Federal
Incentives Make Children Fatherless
|
 |
 |
| by Phyllis Schlafly
|
May 11, 2005
|
Why has Congress appropriated taxpayers' money to give
perverse incentives that break up families and deprive children of
their fathers? The built-in financial incentives in the current
child-support system have expanded the tragedy of fatherless
children from the welfare class to millions of non-welfare divorced
couples.
Americans have finally realized that providing generous
welfare through Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) was
counterproductive because the father had to disappear in order for
the mother to receive taxpayer-paid benefits. Fathers left the home,
illegitimacy rose in alarming numbers, and children were worse off.
AFDC provided a taxpayer-paid financial incentive to reward
girls with their own monthly check, food stamps, health care and
housing if they have an illegitimate baby. "She doesn't need me,
she's got welfare" became the mantra.
Congress tried to reform the out-of-control welfare system by
a series of child-support laws passed in 1975, 1984, 1988, 1996 (the
famous Republican Welfare Reform), and 1999. Unfortunately, these
laws morphed the welfare system into a massive middle-class
child-support system that deprives millions of children of fathers
who never abandoned them.
As Ronald Reagan often said, "The most terrifying words in the
English language are: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help
you."
People think that child-support enforcement benefits children,
but it doesn't. When welfare agencies collect child support, the
money actually goes to the government to reimburse for welfare
payments already given to mothers, supposedly to reduce the federal
budget (which, of course, is never reduced).
In 1984, Congress passed the Child Support Enforcement
Amendment which required the states to adopt voluntary guidelines
for child-support payments. In 1988, Congress passed the Family
Support Act, which made the guidelines mandatory, along with
criminal enforcement, and gave the states less than a year to
comply.
The majority of states quickly adopted the model guidelines
conveniently already written by an HHS consultant who was president
of what was shortly to become one of the nation's largest private
collection companies making its profits on the onerous guidelines
that create arrearages.
The 1988 law extended the guidelines to ALL child-support
orders, even though the big majority of those families never had to
interact with government in order to pay or receive child support.
This massive expansion of federal control over private lives uses a
Federal Case Registry to exercise surveillance over 19 million
citizens whether or not they are behind in child-support payments.
The states collect the child-support money and deposit it in a
state fund, but the federal government pays most of the
administrative costs and, therefore, dictates the way the system
operates through mandates and financial incentives. The federal
government pays 66 percent of the states' administrative overhead
costs, 80 percent of computer and technology-enhancement costs, and
90 percent of DNA testing for paternity.
In addition, the states share in a nearly-half-billion-dollar
incentive reward pool based on whatever the state collects. The
states can get a waiver to spend this bonus money anyway they
choose.
However, most of the child support owed by welfare-class
fathers is uncollectible. Most are either unemployed or earn less
than $10,000 per year.
So, in order to cash in on federal bonus money, build their
bureaucracies and brag about successful child-support enforcement,
the states began bringing into the government system middle-class
fathers with jobs who were never (and probably would never be) on
welfare. These non-welfare families have grown to 83 percent of
child-support cases and 92 percent of the money collected, creating
a windfall of federal money flowing to the states.
The federal incentives drive the system. The more divorces,
and the higher the child-support guidelines are set and enforced (no
matter how unreasonable), the more money the state bureaucracy
collects from the feds.
Follow the money. The less time that non-custodial parents
(usually fathers) are permitted to be with their children, the more
child support they must pay into the state fund, and the higher the
federal bonus to the states for collecting the money.
The states have powerful incentives to separate fathers from
their children, to give near-total custody to mothers, to maintain
the fathers' high-level support obligations even if their income is
drastically reduced, and to hang onto the father's payments as long
as possible before paying them out to the mothers. The General
Accounting Office reported that in 2002 states were holding $657
million in UDC (Undistributed Child Support).
Fatherless boys are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37
percent more likely to abuse drugs, and fatherless girls are twice
as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit
suicide. Fatherless boys and girls are twice as likely to drop out
of high school twice as likely to end up in jail.
We can no longer ignore how taxpayers' money is incentivizing
divorce and creating fatherless children. Nor can we ignore the
government's complicity in the predictable social costs that result
from more than 17 million children growing up without their fathers.
Source:
http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2005/may05/05-05-11.html
Email
This page
|
