The government would probably stay out of the matter if they were not the ones footing the bill to these dads (I know mom's are guilty of also being deadbeats, but I have chosen here to focus on fathers). Although I do not like enabling, I also believe children should not be punished for their parent's misdeeds.
With all that being said, I think most of us can agree that we all want to see these men ante up. However, as the Cato Institute has pointed out that doing so can be a slippery slope to removing us of our individual freedoms. I think there is a tendency for many of us to want to run in and fix things - which we have done repeatedly, but often we forget to consider the unintended consequences. Too often when we create another law with the intent of punishing the bad guy, we often rob ourselves of yet another freedom. The cure becomes worse than the disease. After the price that has been paid repeatedly by the blood of our forebears to develop and maintain our freedom we should be careful to not trample on it too easily for the sake of civil order. Maybe the place to start would be to make sure and tell that guy what a jerk he is next time I see him - rather than being afraid of offending him. Perhaps we are expecting the government to do what we are afraid to do ourselves. Another case of enabling.
Hmmm, interesting argument, but... what about the rights of the children? It is my belief that children have a right to have their basic need met. Why is it that we are always so concerned about preserving the rights of adults at the expense of children? In my opinion, the father gave up his "rights" when he made the decision to father a child. Why is it that we always try to shield people from the consequences of their own actions, anyway? He made the choice to become the father, now grow up and take responsibility for that decision! After all, it most certainly was the child's decision to be fathered by such a pathetic excuse for a man.... Wow, I'm on one today. Sorry. But seriously!!!
ReplyDeleteJessica, I would use the same arguments to argue against abortion (except in cases of incest,rape, and threats to the life of the mother). She gave up any rights to kill the child when she had sex and conceived. Be it the father or the mother, our lack of willingness to grow up and live with the consequences can be appalling. SEX = CHILDREN . If you don't want to run the "risk" of having kids then don't have sex.
ReplyDeleteIf child support was a percentage of whatever the day was getting (unemployment, food stamps, whatever) then the disincentive to earn more goes away. He gets more money no matter how much he makes, and the children benefit from his higher income as well. Since he would lose benefits even if he is unemployed there is a disincentive for him not to work.
One other point to add here. The federal registry was established, in part, to stop dads from going from job to job, in state after state, simply to avoid paying child support. There were a few egregious examples of this in the national news a few years ago, with one wealthy dad owing more than $1 million in unpaid child support and living in a $5 million mansion in Florida. It took the law years to track him down, but they finally did.
ReplyDelete