The Vision of Hillary Clinton: "Reform Poverty"

51

By tntalk

Hillary Clinton has launched a vision that she calls “Youth Opportunity Agenda”. Within the powerful agenda is contained the seeds for unprecedented federal spending and power. As part of this vision, Ms. Clinton seeks to “restore funding for child support enforcement to make sure that fathers do their part to support their children. But she will also reward responsible fatherhood by ensuring that every dollar of child support payments directly benefits children and expanding the EITC to give fathers more economic opportunities to do right by their kids.

On the surface, what Ms. Clinton proposes appears to be visionary. She desires to restore and enforce, to ensure and to expand. That is language for spending more money. “Hillary believes that fathers who have the financial resources must pay their full and fair share of child support.” The text reasons, “Child support payments lift more than one million children out of poverty each year and enable 300,000 families to leave TANF rolls. Child support payments can represent half of these men’s income, and can provide a strong incentive to work in the underground economy.” The statement made by the campaign is a myth. Then, Ms. Clinton proposes to reverse “deep cuts” to child support enforcement that we made through “the Bush Administration”. She projects that $11 billion will be lost over the next 10 years because of these “cuts”. She will make certain that states and counties have the resources necessary for collection through more federal funding. Ms. Clinton will also “encourage states to take more realistic and cooperative approaches to managing arrears, so that fathers leaving prison are not immediately saddled with unrealistic payment obligations.” Could this also be for parents that are arrested for non-payment of child support through the federal Bradley Amendment in the first place?

Ms. Clinton’s policy also states that she wants to ensure that every dollar of child support goes to the children through “incentives” and “support”, doubtless through more funding with more rules and guidelines. The federal government currently maintains that every dollar of child support is going to child support right now. So what’s up with this need for incentives? The dirty secret is that 4% of child support gets lost in the money stream through mismanagement of the system even though every dollar is sent for the children.

She holds that her reform will increase child support payments and result in administrative savings. Do you smell more power and larger federal government without results? Honesty would dictate that she address the current money mismanagement in the system. Instead, she has chosen to pretend the problem does not exist.

Ms. Clinton proposes to “make work pay for responsible fathers by expanding the EITC.” EITC is the “Earned Income Tax Credit” for low-income workers and families. Ms. Clinton sees the EITC as “one of the most successful anti-poverty programs in the U.S.” Have any of you seen this tax credit lift anyone out of poverty or does it simply support more of the same? Ms. Clinton suggests tripling “the size of the benefit for single workers, providing 4 million people with a tax cut averaging $750.” Does a $750 tax rebate eliminate poverty? For whom would this eliminate poverty? This sounds more like creative social engineering and promotion for single parents rather than promoting the honesty of marriage.

Ms. Clinton expects the cost to top out at $5 billion a year, financed by the “carried interest loophole” which allows some Wall Street investment managers to pay a lower tax rate on their earned income than middle class workers. How many Wall Street investment managers does the United States have? Only Ms. Clinton knows, but I think you know. This is clearly a smoke and mirrors approach to funding. The savings will be so great that she says that she will generously dedicate a portion of the savings to improve government efficiency. Does this sound real to you? Where will she improve spending? She says that she will improve government efficiency by mandating a freeze on expenses, reducing a vehicle fleet and managing surplus property. What money is needed for that? She proposes to eliminate improper federal payments. What improper federal payments will Ms. Clinton eliminate that we don’t know about and who decides what those are?

Currently the federal enforcement of the Bradley Amendment for child support runs at $6 billion yearly with 55% of child support being paid and collected. Ms. Clinton proposes to add another $5 billion to that sum every year with her plan. The $11 billion “saved in reversing budget cuts over a decade”, if those cuts exist, would result in additional funding of roughly $1 billion a year. This would lift federal funding through enforcement of child support through the Bradley Amendment from $6 billion to $12 billion. Additional state expenses to meet federal Bradley requirements are still outstanding and remain the responsibility of each state. There is no free money. This projected $12 billion is a federal expense that did not exist before 1994. Before 1994, there was no federal funding for child support collection. Why does this matter?

What Ms. Clinton is not telling you is that she is intent on reforming the Bradley Amendment federal enforcement laws that were enacted beginning in 1993. Who created those laws to begin with? Hillary Clinton, Donna Shalala and other feminists rose to the challenge to beat out “deadbeat dads” no matter what the cost. Through federal legislation, they removed state rights assigned by the Constitution and worked to exercise control over the rights of Americans that had never been exercised before. They pulled it off without a hitch because of public sentiment that they drummed up as they promised welfare reform and poverty resolution. The democratic Bradley Amendment had sat on the law books since 1986 without the capability of enforcement. Hillary’s crew of feminists was the enforcement agency for the Bradley Amendment. Opportunity was transformed into power. Bill and Hillary are, in theory, single-handedly responsible for federal child support enforcement as it exists today and have mangled the Constitution and the rights of Americans to do it. The really fascinating part of the whole drama is that none of the legislation has worked. Costs are up. Court orders are up. Welfare has not been reduced as promised. Poverty has not decreased. Child support collections are down. Hillary aims to fix the situation with more invasive methods. Are you prepared for that reality?

The Bradley Amendment must be repealed to restore order in the United States of America. Ms. Clinton is preparing to elevate Bradley Amendment enforcement and reform to new heights. The plans and proposals are real. Hillary Clinton is here to rule your world. Hail to the King.

E. Manning

TNTalk!

The Bradley Amendment in Unconstitutional

The Bradley Amendment.

You can't make a right with a wrong!

Clinton-Obama Debate: the federal Bradley Amendment

Leave your comments here!

dafla 4 years ago

Do I take this to mean you support deadbeat parents (because not just dads are deadbeats, you know)?

Would you rather we do nothing to these men who go out and father child after child that has to be supported on the public dole? I'm not just talking about illegitimate children, either. I'm talking about some pretty financially secure men who refuse to pay for their children's care, and will do anything to hide their income.

I was dating a man once who made over $100,000 a year. He and his employer conspired to hide that income, all but $25,000, so that he would only have to pay $25 a week in child support. All this because his wife was a nurse who made as much as he did. Yes, she did, but she was also left with the house payments (he lived with his mom in a 2 BR government subsidized apt.....another ruse to fool the courts), buying food, clothing, and every other essential for their child, including health insurance. He did not see his child for 5 years, because she refused to let him, since she knew of his scam, but couldn't prove it. She spent over $100,000 over those 5 years taking him to court, because as she told the judge "It's the only way I can get him to talk to me."

This man was selfish, self-centered, and childish. I was with him for a year, and suddenly, his son at 13, wanted to come live with him. He turned his back immediately on me and my son (who he had made countless promises to), as though we never existed. Once he got custody of his son, he built a $200,000 home and started traveling all over with his son. He said his son wanted to live with him because "he knows what his mom is".

I wonder if his son knows what he is?

tntalk profile image

tntalk Hub Author 4 years ago

I support sound law that is Constitutional. I support law that solves a problem without destroying the human and civil rights of American citizens. This law cannot be justified by you or anyone else under any circumstances or for any reason. To make matters worse, the law doesn't work or fulfill any of the purposes it was designed to solve and assist. Bad feelings about children, the immaturity of men and misgivings about evil deadbeats does not justify violation of basic American rights set out in law. Period. End of story.

Make the politicians care. Tell them you want the federal Bradley Law repealed and for politicians to uphold the civil rights of every American and to stop trouncing on the privacy rights of every American in the name of children or politics.

N1rainboluv6colur profile image

N1rainboluv6colur 3 years ago

I agree with maybe all that you said until I read the sister's comment,I knew a man who had fathered three beautiful lilltle girls and was a descent provider until his position was challenged.The children's mother started dating someone and he decided because of that he did not have to foot the bill for his nites of passion.Point Iamn trying to make is men hadand still have the freedom to make babies and leave the rest on most times the mom,and yes there are alot of single dads that need the recognition too.(much luv)If you have a solution you need to offer it and not just find fault in something that can make a difference.

As a women with children on welfare striveing for greatness,this was a way that was free of cost to my children and has assisted me coming off the TANF roll.!!!

Tom 3 years ago

Submit a Comment
Members and Guests

Sign in or sign up and post using a hubpages account.



    • No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked
    • Comments are not for promoting your Hubs or other sites

    Please wait working