New Column: Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Bill–Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick
My new co-authored column, Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Bill–Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick (Wisconsin State Journal, Buffalo News, 6/30/07), criticizes the newly introduced Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007 for misunderstanding the roots of fatherlessness.
To write a Letter to the Editor of the Wisconsin State Journal regarding Fatherhood bill: Not enough carrot, too much stick, click here. To write a Letter to the Editor of the Buffalo News regarding Obama’s legislation does too little to encourage fathers, click here.
I co-authored the column, which appears below, with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Bill–Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Wisconsin State Journal, Buffalo News, 6/30/07
U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) recently introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007, which they say will address our “national epidemic of absentee fathers.” Obama and Bayh are correct that fatherless children are dramatically more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, use drugs, or get pregnant than children who have fathers in their homes. The Responsible Fatherhood Act is explicitly a carrot and stick approach. The problem is that the carrot is too small and the stick is already too big.
Currently many noncustodial fathers—particularly African-American and Latino fathers, upon whom Obama often focuses—are required to pay their child support to the state to reimburse the cost of public assistance, instead of to the children’s mothers. This is demoralizing for low-income men struggling to make a difference in their kids’ lives.
The Responsible Fathers Act will make this money go directly to the mothers, instead of the state, a policy which research shows helps bring fathers closer to their children. The bill will also expand the Earned Income Tax Credit and provide fathers with job training services.
All of these are good things, but the bill’s stick—increasing federal reimbursements for child support enforcement–is damaging and misguided. Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earn poverty-level wages; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year.
Most “deadbeat dads” are low-income men who are unable to meet the demands of the child support system because of their employment problems. Stepping up already draconian enforcement only makes it more difficult for them to play a meaningful role in their children’s lives.
Bayh himself endorses such wrongheaded efforts, boasting without a trace of irony that when he was the governor of Indiana, “We used ‘most wanted’ posters to track down deadbeat parents and intercepted their tax refunds, lottery winnings and unemployment benefits” (emphasis added).
The biggest problem with the Responsible Fatherhood Act, however, is that it reflects its authors’ misunderstanding of fatherlessness. (more…)
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
July 9th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Glenn, the article in the Journal is top-notch journalism. I have shared it with a few of my friends – particularly those that support Obama – and while it did not presuade them otherwise – it clearly gae pause to each of them. In addition – they all had positive things to say about the article itself.
We clearly need to make Obama’s projectionist attitudes towards fathers obvious to the public – my guess – his policies and concepts are not going to help fatherhood in this country, in the least. He is going about it from a “hurt-Puppy-Dog’s” angle and this is clearly going to bring about some hidden bias against dads – no matter how much he tries to hide it in rhetoric.
July 9th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
You need to send this article to the courier press:
http://employees.courierpress.com/contacts.cfm?refer=courier#Direct%20Mail
As you likely know their coverage and blogs are not particularly informed about what is really at stake here.
The bottom line is that the “Fathers Responsibility Act” makes fatherlessness sound like it is the fathers fault and this is far from truth – it is our governement’s fault and the fault of some misguided individuals. Can you imagine a “Mother’s Responsibilty Act.”
July 9th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Obama is just another shitheaded liberal.
Hopefully he won’t hit upon the idea of amending the Antipeonage Act.
Of course they will ignore the obvious truth: most fathers abaondon their families the way a pirate forced to walk the plank abandons his ship!
July 10th, 2007 at 8:38 am
Well… if Obamie wants to get elected or any other “politician”( stiffled laugh) they had better get an attitude adjustment reguarding fathers and men. Some one is going to have to tell these guy what the truth of the matter really is ??
They (politicians) seem to have no idea what is going on in the world around them and that includes the “disaster” that is the familycourt, child custody and child support systems. They don’t have an inkling as to how unfair and unjust the system really is. I really believe ,they just don’t give a shit.
The fact that the system is wrong means nothing to them, its a money maker and that is all they care about. I think ,that if quite a few of these bastards lost their jobs for voting against fathers and men, then they would straighten up. We would then have to put several million women in jail too. Because they seem to have the same problem. They just don’t understand that wrong is wrong.
We have so many people in this country, because of the fraudulent ” legal system” , who need to grow up socially,legally and morally. They have been allowed to get away with things, that I never would even think of doing. I know right and wrong and I also know that in Gods universe that if you do wrong, you will pay for it . It won’t matter how pretty and politically correct it was.
Now…. ifa politician ever does staighten up , then vote for him. I have one fellow in mind Senator Ron Paul. Now that fellow understand which side is up and that we need to go back to the constitution. Him I would vote for.
July 10th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I can sense the anguish of commentators here who want so much to cast their vote for a candidate that they might believe in when 2008 trudges around…
Imagine my dilemma …
If Hillary gets the Dem nomination, then I have to VOTE REPUBLICAN!!!!
For the first time in my life.
And, unless there’s a Green Party or Ralph Nader option, then I have to vote AGAINST MY PRINCIPLES just to keep that feminist vampire from achieiving the White House.
Democracy is indeed …. a cold bitch.