods on just about every other issue. We don't know whether she would actually act on this as president, or is simply trying to hold out hope to enough constituencies to deliver victory.
I suspect that as president, Hillary will probably find other ways of redistributing more resources from men to women, thereby making child support or alimony less important. Like maybe increasing taxes, or expanding government programs that benefit women, bogus 'equal pay' initiatives, affirmative action etc. There's an old saying that taxation is the art of plucking the goose with the minimum amount of hissing. It could be said that feminism is the art of shafting men with the mimimum amount of political resistance.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Acknowledging and reforming are two different things. Remember, this is Hillary, the ashtray flinger. She clawed her husband and threw things at him and at secret service men.
She is not electable, and not to be trusted.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:40 am
As I have argued on this topic before, and I don't take a partisan view on matters this important, politicians want to get ELECTED.
Hillary is motivated by personal ambition.
She would stick it to women to get elected.
She would stick it to men to get elected.
As set forth above, since she seems to have the female democratic vote in her pocket, she has the MOST to gain of anyone running by garnering the MALE vote by getting on the right side of these issues.
She wants to win.
That is the force to harness with Hillary.
Glenn's links above to her site seem to be replete with "enforcement" threats against men, which simply says to me that she hasn't figured out the opportunity for her which is contained within our issues, and a stragegy by her to right-flank these issues.
But she is no dummy, and neither is hubby.
The time to get both sides competing to have the best position on this issue is coming nigh folks.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Children are the main victims of the child support program that lacks checks and balances. Many children do not get money spent on them willfully and the program does not enforce this especially when 13 children everyday are dying of starvation in the United States. The child support program has been a total failure and creates a huge disencentive to work so most of the people in the program are even more poor and fewer custodial parents are working and their ex's have dropped out from working as well so the taxpayer is again the sucker. Also the children are neglected to the point that they get involved in drugs and gangs. Nothing good has come out of this dracion system only that our countries families have been destroyed like a sick cancer.
Support EQUAL Shared Parenting because kids need both parents.
Marcy Ganz
http://www.crispe.org
February 5th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Hillary Clinton is actually looking at expanding the model of the child support enforcement program dramatically. The following paragraph is code for allowing a parent to receive both a child support check in full and full welfare benefits which is directly antagonistic to positive family policy:
"Research shows that allowing the child support to go directly to the custodial parent promotes fathers’ bonds with their kids. Federal incentive funds mold the states’ child support policies. Clinton pledges to “work with states and counties to ensure that they have support and incentives to pass on every dollar of child support” directly to the men’s children."
By allowing or promoting for the expansion of incentives and allowing both a welfare and child support check to be delivered to a single-parent household provides little reason for families to remain intact. As a result of the child support program, one parent is reduced to a visitor against their will in their child's life...in turn that ejection is used as justification for the shifting of income by way of a wage garnishment. Hillary Clinton's encouragement to open the program and allow both a child support check and welfare check will cause more single-parent households.
Lary Holland
http://www.familycourtreports.com/serendipity
February 5th, 2008 at 1:26 am
This has an upside and a down side.
The up side: It sounds like a great program and I hope it gets implemented (preferebly without Hillary winning the election)
The downside: it absolutely enrages me that this hypocritical, misandric, two-faced pig of a woman, has now all of a sudden "decided" that fathers need help. In fact, I don't think she's interested in helping fathers as such, she's just trying to steal some of the black vote from Obama, since he apparently has stolen women voters from her. Far be it from her, to acknowledge that there are low-income white fathers too. Come to think of it, if the program doesn't offer the same assistance to equivalently low-income white fathers, it is discriminatory.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:31 am
1. This isn't just a minority or poor fathers issue.
2. While it's a step forward, it hardly makes up for the miles of road the rest of the non-custodial parents and their children still have to travel.
3. Don't be fooled, she is masterfully propagating the myth that the rest of us parents are irresponsible convicts and deadbeats that can't keep our business in our pants.
Give me a break, nice try, Hillary, -HD
February 5th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Okay, now I went back and read the other comments. Why does no-one seem to (or want to) notice that this program will only help black fathers? While it may be true that there are more black than white fathers in this situation, that doesn't mean it's okay not to help the white fathers!
February 5th, 2008 at 1:36 am
Okay, now I read Help Me Daddi's post. It says "This isn't just a minority or poor fathers issue".
Can you elaborate on that? I mean, of course it is a kids issue too, and it affects women, and maybe it will extedn in the future to help all dads, and la-dee-dah...but the way I'm reading it right now ,the program will specifically help poor black fathers. Am I missing something?
February 5th, 2008 at 1:38 am
Tell me again about the last time a socialist risked ANYTHING that would
reduce or eliminate transfer of wealth from the working citizens pay stub, or
Fledgling business without "special exceptions" quarterly report, to the gum'mint, EVER!
ESPECIALLY when prefaced with even a sniff of " For the children.."
Yep, the more that States can get out of its residents, the less Fed cash needs to go toward
mandated "entitlements" and conjured "rights", then, the more money there is left
for private subways and four star nuclear retreat hotels.
Tell me again, how much does the Secret service pay the Clintons in RENT?
Yep, she can cry me a river.....
February 5th, 2008 at 1:42 am
When a politician says that they will eliminate all non- voluntary child support, then I'll get excited.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:15 am
O.k i've read just about all there is,about Hillery Clinton proposing to make changes in the Child Support Laws,in order to help the Low Income Fathers ! But all of them have pertained to the African American Dads,what about the Dads that are "TOTALLY-DISABLED" drawing "Social Security Disibility " I've been a Single Dad now for 14yrs,raising my Son and my Daughter by myself.While the whole time being on Social Security Disibility,and their Mother has "NEVER" had anything to do with them the whole 14yrs.But my problem with the Child Support Laws is because,i also have a 30yr old Daughter from my first marriage.And her mother and the TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE,is holding out $150.00 a month out of my Social Security Disibility Check.And that only leaves me $624.00 to live on and try to pay my Bills,Grocerys,Car Payment and (Car InsuranceThat the LAW makes us have to have)and thats all that i have left each month out of my Social Security Check,after the Texas Attorney Generals Office "AUTOMATICALLY" holds out the $150.00 that goes to my first wife,for back child support on my Daughter who is now 30yrs old Married with Three Boys and who also owns her 3-Bedroom Brick Home.So all i'm asking for is to come on People,its time that the President and the Attorney Generals Office of "ALL-STATES" put a Statue of Limitations on Back Child Support,i mean like once a Child has reached the Legal Age of 21yrs old.The back child support should "STOP-IMEDIATELY" How else is a Dad ever supposed to ever be able,to have a better life "FINANCIALLY" with the Cost of Living going up every year,but our Social Security Checks only go up 12% each first of January.They "PARDON" /Murderers/Rapists/Child Molesters/Bank Robbers/ So why not after a Child has reached the Legal Age of 21yrs old,the remaining back child support be dropped and the Fathers be givin a "PARDON" and it would be done with ! Instead of like in my Case the TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERALS OFFICE,"ADDS 12% INTERESTS MONTHLY" onto that back child support that is still owed,making it "TOTALLY-IMPOSSIBLE" for a Father to ever get it all paid back so he can Breathe again,and possibly try and have a normal life.I have been trying for years now,to get this Upgraded so that they would put a "STATUE OF LIMITATIONS" on the childs age,so that after a child turns the Legal Age of 21yrs old.The mother of that Child would "NO-LONGER" be able to try or draw anymore Child Support on that Child ! I only Pray that there are other Fathers out there going through pretty much,the same thing that i'm going through with my first wife(Mother of my 30yr old Daughter) who is still drawing Child Support from me ! And that sooner or later,someone with the will and the means to do so.Would "FINALLY" have this LAW Changed.So us Fathers can maybe have a normal life,with the Children that we have now.Thank You for your Time and Patience into this matter ! Sincerely:Mr.Richard.W.Snyder
February 5th, 2008 at 2:22 am
I doubt Hillary is concerned about fathers as much as she's concerned about getting minority votes. She realizes Black women suffer when they can't get child support and Black men suffer when they can't work legitimate jobs and survive on less than 50% before taxation. I suspect she wants so sort of government offset to help out as she wants both Black men and women to benefit and presumably vote for her.
The thing we need to remember most of all is she is a staunch feminazi and there is zero point zero percent chance she cares about the plight of men as she looks into hefty child support situations.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:27 am
I have a couple questions about the above post by Mr. Snyder:
1)Are you living with a relaitve or friend, or in your car or something? I'm just wondering how you're raising two kids, paying for rent and food, car payment and insurance all on $624/month.
2) I'm not sure why you say that SSDI goes up 12% every year. The annual Cost Of Living Increase (COLA) applied to Social Security payments, is not nearly that high. I get SSDI and mine went up about 3% this year (over last year).
February 5th, 2008 at 2:52 am
I don't like making the family law debacle a race issue. It is a strawman argument. I am not sure that this proposal is not a step in the right direction, but isn't it sort of saying "Ok, so black men are victims too, but it's still open season on hard working well educated white men"?
We aren't in jail, we aren't in debt, we aren't pitiful. But we are damn mad about what the government has done to our family and children!
February 5th, 2008 at 4:09 am
Glenn, I've followed your articles from before you had a blog, sent you heaps of traffic from the IMN site and have appreciated your willingness to speak up, even on issues or points that annoy fellow masculists.
But even suggesting for a moment that the SheClinton, author of "It Takes a Village" and the world's 3rd most recognized anti-father feminist, would even DREAM of actually helping fathers once in power is ludicrous.
This article is an embarrassment. An article pointing out how she obviously doesn't mean it I could accept but no, there is no "open mind" or "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to the SheClinton.
"Clinton’s proposals are a modest but tangible step forward" - rubbish, it shows that the father's rights movement has made forward strides that even this lying politician, wife of Slick Willie, knows she could gain some votes by spouting false promises. There is nothing remotely tangible about a politician's promise, ESPECIALLY that crazy fembot.
Alan Carr
February 5th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Child support enforcement is nothing more than legalize slavery. The government takes forces one person into bondage and gives the profits of that bondage to another person.
I don't know of any part of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to regulate marriage or divorce. In fact, both these should be governed under contract law and each couple should decide what that contract should be.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:13 am
I humbly suggest people who are supporting other candidates (other than Ron Paul) check out this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNB1U1tgX1g
It is from the Florida GOP Debate in October 2007 & the only debate Ron Paul has been given equal time in a debate (for whatever reasons)
Just check it out & form your own opinions. I have a feeling people who are supporting Hillary or Obama would be pleasantly surprised by
how intelligent & honest Ron Paul is & realize how Hillary & Obama are really giving vapid answers (telling you what you want to hear) instead of intelligence.
Just take a look, it will only take about 10 minutes of your time. We are all in this together.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:58 am
I am reminded by this perspective, long attributed to British statesmen as it relates to their country's foreign policies of war and diplomacy:
"We have no friends, no enemies, but only interests."
In matters of great importance -- like the shaping of the future of a country, or one's own life or those of one's children, this can be a wise maxim to keep in mind.
I believe that many successful politicians do, to this day, operate on this basis, and that certainly includes Hillary and her husband, as well as some on the Republican side of this race.
The good news about our issues here, are that if properly cast, these issues can indeed deliver massive voting blocks to any side of this race which embraces them.
And as above, Hillary has more upside in embracing the male and male-sympathetic vote than do others, because she is assured of collecting a disproportionate percentage of the female vote either way.
Just like McCain would have more to gain in the popular election by moving to the center if he were chosen as the Republican candidate, as he would be similarly assured of collecting the vast majority of those votes to the right of center. (In fact, this might explain McCain's progress and the appearance in national polls that he could do well against Hillary -- i.e., he is more centrist, but he is not Hillary, ergo, he gets all republican votes, and takes some Democratic and Independent votes away from her due to being more embracing of issues she embraces while giving voters someone who is not her.)
In any case, if she misses on this issue, then it can be handed in a tidy package to a highly motivated opponent.
The only thing better than having a strong candidate in one party pushing our issues would be to have the party nominees from both respective parties competing with each other to win the voting blocks which I believe can be attached to our issues.
Remember, we have no friends, no enemies, but only interests.
Our children's best interests.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:14 am
I think if one is to look at candidates and where they stand on issues they should first see what they have done in the past. Hillary Clinton has done nothing with John Murtari (not even meet with him the whole time she has been senator in NY) I attached a link to the web site.
I don't think any candidate has done anything for father's or non-custodial parents. I don't think they intend on doing anything because it would be a conflict of their own interest. It is a back door taxation to get more money for pork barreling.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:24 am
I tend to agree that it is modest but tangible. It seems also likely she is viewing it thru the typical men bad/ women good lens. That this got attention thru a minority interest group and studies of how it affected minority men (coded as low-income) suggests as others have noted a pandering to the minority electorate.
It is good that it is on the radar but it seems to be so because it is being viewed as a minority issue.
"Every little bit helps," said the old man who peed into the sea.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:31 am
LET US NOT FORGET
WHO REDEFINED WELFARE AND PUT EVERY BODY UNDER
TITLE IV-D OF THE SOC SEC SYSTEM. IT WAS BILL AND HILL.
THIS IS A PRIME EXAMPLES OF HOW POLITICANS(LAWYERS) WORK BY CREATING A PROBLEM AND THEN
A NEED TO SOLVE SOLVE THE PROBLEM THEY JUST CREATED
FOR WHAT ITS WORTH NOTICE SHE DOESNT SAY ANY THING ABOUT THE PEOPLE NOT ON WELFARE
THE MIDDLE CLASS THEY JUST KEEP UP PERSECUTING THOSE WHO THEY CAN BLEED AND RUIN THEIR
LIVES AND THEIR KIDS
HOW ABOUT A NEW TERM DEADBEAT POLITICAN
February 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I would never, ever, vote for her, I don't care what she says!
She has already used, I am a victim of the "boy's club" in her campian. This tells me all I need to know about her mind set.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Hillary Clinton is no friend of men, children of families. She's a self-serving, ruthlessly amoral power seeker who'll say and do anything to get elected. Once in power, you can be sure the races towards Fascism and the total destruction of our society will accelerate like a runaway train. She hasn't been called 'Hitlerly" for nothing.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:42 am
She seems to play to her audiences. She may say one thing in front of one audience and something else to another audience. I would so like to believe her but past history leads me to believe this is not wise. The old saying is... Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:07 am
One of the biggest issues, I think, is that child support is not treated the same as alimony for tax purposes. IT SHOULD BE. For some reason, this study stopped around WWII before the tax treatments were put in place. Child support should be taxed as income to the recipient, and the payor able to take the deduction and dependant exemption. In most cases, this would maximize combined income available to pay support.
Congress was addressing this law long aga when they made alimony taxable income to the receiving spouse, and the intention was to treat child support the same (as it should be)....but WWII or something came up, and the whole study was dropped and buried.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:22 am
I like to keep my terminology precise. Mrs. Bull O'Clinton is not a fascist or a Nazi. She is not a mere socialist. She is a COMMUNIST!
February 5th, 2008 at 10:40 am
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t990224f.html
The President referred to below is William Jefferson Clinton:
The President signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in August 1996. Better known as welfare reform, the law provides critical new tools to improve our Nation's child support program – central registries of child support orders, a national Directory of new hires, streamlined paternity establishment procedures, uniform interstate child support laws, license revocation, and passport denial. Whether through use of greater automation, simpler interstate procedures or tougher new penalties, we are working with our state and local partners to make sure that no parents can ignore their financial obligation toward their children, especially when they have the resources to meet their child support obligations. An example of the success we are already seeing from the 1996 welfare law is the National Directory of New Hires, which last year located 1.2 million delinquent parents in interstate cases.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
The lady that sits next to me says she would like to vote for a woman but does not know if she can stand anymore of the Clintons.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:46 am
“Child support payments can represent half of [low-income] men's income, and can provide a strong incentive to work in the underground economy.”
?!?!?
low income...and higher income
29% of gross income plus federal taxes on gross income can easily exceed 50%.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:48 am
To address this problem, Clinton says she will “encourage states to take more realistic, cooperative approaches to managing arrears, so that fathers leaving prison are not immediately saddled with unrealistic payment obligations.”
In 2000, George W. Bush promised to regulate Carbon Dioxide emissions.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:52 am
I think we should celebrate and encourage progress in the recognition of our issues. This is good news!
And I'm far from a Hillary supporter (see my blog). But this is a very important success, and I find it encouraging.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:01 am
The intention of boosting funding for the fascist child support police against fathers is very concerning. In practical terms, the Bush administration, without much publicity, has inflicted a bigger blow to the unfair system than what is prospected. What good would do to us reversing the gain we have made already? (Please keep in mind, I do not support the Bush administration and I am not a Republican)
We have to remember that all of this "FemiNazism" we are suffering now started in the sixties with the excuse of advancing the blacks, who at the end are, unfortunately, still screwed as they were back then. At that time, the FemiNazis jumped on the “advancement train” and they have benefited a great deal. With time they have shown their true colors. They only have themselves for an agenda.
Black people are only 12% of us. What is Hilary going to do for the rest 88% of us? Yes, I know: spend more of our tax money to deprive us of our constitutional rights and make sure that if we’ll be “ran away slaves” will not even have the benefit of the “slave laws” like black slaves had before the Civil War. The Hillary’s well oiled system is going to chase us down dead or alive to the other side of the globe.
Like in the sixties and as always the poor blacks are used, not served, for political purposes. As a father I strongly encouraged that we, fathers, will get behind some candidate with a PRO-MAN record and we will not listen to the devil.
Simone
February 5th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Success? This is the wife of "We will find you, we will make you pay" Clinton.
FFS!
February 5th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Sounds like the father's movement is already wise to Clinton's real motives and short of an announcement that men get a raw deal followed by a proposal to eliminate mother preference in custody and the end of child support nobody in this movement will consider her. AS IT SHOULD BE...
February 5th, 2008 at 11:37 am
A hungry and pissed off panther could be white, still doen't make it any less dangerous......
TMOTS
February 5th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Late last night I rampaged across Hillary Clinton’s campaign trail again, berating her seemingly beneficial Youth Agenda Opportunities (YAO) plan she is lauding. After a quick read I found out that it is not very beneficial to the majority of Americans, despite what she might say and despite what a quick glance at the headlines may tell you.
Don’t get me wrong, the ideas behind this plan are generally worthwhile and would help many people here in the States. The downside to the plan is that it is limited in who it would help. That is where the Senator and I part ways in what the two of us consider to be a solid piece of legislation.
When a politician introduces a new bill it should be introduced as a fair and equitable bill across the board. In other words the bill should be able to provide aid and relief to EVERYONE who requires it; not just a certain group of people. Clinton’s latest effort at winning a nomination for the Presidency does the exact opposite. The YAO would provide relief from massive and exorbitant child support payments to low income, black men.
A fine enough goal for any politician to aspire to, I fully understand that despite this being the 21ST Century that the black community is still a bit trod upon. But if she is going to run this bill as an act designed to aid ‘low income fathers’ in their child support battles then one question must be asked: Why is she limiting the bill to a target audience?
You cannot tell me that it is only the black community who suffers from the results of a weighted system, you cannot tell me that only black men fall into the ‘low income’ category. You cannot tell me that because it is a lie. There is no other way to argue the point. So, having answered a couple of basic questions about this bill and its proposed recipients’, the question still looms in the mind, why is she targeting a specific audience? Actually, why is Clinton targeting two highly specific audiences with this bill?
Clinton is putting this bill out there in hopes that she will pull votes from the black community and from the female voters. There is no other reason that stands to reason. This bill is nothing short of overt, barefaced pandering to these two groups. It is also shameful if you want my opinion.
She has, whether she is aware of it or not, effectively dumped many votes by the introduction of this bill. As I said earlier, a new bill should be based not on the color of your skin, but on situational conditions. Just because a father may be white does not mean he isn’t subjected to the same unfair, hugely bloated child support payments as a black man might be. There is no excuse she can provide the nation, let alone myself or any other man in similar circumstances, which will clear her of this shameful transgression.
I should have written this last night instead of the profane, offensive and abusive article I opted for. But sometimes no matter how much you want to provide a clear analysis of a certain situation you find yourself much more comfortable hurling daggers at your enemy. That was me last night; I was enraged once I discovered what this bill actually accomplishes, or doesn’t accomplish. Still, upon waking this morning I felt that a more in depth explanation was in order, letting you all know exactly what it is about the YAO and Clinton that makes me see red nine days out of ten.
One last thing before I depart.
All politicians on the campaign trail say and promise to do many things. Most of them never perform any of them if they are fortunate enough to be elected. Sometimes, and this is rare, a politician comes along that doesn’t lower him or herself to the general level of dishonesty that the majority of our politicians do. This time around that man was John Edwards. He was honest and forthright. Not only did he talk a damn good talk, he lived his life by the words he spoke. He didn’t debase himself or his campaign by allowing political pressure to force him to turn to typical tactics in an election year.
John Edwards, for all his honorable intent, for all his iron-fisted discipline, will not be our next President, because he didn’t deign to the level that most of these scummy bastards are all to happy to stoop too. Keep that in mind when you cast your ballot for the primaries. Are you willing to elect a President who was capable of cheapening their own values and morals simply for a boost in ratings? I’m not.
Out.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Go Hillary, I know a lot of people don,t believe in you and Bill but I do. I don,t care what kind of life you live, just help the people like Bill did . Save are country from the #1 evil in the world G.BUSH and Chenney then comes J MACAIN GOOD LUCK !
February 5th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
As usual when the topic of child support comes up everyone seems to lose focus of what the important question really is.
It’s not how much the father is being forced to pay, under the threat of incarceration, for the “privilege” of being separated from his children that’s important.
The question is:
“Why he is being forced to pay child support and being deprived of custody in the first place”?
It’s not a question of making the “extortion and kidnapping” affordable to the victim.
The question is:
“Who gives these criminals the right to separate children from fathers and expect them to pay anything”?
My God ... think about it ... FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!
Kevin Merck
February 5th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
sweating through the fog, i agree that this is a moment to rejoice that we are starting to get some political attention. A small group of spartans can hold back armies even when outnumbered 50 to 1.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
It Takes a Village...to do what?
To raise a child?
It takes two parents to raise a child.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Family Court Cannot Order Husband to Pay Insurance on Wife's Alimony
A trial court erred by ordering a husband to maintain a life insurance policy to secure the wife's maintenance because maintenance terminates on death. Since this determination may upset the trial court's original equitable distribution of property, the Appellate Court remanded the case for the trial court to reconsider its property distribution. In re Marriage of Ellinger, No. 3-06-0940 (3d Dist. Jan. 3, 2008).
February 5th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
It's certainly not just a low-income black father problem:
"According to an Urban Institute study, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffer substantial income drops are able to get courts to reduce their child support payments."
We can relate. My partner's company moved across the country last year. Our choice was to go with them, and thus lose all contact except for during the summer with his children, or lose his job, and possibly lose all contact with his children. In order to get child support reduced we filed, had a conference where of course his ex-wife objected, and we had to go in front of the judge. Time from filing to the conference? Two months. Two months of no income while still paying full child support. Time the conference master wanted to schedule the hearing in front of the judge? Another THREE months. Yes, the master wanted us to continue to pay $1000 a month while my partner's unemployment was $1300 a month and Cobra, because we are under court order to provide healthcare, was $700 a month. On top of that, once we got into court the judge wanted to institute imputed income! We were smart enough to realize this was a possibility, and so we had paid our attorney to be there, more money down the drain.
There is NO legal aid for poor men, or middle class men, none. There needs to be better options, and I'm glad to see candidates stepping on the platform. If we can get them elected, we can then make them accountable.
February 5th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
This is an election year. Politicians are pulling out all the stops. You ain't seen nothin' yet.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Looks to me that just about everyone here isn't buying it...I hope that long memories are contagious !!
February 5th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Again - I'm no Hillary supporter. I just find it encouraging that a politician acknowledges the interests of non-custodial fathers - particularly one who seemed so hostile to fathers in the past. I'm hopeful that it is a sign that things are beginning to change, even if only in a small way
February 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
[...] V. Link 2 HERE. Go down the page to number 5 then the explanation to #5 down farther. Link 3 HERE. The three links are each saying the same thing but it is out there. And with me in the Congress [...]
February 5th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Hillary's child support reform proposal is step in the right direction. However, it is a meager token step. This proposal pales in comparison to what the last Clinton administration did to the child support system. Then there is "her misguided position in favor of restoring federal child support enforcement budget cuts." A misguided position for sure.
As far as chid support reform there are many problems that should be addressed . The first problem that should be addressed is interest on arrearages. Most states are charging 10% on arrearages. This is what is keeping NCP's who fall behind in debt for life. The states are using NCP's as a source of revenue. Interest rates should be backed off to 2 or 3 %.
A step in the right direction, but a small step.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Wow.
Just wow.
I've said it before, Clinton is a damn good politician, she knows how to play the game.
She probably realised her anti-male stance wasn't helping with male voters (probably didn't care though) and thought she'd try and appeal to the working class male.
Hell, another male-friendly bill like this and I might actually support her.
February 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
What if the government's court ordered payments drive the father into poverty - when a middle income man is driven into bankruptcy and lower net income financial situation (few employers tolerate in a man the stress and multiple court ordered appearances of a divorce)?
Cool that a politician recognizes the injustices and persecution of divorced dads at a national level, however, sorry that it's from the feminist (man bad, woman good) wife of the husband that helped put fathers in his trouble.
America is far from where she ought to be to protect the family. That, if you are a man, it is wise to stay unmarried, and, if he is already married, then he ought to keep most of his assets in cash and out of the country.
It's not if your wife will divorce you, it's when.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Why doesn't someone in the position to do so ask Barack Obama publicly why a rich white woman is more concerned with the plight of poor black Dads than he is? That would certainly make it a Democratic issue, and therefore an election issue. I know most of the time politicians don't try to be "more" on the "right" side of an issue than their opponents, but in this case they just might try to compete for the male vote.....never know.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Until I read that article, I was a die hard McCain fan... am I going to jump ship and totally support Hillary?
If she follows through and presses this issue, you betcha!
February 5th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Wasn't there a link on a blog post once about Democratic strategists saying the place for the biggest gains is the male vote? I believe there was a big long thread bemoaning the fact that the Dems never take their own advice. Well, this looks like a feeler to see if there's support for the issue. Seeing as how it's not an actual vote, I would suggest everyone write to Hillary and support her position on the issue. And all the other candidates as well....perhaps CC a few? I think they all deserve to see that hillary is getting support for the issues, don't you? I mean, even the Republicans need to know that sort of thing.....
This IS an opportunity to get these issues on the election radar, but use your heads for a second.....there's got to be a way to be more effective than petulantly stating "too little too late"....right?
I'm Canadian, and have a limited grasp on your electoral system, but it seems to me time is running out for introduction of major election issues....am I wrong?
February 5th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Any chance of a form letter Glenn?
February 5th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
I am a McCain fan, merely because he is for the outright repealment of the Bradley Amendment.
http://repealthebradleyamendment.johnmccain.com/
February 5th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
"Dear Hillary:
While I find you as a candidate fairly repugnant, I just wanted to write to let you know that you are getting my vote. Why? Because you (ironically) are the first candidate to somewhat support men's issues.
While it leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I have no other options, I guess you're it.
Congratulations...
Sincerely,
February 5th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Hillary and NOW are pretty much equivalent. Let's not be fooled by campaign rhetoric... shameless lies imo. Enough said!!
February 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Well, the way I see it, you can either influence policy with fluid public support, or you can confirm most politician's belief that no matter what position they take on issues, it won't affect who votes for them all that much.
Your choice.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Keep in mind, I haven't actually entered a voting booth yet now have I?
February 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I'm not sure I'm all that optimistic about any changes in legislation in the near future with any candidate. The states are making too much money on this to really care about the victims.
Also, there's been hardly - if any, mention of low-income females (black, white, asian, etc.) that loose their children in court due to their spouse lying or getting a better attorney (sometimes by charging up credit cards before finalizing the divorce, further creating financial hardship). Women loosing their children in divorce is hardly discussed and they have a much harder time finding work that pays equally to men, as we all know.
Any changes in legistation from any candidate would have to reflect several different circumstances to make things fair across the board.
Furthermore, visitation. Well, don't get me started. PAS is a very real and growing problem too. Anything done to improve the current situation is really just putting another bandaid on the problem. We need to go back to the day when there was no such thing as 'no-fault' divorce. Is any candidate willing to do that?
February 5th, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Sorry for the typos. I couldn't edit after posting.
February 5th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
Somewhere on this site, Glenn has an old (1995?) cartoon showing a woman in a fur coat at the complaint counter of a large department store. A black man is standing behind the counter. The caption is simply "Yes?". The point being- what does that woman think she has to complain about? I think a black male president would be less likely to pander to the feminists, and be more truely sympathetic to the epidemic of fatherless households. What would the feminists do? Play the victim card to a black man? Vote Republican? Hillary would go on an unfettered feminist shopping spree if she were elected.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Hillary's track record speaks for itself - when John Murtari wanted to meet with Hillary to talk about why he has not been able to see his child for years... she had him ARRESTED.
Many Senators and Representatives go out of their way to meet with constituents and if their cause is just they go to bat for them... it happens ALL THE TIME. John’s cause is about as heartbreaking as they get… if Hillary was at all interested in earning the respect and support of men… she’d not only have MET with John, she’d have DONE SOMETHING ABOUT HIS PLIGHT.
IMO... Hillary is looking to scrape together some votes, but her track record IN OFFICE will tell you all you need to know about how men can expect her to continue to act toward them.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Ann:
With all due respect, low income women are the focus of a myriad of government programs, there are to my knowledge none that support low income men. I hope you can forgive me for not prioritizing the poor women over the poor men this time. As for women losing in divorce, well, that doesn't happen nearly enough if you believe everything should be 50/50....right? I mean, you're not actually suggesting men come away BETTER from divorce now are you?
And I would also like to remind you that we are also simply trying to get men's issues to become public knowledge, as well as legislation. Far and away the vast majority of people have no idea what MRA's are all about. They have no idea how unfair and unjust a lot of things are...until they're ground to hamburger like the rest of us. My understanding is there are a few here out of genuine detached concern....those are the one's telling the rest of us to be more dispassionate for the most part....but there are few who know about this stuff before they're affected QUITE negatively.
Further, politicians see little political capital in addressing our issues because we're more ruled by stubbornness than political savvy. Sorry, but it's true for the most part we just don't know what to do. We're choked, for sure, we're just lost. That's why sites like this are so valuable. And THAT's why some of us hate it when people lecture us on what it is acceptable to think and what is not. Telling an MRA what his priorities SHOULD be is a sure way to get into an argument with him. Some of us view this as a space to speak our mind, and therefore encourage you to speak your mind as well. Just keep in mind that what you think is true, just might not be after all. Refraining from being an "authority" now will save you embarrassment later.
February 5th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Letters of support to Hillary....leads to other candidates seeing this issue has passion attached to it, and sways votes.....come out with positions on the issue closer to the real problem (can't let them sidetrack it in the process)....original candidate loses initial support to "improved position" of candidate B......updates their platform to appeal to more men.....the cycle continues.
How many polls are there? How many times can a huge demographic shift in support sway the reactions of the entire political spectrum? You think 5000 emails won't get noticed? What if it was a form letter informing each and every candidate of who has what amount of support over men's issues? What if the media picked this up because they were included in the email list? What if men's issues became election issues? How long could the corruption continue then, given that THIS time the spotlight is on the injustices to men? You think there isn't a politician out there willing to be Superman to get elected, even if it means exposing (especially since it means exposing) government excess and decay?
Have NONE of you paid attention to feminist tactics? You don't see value in being regarded as a huge voting block? Issue-driven constituency? Or is it informing all the politicians at once that men's issues are important and WILL influence the election whether they like it or not....that's not important?
The most exasperating part is that all you have to do to be effective is make promises...JUST like the politicians, and those promises can hold just as much weight. Time to get cynical here people, time to manipulate the political process - while we're at it we might want to utilize this whole technology thing to make it more effective....
Am I just talking out my a$$ here?
February 5th, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Dan,
I think you are spot on. Even though I won't vote for her, I am thinking of sending her campaign an email saying this new position is forcing me to take another look at her, and to consider voting for her.
I have no doubt she is just desperately thrashing around trying to find something - anything - that will fight off the Obama tide. As someone who cares about men's issues, it is a good thing to let politicians know that pandering to us - rather than the feminists - may gain some votes. And they do read emails - 5000 emails will get noticed.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
You guys are still missing that this is a way to encourage waivers! ALLOWING CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS TO NOT RECUPERATE WELFARE EXPENSES, giving one parent MORE financial incentive to have a split/broken home.
Previous comment expanded on:
Hillary Clinton is actually looking at expanding the model of the child support enforcement program dramatically. The following paragraph is code for allowing a parent to receive both a child support check in full and full welfare benefits which is directly antagonistic to positive family policy:
"Research shows that allowing the child support to go directly to the custodial parent promotes fathers’ bonds with their kids. Federal incentive funds mold the states’ child support policies. Clinton pledges to “work with states and counties to ensure that they have support and incentives to pass on every dollar of child support” directly to the men’s children." [This defies the purpose of the program which was to recuperate some of the funds expended on the Title IV-A welfare program.]
By allowing or promoting for the expansion of incentives and allowing both a welfare and child support check to be delivered to a single-parent household provides little reason for families to remain intact. As a result of the child support program, one parent is reduced to a visitor against their will in their child's life...in turn that ejection is used as justification for the shifting of income by way of a wage garnishment. Hillary Clinton's encouragement to open the program and allow both a child support check and welfare check will cause more single-parent households.
Lary Holland
http://www.familyco urtreports. com/serendipity
February 5th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
I've learned long ago that few of the promises that come from a campaigner's mouth are believable. It's hard to imagine, given her track record and prior alignments, that this is nothing more than hot air to attract votes. I wouldn't vote for someone just because they suddenly decided to latch on to something close to my heart at the 11th-hour.
I have no confidence that even if she thought she meant what she said, that it would be a priority for her.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Dear, Whoever,
I'm an adult male citizen.
Honest. Hard-working. Non-criminal.
Non-violent.
Taxpayer.
I have three children from two previous marriages.
I love my children and pay my child support on time.
I still give them an allowance for good grades and good behavior.
Birthdays.
Christmas.
Visitation?
Difficult.
I can only see them at my family members houses at the risk of
being humiliated and verbally abused by the ex-es...
after being asked about 'giving' more money...and tuning out
'' What kind of Man are you? ''
I bring home (after taxes) under $1,500.00 a month.
My rent is $560.00
My utilities are $100.00 to $150.00 a month.
I do not have cable.
My living expenses leave me with spending change...I'm literally counting change at the end of the week for gas.
I do not go out, and do not have a drinking or drug problem.
Last November, I went on an interview for a job and was told by HR that I couldn't get the position...
because I have warrants for my arrest...for missing court dates.
I have only received letters for payment.
Not to show up in court.
Now I'm a criminal.
I CANNOT get a second job to supplement my income and make my (extortion) payments.
Today, I got a letter of garnishment stating that I will have $375.00 per pay period taken out of my check.
And another one from my employer stating the same.
$750.00 per month.
What am I doing wrong?
After a lifetime (36 years) of avoiding crime and violence, educating myself, being a productive citizen...I feel that I'm pushed into a corner.
I don't know what to do next.
I don't know what I will do next.
Can you help men like me?
Honestly.
Can you?
February 5th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I forgot to mention that I now live in Bentonville/Rogers, Akansas.
The center of the Wal-Mart universe.
I'm originally from Memphis, Tennessee.
February 5th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
I don't know about anyone else, but I do remember that this was the original intent of her husband Billy Boy's presidential authority public policy over family law policy, in a dearth of political laws of (un)intended !!! consequences. Perhaps we should now fear for the unemployed and true welfare dads/mothers who maybe now after the systematic raping of the middleclass have to suffer the attentions of a beauracracy about to go insane with hunger for newer revenue streams. Lord help all our children as if they don't already suffer enough. Me today, you tommorrrow, everyone in the future.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
The way I read into Hillary's proposal is that in order to get help you need to go through the prison system first.
She does not address issues such as drivers license suspension.
A man has to drive to get to work but can't because his license is suspended for back child support owed due to illness or economic hardship. That man gets pulled over and his car is impounded. He loses his job, cannot pay child support and ends up homeless and owing much more money from interest. And he owes the court system money for driving on a suspended license.
How about job training for single non-custodial fathers who are not in prison? I have to go to prison to get job training so I can afford child support?? WTF???
Also where I'm at single white males are the minority, yet non Caucasians and woman get all the grants and help.
I tried to get help about three years ago at an employment work center and was told that if I were a single mother I could get all kinds of help. All they did was help me fill out my resume.
I'm for less Government. The cure is worse than the disease.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
I didn't know it was a crime to be a father.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
It is most interesting to watch the wife of the "first black president" speaking of undoing the harm of his campaign and subsequent Presidency. President Clinton campaigned on welfare reform by saying he would make father's pay for their children (women exempted in his plans) thereby removing children from welfare rolls. Then amid much fanfare he proudly if not resolutely signed into law the Welfare Reform Act of 1998 promising all Americans a new day and a huge tax savings for all with his perceived wisdom of beating and demeaning further the poor of our society. This is easy for a nefarious politician for the "poor are always with us" and they do not vote nor can they afford lobbyists therefore they become political fodder. Not unlike the cannon fodder of the Vietnam War, or as President Johnson and Robert McNamara called this war, "Police Action". Another similarity to child support enforcement. Now here we are in 2008 and his wife is promising help to stop this emasculation of men,, and dehumanizing of women with another slightly tangible fix pledging to again help the poor who they so sadly misunderstood. I apologize to all for my lack of enthusiasm for the vacuous promises of these duplicitous politicians. On different occasions I have been imprisoned, albeit only for hours, for the issue of child support arrearage, and due to this unique opportunity I have been able to witness what the federal policies as implemented by our local prosecutor and due to his nepotism his wife, Director of Child Support Enforceement, have done to all people having difficulty with meeting their court ordered obligations to the children they love and hold most dear. Prosecutors, or at least this one use the poor male, mostly African Americans for his monthly head count so that he can continue his income stream and hire even more staff to secure his reelection and continued employment for his wife. Candidate Clinton has tepidly offered a start further illustrating her inability to undertake bold action, but it is a start and this half hearted action is appreciated for it will begin the dialogue so desperately needed on this most frustrating of problems rendered by her husband, Bill.
February 5th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
who should I vote for today, again, and why?
February 5th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
The only reason to vote is so we can at least tell later generations that we tried. The system is corrupt beyond repair, and will destroy itself by it's own evils and excesses. There's some very troubled times ahead for us, and for most Americans it will be Hell on Earth thanks to these Fascists in Washington.
Taras
February 5th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
[...] Hillary for JPC? GlennSacks.com Blog Archive New Column: Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System ... It would seem that JPC and Hillary have much the same feelings about Child support, but according [...]
February 5th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Hillary has ignored repeated attempts by father's rights individuals to meet with her at her senate office in New York.
If you read her proposals closely you will see while she mentions father's repeatedly the results of her proposals would put more money in custodial mother's pockets. Even the Earned Income Credit is designed to put more money in mother's pockets at the tax payers expense.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
It's funny she's hanged her stance since this 2001 news release. She was all to in favor of collecting all she could back then.
March 15, 2001
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Statement for the Record on the Bankruptcy Reform Act
I rise today in support of final passage of S.420, the Bankruptcy Reform Act. Many of my colleagues may remember that I was a strong critic of the bill that passed out of the 106th Congress because I did not believe it provided a balanced approach to bankruptcy reform.
While we have yet to achieve the kind of bankruptcy reform I believe is possible, I have worked with a number of people over the past three years to make improvements that bring us closer to our goals, particularly when it comes to child support.
WOMEN CAN NOW BE ASSURED THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS AFTER THE CHILD'S FATHER HAS DECLARED BANKRUPTCY. THE LEGISLATION MAKES CHILD SUPPORT THE FIRST PRIORITY DURING BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS.
This year, we've made more progress. The Senate agreed to include a revised version of Senator Schumer's amendment to ensure that any debts resulting from any act of violence, intimidation, or threat would be non-dischargeable. Earlier today, this body agreed to include a cap on the homestead exemption to ensure that wealthy debtors could not shield their wealth by purchasing a mansion in a state with no cap on homestead exemption.
And, finally, today I worked hard to make sure that once a person has been declared bankrupt, single mothers can still collect the child support they depend upon. Senator Hatch and I passed an amendment to ensure that child's custodian – usually the mother – will be informed by the bankruptcy trustee of her right to have the State child support agency collect the non-dischargeable child support from the ex-spouse
In addition, I was concerned about competing non-dischargeable debt so I worked hard with Senator Boxer to ensure that more credit card debt can be erased so that women who use their credit cards for food, clothing and medical expenses in the 90 days before bankruptcy do not have to litigate each and every one of these expenses for the first $750.
Let me be very clear – I will not vote for final passage of this bill if it comes back from conference if these kind of reforms are missing. I am voting for this legislation because it is a work in progress, and it is making progress towards reform.
Bankruptcy reform is important. I grew up with a father who worked hard to avoid having debts. In recent weeks, I have heard from many small credit unions throughout New York, hard working small lenders whose entire membership suffers when the credit union is faced with covering bankruptcy losses.
One credit union from Hoosick Falls has assets of only $2.5 million, but when one of their members filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, this small credit union was left with a bill of thousands, which penalized the entire 1,000 membership with increased fees.
Reform is needed. The right kind of reform is necessary. We're on our way toward that goal, and I hope we can achieve final passage of a good bankruptcy reform bill this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOME | NEWS
February 5th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
It's a nice bill as bills go. But problem is, Hillary as president is part of the package. Once she's suckered us with the bait, naturally this will become another broken campaign promise. And where does she get off peddling father friendly bills? She was totally against us until she realized she wasn't getting the man's vote. Sorry Hillary but you'll have to pull a different and more effective trick out of your sleeve.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
@ It's a crime to be broke-- are you sure your letters aren't about the same garnishment? Just an official notice and your employer notifying you of the official notice?
But that is about all the comfort I have to offer.
Get legal counsel is usually a wise idea. In another thread someone suggested approaching the agencies that provide these services for DV victims or similar.
February 5th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Hillary has a life history of sticking it to men at every opportunity, even in those instances where female gain is not obvious. She was born like that and has continued through life like that. The Mainstream Press (MSP) was too fearful of her to print what she is like out of camera range but now that Obama is surging and looks to overtake her, more stories of the true Hillary are hitting the papers. She is one we don't need anywhere near the White House.
Sorry, Hillary: too little, too late, too insincere.
DanH
February 5th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XBqhPU0UaE
February 5th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Lets face it. Until as many men vote as women. The mens movement is going to hurt...
February 5th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
I love being a Father
and I'd enjoy being a Dad
if I could afford to pay
my ex-es pimps to see my kids.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
I just read every single comment in this thread.
Hillary's a pig.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Anyone who really thinks she will follow through with this, or any other promise she has made, is living a pipe dream. She will say anything she thinks she has to in order to win votes. Most politicians are crooked, but never have I seen one more two-faced and always flip-flopping on issues. Well.........maybe her hubby.
Nope, she is worse than Bill. A lot worse.
I refuse to vote for a woman just because I am a woman. That is just as dumb as voting for a black just because a person happens to be black. Gender and skin color are not how we need to decide what is best for our country. The media is blowing the whole gender and color thing way out of proportion.
February 5th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Christ, it's like herding cats....
If anyone sees the value in having politicians speak on our issues raise their friggin hand!
Holy cow...can you guys get past the semantics for a second and see the possibilities here? We can get the majority of men's issues on the radar here if you can stop complaining long enough to think about it. If I'm wrong tell me, but so far it looks like no one has even considered my post on the matter....
February 5th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
@Dan M - Do you know an appropriate address where we can send an email? Also I wouldn't recommend telling her she's "repugnant" in the email.
I suspect Glenn would have mentioned if he thought it made sense to send her something on this.
February 5th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
To Dan M: I can see a lot of value to NOT speaking out on "our" issues: it does nothing but give the misguided feminists a rallying point. Right now they are swarming, looking for something to attack. Supporting Hillary is a given, but not something they are craving at the moment. They want, as Arlo would say, "veins between the teeth." The head nutcases are really pacing the floor, chomping at the bit to make a real hell-fire rallying speech but, damn it, no candidate is yet the suitable target they are looking for.
Keep your head (and other important parts) down and look for the candidate with the least entrenched "gotta help them women" attitude. After the election we'll educate President McCain on the currant tilt in the landscape.
DanH
February 6th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Ok, so your position is it's best to avoid coverage in the hyped up media frenzy known as an election, and prefer to educate later when the public eye is elsewhere engaged. Fair enough, can you explain how this is better? I know feminist rallying cry and all that, but so far politicians haven't been all that sympathetic....I just figured putting them in a position where they can see the value in pandering to the "male vote" - maybe even to the point where it elects someone - is seemingly best done before they're in power, not after.... Besides, by your reasoning Hillary is the PERFECT candidate to "thank" for finally recognizing the plight of men.... :)
Norman, stop being so literal....that wasn't a real letter.
February 6th, 2008 at 2:10 am
Reform?
O.K.
mandatory D.N.A. testing at birth...
no money for any woman accusing a man of paternity until paternity is proven with more than one credible source...
a tracking system: track every dollar down to the last cent...no money can be converted into...fun money for mothers...like the food stamp card only to be used on the child's needs, not wants...
no extra government funded services for ' career mothers/baby makers' or system abusers...
February 6th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Okay Dan M, but do you have an email address where we can send real ones?
February 6th, 2008 at 8:36 am
Don't trust this Snake! She is pandering and courting the African-American vote. She is doing this in stark contrast to Obama's public appeal to help fathers, most notably African-American fathers, be strong and responsible (not sure exactly what he means yet, but stay tuned).
Snake Hillary also wants to let us, the taxpayers, "give each child born $5000!" Thanks for being born there kiddo!
She is a socialist if not worse and is NO friend to the American people...least of all hard working FATHERS!
Its a Crime to be broke in America...I agree with all your reforms...now, lets see how far the Candidate gets that comes out with THOSE proposed reforms!!
February 6th, 2008 at 8:56 am
Okay I've done some poking around on Dan M idea about contacting the candidates with a "Hey I wasn't going to vote for you but if you were to..." idea to start getting candidates to think of MRA as an actual Block.
All of the candidates seem to have a contact form on their sites for submitting comments etc. The links to them are usually buried at the bottom in a small 'contact us' line.
This site has links to all of the official candidate sites: http://www.issue2008.com/?gclid=CPzM9OPSr5ECFRCvQAodXCoGbQ
The thing to do would be to decide which subject lines to use on each site (they seem to be different for each candidate) and write a form letter for each candidate or a generic one to send to all. Then everyone sends them.
The thing then will be to send enough and have the comments cohesive and consistent enough for it not to be blown off as "those whining MRAs."
I think it would be important for all who send to say essentially the same thing, for it to shine a light on the forest we are in and not get bogged down in the species of trees that make it up.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
[...] V. Link 2 HERE. Go down the page to number 5 then the explanation to #5 down farther. Link 3 HERE. The three links are each saying the same thing but it is out there. And with me in the Congress [...]
February 6th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
Wow I really should check over my posts before putting them up here. I guess that's what I get when you just slap something together quickly and post it.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
I just watched the news coverage last night. Both camps sicken me and I regularly get caught by my wife swearing loudly at the TV... just so you know how much I love our politics and press.
I think this is electioneering as well. Hilary is getting killed by the black vote. I noted that the press was really playing up the race card, and after they reported that blacks were voting racist, then whites did too, but to a lesser extent. I really respected Obama leaving race out, but the awful press brings it right back!
(philosophical aside: Yes, as a demographic, blacks are racist just as women are sexist. Since they have been told they are underpriveleged, they respond with predudice against their 'oppressor'. And divorced fathers respond with prejudice against custodial mothers... human nature and all that. My conclusion remains the same: kill the race war and kill the gender war.)
February 6th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Yo, gwallan, you are right ahead of me in the "top posters"!!
Oh, sorry - this is breaking a rule....
gwallan, do you still have my email address?
February 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I would vote for Hillary if the majority of single fathers are going to vote for her. Unity in voting would show that our vote really does count.
Seems to be the lesser evil.
Still 36 years of Bush and Clinton.
Kinda scary.
February 6th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Hey Dan M,
You are reasonably correct as far as I can tell on your take regarding this issue. I have been busy with other projects and haven't really studied this concept hard enough. I will get back to it.
The one thing that the Clinton Political Machine was really good at was figuring out what the people wanted and needed. You can say they are spineless, and lead from the bottom, are polsters, etc, but given there are nearly 9 billion people on the planet, I feel government needs to go that way. There are whole fields of mathematical study on this stuff. If the Clinton machine is starting to recognise the political power of the dad, others will follow.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
I think Hillary has left the door open with this proposed legislation. I also think that NOW will put her in a position where she will have to come out either for "women's rights" or for "men's rights"....I believe NOW will force a clash on this one. Add the racial thing (sorry, I'm Canadian and detached from the U.S. racial thing....I could care less what colour you are...as long as you spell the word correctly :) ) and what you have is Hillary positioning herself as more "black male friendly" than Obama, which makes it look like Obama is afraid to help out the black man on account of the fact that it would look like favouritism....so Hil does it and gets to be all progressive instead... Same tactic as regards men's rights...it's OK for her to support them...she's a woman and therefore her viewpoint must be fair since she doesn't stand to gain from it..../scarcasm
Thing is, this is a perfect opportunity to twist ol' Hillary's political machine against her, since any political strategist worth minimum wage will see that Hillary simply can't abandon feminist hardcore supporters, political pundits notwithstanding my guess is that those people would react quite badly to any possible "betrayal"....
So what would happen if another politician (I dunno, maybe Obama for instance) said "You know, Hillary's legislation got me thinking, so I looked into it and you know, I'm shocked at what I found out. Do you know that Hillary's flawed legislation would leave X thousand men just as in need of support off the rolls, simply because they're not black? So, I support Z legislation instead". Soon, they're going to see a huge groundswell of support (well, either that or we should all just go home) for men's issues...viola!....new political agit-prop. No longer is it acceptable to bash men (stereotyping is bad dontcha know), no longer are one-sided statistics given a free pass, no longer is family court secret (maybe even no longer is family court...period). The problem with the house of cards feminism has erected around the actual issues that needed addressing, is that once one part is exposed as a lie, the rest follows in what will likely be a flash fire of logical reasoning. Like rice paper going up in flames.
But if this is ever to happen, it HAS to be started during or at least largely driven by elections. This is the ONLY time any issue has the chance to be actually considered, albeit in a very shallow "is this going to get me more votes than the next guy?". That's all the majority of them are concerned with at election time....hell, I would be too if I had to defend my job every 4 years... It's also the only time it's possible to have hour upon endless hour of election coverage, where it's quite possible men's issues will be mentioned, if for no other reason than to fill the hour after endless hour of commentary...or.....maybe this type of issue will resonate with the public, and we'll see how people really feel about this stuff...
On a somewhat related note, here in Canada the Conservatives have introduced legislation deciding whether or not we continue to have a troop presence in Afghanistan, and has made this a confidence issue. This essentially means that if the other politicians disagree that we need to keep troops there, government is dissolved and an election is called. So maybe we'll all be voting together after all... :)
February 6th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
It's like the old saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink". Show some politicians the benefit (what's in it for me) of coming out on our side, trust me, the rest will take notice.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Dan,
i like your thinking on this. Most candidates do have a site contact, and i think all you have to do is say I(we) noticed Hillary's position and we will seriously consider voting for her.
i think if we tell the other candidates that we are even thinking of donating money to Hillary's campaign, that will really get their attention!
February 7th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Okay, start off with the fact that Billary is a feminist and has a slew of behind the scenes hardcore feminist personnel in her corral. "Nick S." said it well at 12:28, but I also agree with "Sweating Through Fog" at 10:57 and many of your other comments. WE need to make it known that this is an important issue and make something happen. Sorry to say boys, and girls, but our best hope of getting ANY reform passed that does not hurt fathers further will never be with Billary or any left winger. There is way too much redistribution of wealth in that sides thought process. Whatever is yours will always be somebody elses.
This issue is NOT a Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Martian, rich or poor issue. Is about what is right. It is about fathers not having to pay to be a part of their kids lives. Nor should we have to pander to politicians to get the right laws passed and the wrong ones wiped from the books. Voting is an important part of it, but I hope each of you and your friends and family if possible would think about what "Sweating Through Fog" said and contact these "representatives" (I use that word very LOOSELY).
"Dan M" very profound and insightful. I think you have hit an important nail on the head here. We need to keep hammering away at it and try to get some depth on the issue from the rest of the candidates, and yes guys, bury Billary.
Since dan mentioned it I will add a somewhat related note here. First, love working with your guys, and gals, over here Dan. Second, keeping up on these issues (or any other) from the zone over here in the mid-east and hoping I won't come home months from now to worse issues with lawyers and the former spouse related to visitation, support and custody can be pretty mind numbing. Listening to the "candidates" and their proposals on news bites and trying to keep up with everything else going on there is a headache. There are tons of us here (single fathers and some still married and I am sure hoping to never have to go through a divorce) that are counting on many of you back there to make the right decisions, keep the discussion alive and help us keep piece of mind that our voices are being heard through you folks there. After reading this and a couple of other blogs over the past months I appreciate knowing that there are so many of like minded folks out there and I know Glen is making noise all the time. Send the emails, I will, make the calls, drop the letters in the mail. Thanks for picking up the torch while we are over here and lets pray that things don't have to get worse before they get better. Thanks guys.
February 7th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
[...] recent column Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and [...]
February 7th, 2008 at 7:55 pm
[...] took this up in her campaign, as reported by Glenn Sacks and Mike McCormick in their articles “Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads” and “Hillary Clinton’s Youth Opportunity Agenda Will Help Low-Income [...]
February 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
[...] My recent column Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads, co-authored with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and [...]
February 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Please can we have some rights too please, Mrs Hillary. How about all of these stupid ass laws piss off out of our lives? The state shouldn't even be having a say in what happens to our children!!!
February 11th, 2008 at 7:33 am
Wow, "Feminist Scum" what a concept, you mean parents are supposed to be responsible for their children's upbringing and be involved in their lives. :-O Whatever would we possibly do without govenrmental guidance and direction? Oh my!!! /sarcasm
Seriously, I think you have a point here. Where did we go wrong?
February 17th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
It's strange how nobody seems to remember that Hillary and her husband Bill are largely responsible for the current state of affairs in child support legislation. The Clinton Administration, with the capable help of Hillary and Donna Shalala made certain that they breathed federal enforcement lifeblood into the democratically-sponsored Bradley Amendment of 1986. This federal law that violates state rights assigned by the Constitution and civil rights is the reason the low-income fathers are in trouble. They certainly can't negotiate and probably can't afford to hire the legal help required. So now Mrs. Clinton cares? Does she have a guilty conscience? Doubtless. Perhaps she has performed some legal magic in her latest plans with a backlash against the very ones she claims to want to help. Previous evidence supports this interpretation.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:14 am
[...] do give Hillary Clinton credit where she deserves it--for one example, see my co-authored column Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads (Black Press USA Network, [...]
March 25th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
[...] give Hillary Clinton credit where she deserves it–for one example, see my co-authored column Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads (Black Press USA Network, [...]
March 25th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
[...] give Hillary Clinton credit where she deserves it–for one example, see my co-authored column Hillary Clinton Proposes Reforming Child Support System to Help Dads (Black Press USA Network, [...]
July 30th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Great .... er another policy proposal based ... on skin coloured ! leave to a Lawyer ...er Politician.
November 11th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Sen. Haugen's office asked me to respond to you directly with an answer to the following email you recently sent her:
Can you tell me the penalty if you were cited while hunting or fishing in violation of "RCW 77.32.014 Licenses, tags, and stamps — Revocation/privileges suspended for noncompliance with support order"? Please be as specific as possible including any options to remedy the violation and would this be considered a criminal offense?
I believe I could restate your question in the following way: “What is the penalty for being cited while hunting or fishing in violation of RCW 77.32.014?”
This section of law states, in part:
“Licenses, tags, and stamps issued pursuant to this chapter shall be revoked and the privileges suspended for any period in which a person is certified by the department of social and health services or a court of competent jurisdiction as a person in noncompliance with a support order.”
The penalty for hunting or fishing while a person’s license has been suspended under RCW 77.32.014 is found in RCW 77.15.670:
(1) A person is guilty of violating a suspension of department privileges in the second degree if the person engages in any activity that is licensed by the department and the person’s privileges to engage in that activity were revoked or suspended by any court or the department.
(3)(a) Violating a suspension of department privileges in the second degree is a gross misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the department shall order permanent suspension of the person’s privileges to engage in such hunting or fishing activities.
In short, hunting or fishing while your license is suspended under RCW 77.32.014 is a gross misdemeanor and results, upon conviction, in an automatic permanent suspension of a person’s right to purchase a license for that recreational activity. In addition, this is a criminal offense, punishable by a fine of up to $5,000 and up to one year in jail.
Even if the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) later releases the person from suspension under RCW 77.32.014, WDFW’s permanent suspension of the person under RCW 77.15.670 still remains in effect because the person violated the DSHS suspension while it was active.
The only remedy for a DSHS suspension under RCW 77.32.014 is to obtain a “certificate of compliance” from DSHS pursuant to RCW 74.20A.320(9). Once the person has the certificate of compliance, he or she must present it to WDFW to have the suspension for unpaid child support lifted. If the person also was suspended by WDFW under RCW 77.15.670 for hunting or fishing while suspended for unpaid child support, the person can request an appeal hearing from WDFW.
But if WDFW can show that the person was in suspended status by DSHS at the time he or she was cited or charged with RCW 77.15.670, then WDFW’s permanent suspension of the person stands.
Please also note that his information will be sent to the other legislators offices who have also forwarded to me your email.
I hope this helps to answer your question.
Tom Davis
Legislative Liaison
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife
Office - (360) 902-2226
Cell - (360) 789-9652