Senator Joe Biden has proudly and unabashedly co-authored one of the most blatently discriminatory and unconstitutional acts to go into the books since the Jim Crow laws of the nineteenth century. I am talking about the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This law provides billions of dollars annually to fund programs and provide aid for victims of abuse.
Women victims. Only.
Oh, the sponsors of the Act say that Men and Children are not excluded, and that the title is an "unfortunate accident that leads to misunderstanding". Supporters of the bill also assert that it only appears that men are excluded because of the disproportionate number of women abuse victims to men.
In the words of Sarah Palin: "Well, there you go again, Joe".
The reality is that the funded programs are exclusionary. These funds are used for things like "educational programs" that indoctrinate women into believeing that all men are rapists and abusers. They also fund legal clinics that represent abuse victims free of charge. Women victims, not men or children. They fund victim's abuse shelters; sheters that do not provide services for men or their children. Incidentally, I understand that these shelters are where much of the indoctrinary "educational programs" are hosted.
Further the perception that men are not victims is a complete fraud. Many studies have been done that show women are at least as like as men to be abusers in a relationship. However, the statistics are greatly skewed because for one thing, men cannot get public assistance when they are abused, and thus are not counted. Obviously if shelters only take in women victims, then only they get any recognition. Where do the men go?
States have implemented draconian anti-domestic violence laws that pretty much make men responsponsible for all domestic violence incidents regardless of the actaul circumstances. As such, most men are justifiably relutant to report abuse to them for fear of being accused themselves. I know this first hand, as this is exactly what happened to me.
So, not only can men not get help if they need it, most are afraid to even report it. Gee, no wonder it looks like only women are victims. And hence why there is such overwhelming support for VAWA.
But there is a glimmer of hope that the truth may someday come out. A recent Califiornia Supreme Court ruling stated that publically funded shelters that exclude men are discriminatory and unconstitutional under California law. Other lawsuits are sure to follow.
Yet Senator O-Biden still fervently supports this unconstitutional legislation. One wonders how we can trust someone who will soon take the Oath of the Office of the President of the United States, in which they "swear to uphold the constitution", when they support laws that have been proven unconstitutional?
Say it ain't so, Joe
Saturday, October 18, 2008
CS Reform Issues: Mandatory Wage Garnishment
First off, I am back after a 6-7 week hiatus, in which I have been active in the State reform movement. Going forward, it is my goal to put at least three things up here each week.
Returning to the previous discussion of the basic problems with current child support laws, let's take a look at wage garnishment, or "assignment". This is a much broader issue than just attaching a weekly paycheck. This also includes seizure of bank account, retirement and other liquid assets. It means mandatory confiscation of tax refunds. It means states refusing to give you a drivers license if you owe support. It even means suspending your right to travel abroad if you are behind in child support.
Obviously, many people think this is fair and just; after all if one is not supporting their children, should not the State be allowed to take harsh measures? My argument against this is that "where does it stop?" Currently, these harsh penalties are not applied when one is behind in in alimony payments; they are not imposed for any type of civil debt (mortgage, etc.); they are not even imposed to this extent when taxes are owed.
But the other issue goes back to the fundamental problem of "guilty until proven innocent". Wage assignment is now mandatory in NH, unless extenuating circumstance can be shown that it should not be assessed. Why? If I have always voluntarily paid my support in full and on-time, why should the State feel obliged to garnish my check? It is not like income taxes, where I will get refund if my pay is over-witheld. Any money paid in support is forfeit, unless one spends a huge amount of money to go to Court and try and prove that they have overpaid.
Good Luck with that one. Besides, the most you could recover is what you have overpaid since the date of service of such an order. Any amount prior to that is most definietly forfeit.
Naturally, the answer is simple: follow the money. Since the State gets a kickback from Federal Title IV-D funds for every dollar of support they collect, the State has a vested interest in making sure Fathers pay. And what better way then taking their money before they see it?
Nevertheless, wage assignment by the State without cause is an unfair violation of of our Constitutional right and primary legal precedent of innocent until proved guilty. Courts should only be allowed to put in place wage assignement when the individual has proven that they will not pay their support otherwise.
Returning to the previous discussion of the basic problems with current child support laws, let's take a look at wage garnishment, or "assignment". This is a much broader issue than just attaching a weekly paycheck. This also includes seizure of bank account, retirement and other liquid assets. It means mandatory confiscation of tax refunds. It means states refusing to give you a drivers license if you owe support. It even means suspending your right to travel abroad if you are behind in child support.
Obviously, many people think this is fair and just; after all if one is not supporting their children, should not the State be allowed to take harsh measures? My argument against this is that "where does it stop?" Currently, these harsh penalties are not applied when one is behind in in alimony payments; they are not imposed for any type of civil debt (mortgage, etc.); they are not even imposed to this extent when taxes are owed.
But the other issue goes back to the fundamental problem of "guilty until proven innocent". Wage assignment is now mandatory in NH, unless extenuating circumstance can be shown that it should not be assessed. Why? If I have always voluntarily paid my support in full and on-time, why should the State feel obliged to garnish my check? It is not like income taxes, where I will get refund if my pay is over-witheld. Any money paid in support is forfeit, unless one spends a huge amount of money to go to Court and try and prove that they have overpaid.
Good Luck with that one. Besides, the most you could recover is what you have overpaid since the date of service of such an order. Any amount prior to that is most definietly forfeit.
Naturally, the answer is simple: follow the money. Since the State gets a kickback from Federal Title IV-D funds for every dollar of support they collect, the State has a vested interest in making sure Fathers pay. And what better way then taking their money before they see it?
Nevertheless, wage assignment by the State without cause is an unfair violation of of our Constitutional right and primary legal precedent of innocent until proved guilty. Courts should only be allowed to put in place wage assignement when the individual has proven that they will not pay their support otherwise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)