California Assemblyman "Outraged" by Leving and Sacks
Dear Editor:
As a parent, I am outraged 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.” 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!
Many Californians already struggle on multiple levels to receive their court-ordered child support. 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. FACT: 88% of inmates who owe child support payments are male and are $6 million in arrears.
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? This is not a matter of politics; rather, this is a matter of ensuring that a child’s quality of life goes undiminished.
I stand on the side of the children, not the convicts who want to ignore their parental responsibilities.
Todd Spitzer
California State Assembly
71st District
19 Comments:
How yawn-inspiringly predictable.
It's for the children! I'm doing it for the children! If you disagree then you must HATE children!
Who cares if women struggle on child support? They should'nt file for divorce if they're too lazy/useless to support themselves and the children they stole from their father.
It's typical lib/dem/idiot tactics - take the vast minority of cases and make laws from them. "But what about" is their only argument. Yes, there are deadbeats, but most are not. And as for the deadbeats, forcing them into a death spiral of go-to-jail (and not be able to pay arrearages), get out of jail, then be unemployable and go back to jail again for the same thing, is a sorry way to do things.
Better yet, they should make shared parenting the legal norm. As is well known, in both men & women, direct caretaking responsibility for one's biological children is probably *the* major determinant for prison recidivism. When I was a young child sitting at the dinner table with my family, I always understood when my father would insist, with a smile, that I eat the last piece of pork chop on the serving platter in the center of the table. These are things a child can understand.
All too often these days, the only time a child realizes how his father sacrefices for him, is when the child support check does not show up on time. The root problem here is not child support, it's child custody.
ah yes. California politicians.
This is a national problem-but-California has been a leader in dismantling the rights of men and fathers.
I would ask the assemblyman how many fathers who remain married to the mothers of their children during an incarceration are required to support their families at the same pre-incarceration level?
How many intact families incure penalties and interest and threats of incarceration for income loss as a result of a layoff or disability?
Should we advocate laws creating a predetermined and arbitrary financial support levels for all law-abiding, intact, working families as well to ensure that the quality of all childrens lives goes undiminished in similair circumstances?
This guy is a Republican. Not a Dem.
He is at best misguided.
He lives in Orange County and has not idea the conditions the inmates must suffer.
For example, they have prison guards that mark inmates for physical harm.
They have toilets that get clogged and no plunger. If a toilet gets plugged then the prisoner is required to shove the hand down the toilet to pull out the turd. Todd should be required to go through two days of this condition so that he experiences equal treatment.
Orange County jail is a very dangerous and inhumane place. Since we don’t want Todd murdered, I would like to see Mr. Spitzer spend one week in jail under an assumed name. He would of course need a cover story that would permit him to survive and not be murdered. For example, we would want him to be listed as a child molestor. That is a death sentence. Nor would we want him to be listed as a wife beater. That would get him many sever beatings. No. We would give him a respectable resume of being a gun toting bank robber that killed a few people.
Of course Mr. Spitzer clearly believes that murdered inmates shouldn't have committed a felony in the first place. So, it is in affect their fault.
Then there is all of the heroin, meth, and pot that the guards smuggle into the jail.... We have to make certain that he turned in a guard so that he can enjoy the pleasure of having a shank shoved up his ass.
Also. Mr. Spitzer is considered to be a pretty boy. So, we would have to make certain that the guards didn’t give him any special protection. That is another reason why he should have an assumed name.
Yes Mr. Spitzer. You need some compassion. Let's see you do one week. Then after you come out we can have this conversation about having no pay and being required to fork over $1000 per month in child support.
We should also get Todd a prison job so he can pay his weekly $250 from the pay he earns while in jail. Of course he would be required to earn standard prison wages just like everybody else.
After Todd does this then perhaps we should listen to his ranting about the un-redeeming nature of men and their inability to repent. Then we can listen to how once a judgment is made that there should never be mercy. Once Todd has done time then we can listen to his mean spirited rant on how convicts should never be given a chance to re-enter civilization and regain their full rights.
Yup. After Todd has done just one simple week then we can discuss how prisoners live in a resort and should be put in jail if they cannot pay $1000 per month in child support.
Warble
Todd Spitzer is a fine example of what is wrong with Republicans. Just like Democrats, he thinks that money is more important than fatherhood. This is backwards.
Money happens automatically when marriage, and therefore fatherhood, is the first priority. Those who think that money is more important than anything else are just selling divorce, illegitimacy, abortion, and government-as-substitute husband.
Secondly, Mr. Spitzer abdicates his responsibility to fix the child support laws that drive men into the alternate economy and lives of crime.
First: Child support orders are not connected to actual income. Amounts are usually imputed in addition to actual income, and it is nearly impossible to get the order modified downward in the event of employment difficulties.
It is a fact that less than 5% of fathers in California are unable to get a modification of support to match their real income. The millions of men laid off in the internet collapse are just a sampling of men who were making huge incomes, but now can't begin to make what they were making before. Many of these guys are felons now. Creating a phony problem, and then using it to lock up men and hold them forever is unconstitutional. It is the creation of false debt, and then a debtors prison to enforce it.
Third: When we demand that men pay more in child support than they earn, they react in several awful ways. Some kill others and then themselves. Some rob banks, sell drugs, or do other things to make a lot of quick money. Others simply leave the country forever. There are many thousands of undocumented expats in foreign countries now, simply because we hold divorced men to an impossible standard of support that we would never demand of married men.
Of course, we must remember that women emotionally terminate the marriage about 75% of the time, and 75% of divorces are filed by women. The whole notion that divorce is men's fault is a tragic political lie, pushed by both Democrats and Republicsns as an excuse to continue pursuing radical-feminist-state policies.
If anybody needs to be locked up, it is Todd Spitzer. He has just admitted to being a member of the social "mafia", who abuse the social and economic rights of good men.
RE: California Assemblyman “Outraged” by Leving and Sacks
Mr. Spitzer is playing politics as usual. In his letter of outrage he erroneously misleads the reader of what the intent of AB 862 Bass really was. The bill simply assures that incarcerated individuals are notified of the need to modify a child support order and that information and forms for doing so are provided.
I am confident that Mr. Spitzer, being a former prosecutor, is aware that often individuals are charged with a crime with out the ability to make bail, and can remain in custody for sometimes up to a year or more. Often at the end of the long stay in custody many individuals are found innocent of the charges for which they had been in custody. If these individuals did not know that they had to file for a modification then they will accrue arrearages that will not be able to be retroactively modified.
Another fact that perhaps Mr. Spitzer has either failed to realize or simply does not care about is that the state spends approximately $2.23 for every dollar it collects. When a child support order is not modified, and arrears mount, then it is the taxpayer who is footing the bills to collect on arrears that mounted from support orders that had not been modified.
Would Mr. Spitzer also object to a bill that required the Unemployment Dept. to notify individuals applying for unemployment, the need to modify and order? The facts are that anyone with a child support order is entitled to modify these orders if the change in circumstances last more than 30 days.
The facts are that the notification process is poor at best and there are a substantial number of people with support orders unaware of the law and the need to modify a support order.
The facts are that it appears that Mr. Spitzer wishes to establish an additional penalty enhancement for incarcerated persons with out a penal code authorizing it. It also appears that Mr. Spitzer also wishes to punish taxpayers at the same time.
I would like to also draw to Mr. Spitzer’s attention a statement of fact in a bill analysis dated 7/12/2005 on page 2 , in the 3rd paragraph, for SB 1082 Morrow/Ducheny:
(Research indicates that when too much arrearages build up, or when orders are set too high, some parents stop paying entirely. Therefore, this bill may encourage consistent payment behavior).
I agree that one who has been convicted of a crime must pay for that crime, but unproductive punishment serves no purpose and in fact only punishes the taxpayer. Mr. Spitzer claims to be a Conservative Republican concerned about the taxpayer? Perhaps Mr. Spitzer’s problem is he hasn’t realized that he is no longer a Prosecutor, but rather a policy maker.
As a question Mr. Spitzer, how many men did you zealously attempt to prosecute for false allegations of Domestic Violence as a result of custody battles? Better yet how many false accusers did you prosecute for perjury? Did the child support orders in those cases get modified? Are you just grandstanding?
Mens News Daily from my perspective is a pretty conservative publication so it might not be wise to expose your true colors here.
AB 862 is a common sense bill. I believe that there needs to be additional reform to the notification process for child support modification for everyone. How about sponsoring a bill Mr. Spitzer?
Michael
Sacramento, CA
I wonder if Mr. Spitzer would be "outraged" to have his child(ren) taken from him for no reason, and then be thrown into debtor's prison for not providing the woman who did it with the lifestyle she wants.
I wonder if Mr. Spitzer would be "outraged" if he were put in prison based on stereotype and false allegations meant to separate him from his child(ren), then he was labeled a "deadbeat" who doesn't care about his child(ren).
If neither of those did the trick, I wonder if he would finally be "outraged" if some politico came along and claimed he was "outraged", simply because some decent people were trying to inform him about what little rights he does have.
The best way to get a parent to support his children is to not take away his right or role as a parent in the first place, except of course after proving unfitness as a parent under due process with equal treatment under color of law for all. That's a fact, but the likes of Mr. Spitzer would rather pander to special interests and stereotypes than help children have the parents and support they need.
When Mr Spitzer begins advocating for the reform of a system that is only effective at destroying families, growing government, making lawyers rich, and keeping feminazis happy, then we'll know he isn't just another deadbeat politician who doesn't give a damn about truth, justice, or children.
I wrote the guy from his website:
------------------
I raised my kids WITHOUT child support because gutless wonders like yourself think that only men should pay child support to women, men shouldn't receive it.
Hell, the feminists you support think that all men are abusers and should NEVER get custody of their children.
Go to you N.O.W. pals and tell them your story. I, for one, KNOW you are a big phoney.
Oh, how'd you like the US Senate vote for Roberts? Only 22 supported your radical feminist pals' demand.
You're a hypocrite and a dinosaur. Every divorced father in America knows what a bunch of creeps the California legisators are. And WE WILL NEVER FORGET.
Go Arnold, kick some sorry-assed California girly-man butt!!
-----------------
Gee, he's a Republican? Sounds like one of the dickless, feminist Arlen-Specter loving RINO Republicans.
To hell with him!
Spitzer? Is this guy related to New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer? I wonder. It may explain is propensity for demagoguing an issue.
Of course, many California Republicans are similar to Northeastern Republicans so it's not surprising to see this guy letter.
Mr. Spitzer,
I'm a father, I love my child, and I stand for his best interests. You're a politician preying on perceptions and falsehoods. The system is abusive, biased, and the worst thing that could happen to our children. The child support "guidelines" are really welfare and alimony in disguise (so we can say that we're equal).
Maybe one day you'll find yourself staring at a policeman coming to arrest you for domestic violence you did not engage in, and you will find out how biased and against the best interest of our children the system really is.
Todd, you were way off on your evaluation of the column in question, and way off when it comes to the reality of being a divorced dad. I know because I am one. I could quote lots of statistics at you showing how men are unfairly taken advantage of, how they are stripped of their rights, and how they are beaten down by the system, but I won't. But if you did any research, you would discover that the child support system is corrupt and has no financial science behind it. The cards are stacked against dads, and when you add prison time into the mix, you are in effect sentencing divorced dads into a lifetime of servitude long after their debt to society is paid off.
You know, in this country we have no debtors prison - unless you're a divorced dad who can't pay his child support. That's wrong. If you took any time at all to speak to divorced dads you would realize this.
But then, taking a stand on this issue would alienate the women voters wouldn't it? And since we all know that women vote more then men, well, we wouldn't want to alienate our voters - even if it means taking an immoral, unethical, dastardly stance on an important social issue with ramifications to our whole society.
Thanks,
Jim Evans
This post has been removed by the author.
Todd,
Regarding the article in Men’s News Daily regarding your “outrage” at Jeff Leving and Glenn Sacks for their stand on child support payments and convicts, you mention that “88% of inmates who owe child support payments are male and are $6 million in arrears”, so what’s your point? FACT: Of those who serve in our military 85% are men, an overwhelming majority, most of those who fight and die for our country are men, again an overwhelming majority, yet we always make it a point to include women when talking about those who put on the uniform of our armed forces.
You say that you “stand on the side of the children, not the convicts who want to ignore their parental responsibilities”, that’s very touching, here are some facts:
FACT: Of those who perpetrate domestic violence on children 60% are women, that figure is probably higher because men and children are not as likely to report abusive women as women are to report their abusers.
FACT: Most child murderers are women.
If you are on the side of children don’t be selective in whom you are outraged at.
Mr. Spitzer:
How dare you preach about law-abiding citizens. As a hard working, productive, law abiding citizen (who’s only crime was working hard and loving his family) I am outraged.
Was it right that my ex-wife could decide that she was bored with our marriage and falsely have me imprisoned for abuse (with no evidence what so ever), only to move in her boyfriend the very next day?
Was it right that my ex-wife received custody after my incarceration? Even though I had proof that I had raised our son for the last five years of our marriage, because she kept walking out on us to pursue her adulterous affairs?
Was it right that during my incarceration she wiped out our savings to buy her boyfriend a new truck and put him in business as a landscaper? Leaving me on the street, homeless, penniless, supporting her and her boyfriend, and owing $20,000 in what was supposed to be joint debt.
Was it right that my ex-wife could (with impunity) deny my parenting time and keep my son and I apart while facing no consequences?
Was it right for my ex-wife to threaten my son that if he said anything to give me custody that she would leave and never see him again?
Worse yet, was it right that her boyfriend (who was a documented unemployed drifter, alcoholic, and convicted felon for a violent stabbing) was allowed (and is being allowed to this day) to abuse my son? When I ask that this abuse is investigated I'm dismissed because everyone knows I'm the "jealous, controlling, abusive ex-husband."
Is it right that my ex-wife and her boyfriend enjoy receiving my child support to live the “good life,” while forcing my son to rebuke me as his father in while in their presence and call the boyfriend “daddy?” Is it right that they do this in direct violation of a court order are never taken to task or punished for this behavior?
Was it right that I had proof that my ex-wife and her boyfriend committed all these atrocities and the judge and child guardian refused to hear it until trial? On the same note, was it right for the judge to refuse to give me a trial for three years until I ran out of money and could no longer afford one?
In the end (with no money left to fight) I found myself broke and forced to settled on my ex-wife’s terms. It is ironic that solely because of her gender my ex-wife and her boyfriend were never punished for their actions. However, I (the law abiding citizen) was the one that went to jail.
It is because of sleazy politicians like you that my son is living in hell today and is abused on a regular basis. It is because of sleazy politicians like you that I am a slave to my ex-wife and her boyfriend; not only through child support but to pander to their wishes, because if I don’t they take it out on my son.
You say your for the children, well what about my child? Apparently, he is one of the many you have conveniently forgotten and have sentenced to a childhood of prison. You should be ashamed of yourself!
Michael Armocida
P.S. Politicians like you are the reason I am no longer a Republican.
that spitzer is a loser.
Here is my response to Spitzer:
Todd Spitzer,
I respond to your complaints about Glenn Sacks and Jeffery Leving, written last September 29th.
Leving and Sacks never claimed that "a criminal should not have to financially support his/her own children because they committed a crime!" The validity of their real claim should be obvious even to you. Prisoners can't make money, so it is stupid to charge them money, even if you'll generously let them pay it when they get out. This pointless effort costs more than it yields, because ex-convicts can't make what you demand of them.
Because Leving and Sacks never made the claim you suggest, they needn't explain it to a law-abiding parent, as you suggest. Rather, you should explain to the public why you would waste their money in an effort to be stupid. Can't you be stupid for free?
FACT: If you take so much from a working man that he can’t live on what's left, you remove his incentive to work, and he may not. If he does not, you’ll spend public money chasing and jailing him, and you’ll recover nothing.
FACT: When you take taxes from parents, they can no longer spend it on their children. If you want to help children, should you take money from families with children, and spend it on your useless program?
FACT: A California Assemblyman should think clearly and write well. With this FACT in mind, I call on you to resign.
Tell me again how you'll "incentivize ex-convicts to seek legal employment." You won’t do it by confiscating their earnings, so how will you? Will you beat them down even more? "Work or else?" That's not incentive. That's a threat, and it is hurled at people who have Constitutional rights, which of course you'll violate if it’s "for the children." No atrocity is too great if it's "for the children," and if you're a cowed weakling surrounded by mouthy feminists.
FACT: One must be a vertebrate to run for public office in California. With this FACT in mind, I call on you to resign.
Sincerely,
A letter I sent via his website:
Your response to Glenn Sacks article is obviously just another example of a corrupt politician who uses the child support debate as a means to keep welfare costs down so he can line his own pockets in an indirect way. Or maybe you are just totally pussy wipped.
While a non-custodial parent is in prison and if the custodial parent makes to much money there is no form of external support coming in. The children may even be adults by the time the parent gets out of prison.
How is paying back money that was never earned by the inmate and never spent by the custodial parent doing anything for the children?
Why are inmates that are married not punished in the same way for not being able to support their spouse and children. Why are stay at home moms or dads not punished for not earning money for their children just because they are married. See how rediculous this would be. Get the hint dumbass!
I believe it is unconstitutional for the congress to make any law that is specific to only certain groups of people. I could be wrong since most of what I was taught in Gov. ran schools has turned out to be wrong when comes to the constitution. Though your laws aren't written in such a manner the enforcement is. Try enforcing the same laws on the married population as you do the divorced and see how long it takes for you to get hanged from the nearest tree.
Make it illegal for any american to be unemployed, not just non-custodial parents. Make all parents show the government how much they spent on their children each year and then arrest the ones that didn't earn enough or spend enough.
It is the ability to pay not the ability to enslave you femi-nazi ass kisser.
Why don't you try becoming a politician by doing whats right instead of whats politically correct. Of course if all politicians did that we might start seeing some of them living the way the average american does and eating at McDonalds more often.
I am sure you don't care what me or anyone else without money and influence thinks or even that you will ever read this. But if I didn't express myself this way who knows how it might get expressed after a few years of stewing.
Post a Comment
<< Home