Well, once again some political apparatchik is weighing in and grandstanding on a child support issue, this time Right-Wing Liberal Todd Spitzer from the People’s Republik of Kalifornia. Ah, you can always tell when an election looms, when all the politicians come around, mounting their mighty steeds of self-righteousness and tilting mightily at the hordes of Straw Men who threaten to kick out the foundation of …
(Cue up the music, maestro – “The Battle Hymn of the Republic” is always good. “Glory, glory, Hallelujah! Glory, glory…)
…this Great Nation™ of ours. Think of the brave mothers, valiantly working 25 hours a day, and their starving waifs of children, and these evil brutes who are conspiring to take what meager scraps of food as make it to their plates…
*yawn.* Well, I figured one piece of hyperbole deserved another. It’s so nice when my curmudgeonly self is handed, on a silver platter, the rantings of some schmuck who has their mind made up and has firmly placed themselves in the camp of being my political enemy. It removes the obligation for me to engage in discourse with them; as it is senseless to do that with someone so obviously determined to posture and rave in the name of trying to get votes. And since I don’t have to be especially nice or polite, as I don’t care who votes for me…
How much ya wanna bet Todd’s a lawyer? Have a chuckle here over your favorite lawyer joke.
There’s a lot of trouble with career politicians but there’s a couple showing their ugly head right now. First, in order to get re-elected and keep a cush job with a nice pension, Todd has to Do Something (Patent pending). This doesn’t necessarily mean, you understand, something of substance. Mere symbolism will suffice, including the writing of diatribes against the favorite whipping boy of the Feminazi Mistresses he’s stumbling over himself in the rush to lick the boots of. (That would be Men, the source of all evil, with the subspecies of “Deadbeat Dad.” We’ll just ignore the fact that statistically speaking, a greater percentage of men pay child support judgements, either in part or in toto, than women. That’s politically inconvenient.)
This leads to the next problem. Todd is a member of the legislature. That means he has a hammer for a tool. So to him, everything looks like a nail. See a problem? Pass a law. Don’t consider whether the law is practical, effective, or even enforceable. We have a vicious circle – have to do something – can’t do anything effective – do something ineffective – problem persists – do something else equally ineffective – and so on, and so forth, ad nauseum, ad infinitum. Because we can’t think outside the box, and God Forbid we show a little leadership and question any premises lest we “offend” a special interest hate group like feminists.
Well, in the Blog and internet world there is a thing called a “Fisk” where one comments on a piece of tripe as it goes on. I like that, so let me commence without further ado.
As a parent, I am outraged
And so it begins. Let’s be “outraged.” Everyone is outraged. Let’s not think, let’s feel. Demagoguery is rarely effective with thinking people, so let’s appeal to emotion instead.
that Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks, the editorial authors of “Schwarzenegger Should Sign Bill to Reduce Prisoner Recidivism” (September 28th, 2005) attempt to claim that the State’s system of collecting child support payments from convicts “is unfair to ex-offenders” and that “the costs of the crimes committed…vastly outweigh the puny sums the state collects in back child support.”
A straw man, Mr. Spitzer. Mssrs. Leving and Sacks claim no such thing; you take selected quotes out of context, and attempt to bolster a feeble argument. Leving and Sacks point out that the current law is singularly futile and ineffective. Even Karen Bass, a liberal democrat, can see this, and has the good sense to think something else – say, something that might actually WORK – should be tried.
Jeff and Glenn also point out that child support is ostensibly based on ability to pay, and that to be logically and legally consistent, a parent who is demonstrably unable to pay the amount listed, should have that amount lowered.
This is your disconnect, Todd, and where you forget that politics is the art of the possible. The possible begins with a recognition of reality. It is not possible for someone making 1 buck or so per day to pay even as little as $25 a week in child support. It is not possible for someone who makes $240 a week – before taxes – to pay $300 a week in child support.
Karen Bass recognizes this. She has put forth an idea. Rather than approach that idea, you have instead offered mere rhetoric. Sounds like she has your ass whipped in the arena of ideas, Todd. I guess that isn’t because she is acting like a posturing blowhard trying to win votes, and wants to actually find something which will put dollars in the hands of children, as opposed to just kicking someone while they are down.
Try explaining to law-abiding parents who work and incur the expense associated with raising a child that a criminal should not have to financially support his/her own children because they committed a crime!
Another straw man, Todd. Neither Glenn nor Jeff advocated any such thing. They advocated levels which were possible. You know – where one had a realistic hope to collect.
Many Californians already struggle on multiple levels to receive their court-ordered child support.
And many Californians struggle to pay it. And many Californians are women in second marriages to these men, struggling to support their current families, or putting off dreams of families, or abandoning them altogether. Many are the mothers and sisters of these men.
But if you can spare those votes…
FACT: Only 45.5% of current child support claims in Riverside County are collected. It would be blasphemous and irresponsible for the state to make it easier for inmates to reduce their child support obligations.
Well, have any suggestions as to how they might MEET them? Oh yeah. That’s right. You’re not an idea man. You’re a hyperbole man. Assemblywoman Bass is the Idea Woman.
FACT: 88% of inmates who owe child support payments are male and are $6 million in arrears.
Fact: Keep on beating the whipping boy, Todd. Make sure these men can never meet it, keep getting thrown in jail where it is impossible, losing jobs, losing licenses to drive to jobs, losing their houses so they have no address to put on a job application, and have zero money coming in, as opposed to some money.
But boy, oh boy – YOU SURE SHOWED THEM!
Leving and Sacks claim that opposing this bill is “putting politics before common sense.” What would make more sense: Requiring the state to aid and abet convicts to weasel out of their parental obligations, assuredly making the lives of custodial parents and children more difficult; Or should we incentivize ex-convicts to seek legal employment so that they may meet their child support obligations and avoid further jail time?
False dilemma, mon idiot. Think – is there a third alternative? Or would that require a little more than grandstanding and chest-beating, which is obviously the limit of your demonstrated intellectual capacity?
This is not a matter of politics; rather, this is a matter of ensuring that a child’s quality of life goes undiminished.
You’re going to have to face some ugly facts, Todd. It doesn’t matter if someone made $50,000 a year before – if they go into jail, they have no income for that time. And when they come out their earning potential is reduced drastically. That kid’s quality of life is diminished.
You can stand around pointing fingers, delivering bombast, and grabbing your sound byte moment – like a typical and common politician – or you can actually look at the reality, find a real possibility, and make lemonade with lemons – like a statesman. Men who want to make their support – which are most of us, contrary to your demonizing, will thank you, and you will have their gratitude.
Or you can let Karen Bass be the statesman – and then she will have their gratitude.
Your call. If you can afford political enemies, go ahead and make them, but if you really think the liberal feminists will come over to your side, or are afraid your self-righteous core constituency will leave, you and I need to have a talk about some Everglades Farmlands I’d like to sell.
I stand on the side of the children, not the convicts who want to ignore their parental responsibilities.
You stand on the side of whatever will get you votes with the minimum of effort. It’s another logical fallacy, called false dilemma.
Now hear this, chowderhead: Those convicts who “wish to ignore their parental responsibility” will do so anyway. They have already demonstrated a lack of regard for the law. But, what the heck, go ahead and pound that screw in with your hammer if it makes you feel better, and you think it makes you look good.
Karen Bass, though, is going for those “convicts who want to fulfill their parental responsibilities.”
Either you’re missing the boat – or she’s just smarter than you.
And people wonder why I’m not a Republican anymore.
