YF: Those who can should pay, but I'm talking about poor fathers, who can barely support themselves, may have no income, and might be even incarcerated already. . . .
You are implying that court awards are excessive in light of some fathers' incomes. This could be, but I doubt it. Awards have been found to be paltry, not excessive, though it's possible the topic could stand more research. If awards are not excessive, then all the angst re: poor fathers is irrelevant. Obviously if dad is in jail already, there's not much child support enforcement can do to him as far as docking his wages goes. The article you quote alludes to evidence that awards are excessive but provides no specifics.
If the poor fathers were living with their poor family, they would still have to make such payments. It's even possible, if one takes a jaundiced feminist standpoint, that the family-minus-father gets more of his dough with a child support award then if he is still in the home.
As for efficiency, collections more than justify enforcement expenses, though collections could improve significantly. I don't know if this has been discussed on FEMECON, and I'm not there any longer.
>>>>>>>>
. . . I suspect that there is no empirical evidence for an argument that
collecting delinquent child support is better for poor women & children
than public assistance is. . . .
>>>>>>>
The question is not easily informed by empirical evidcence. One would have to compare the existing, patchwork system with two imaginary alternatives: one where CS enforcement was very good, and another where the now extinct AFDC was back and in reasonably good health. The latter is much less likely than improving CS enforcement.
>>>>>>
Also, there is a problem of escalating the trend toward increasing
criminalization & surveillance of the poor.
>>>>>>>>
If you have a new law you have new enforcement and new criminals. The question is whether the law is appropriate or not.
It is true that the 'deadbeat dad' thing has been a safe haven for faltering liberals, but we don't want to blame victims (abandoned families) for the deficiencies of their would-be political champions.
>>>>>>>>>>
Guaranteed public assistance beats being dependent upon individual men,
whose incomes are not reliable sources (sometimes because men in question
are irresponsible, but often because of unemployment, underemployment,
sporadic employment, etc. which are beyond their control). . . .
>>>>>>
Yes but this is exactly what we don't have and are not likely to see for some time.
>>>>>>>>>>
BTW, besides
promoting the rhetoric of "personal responsibility," welfare reformists
have had an ideological agenda of promoting marriage & women's financial
dependence upon individual men, to which feminists -- even liberal
feminists -- are opposed . . .
>>>>>>>>>
Marriage promotion has been a theme, but better child support enforcement is not exactly a marriage promoting device. In principle it could discourage some marriages, since for the man the union becomes more financially binding. After the fact, effective enforcement puts less pressure on the Mom to remarry.
The bill you cite is purely symbolic bullshit. $160 million is a meaningless number in the context of any national issue. NOW's point that it could reduce money elsewhere in an $1800 billion budget is ridiculous.
As far as income goes, two-headed households are better than one. Obviously there are non-monetary factors that could work against the economic benefits, but these factors can work in both directions as well.
Big social policy is usually done with blunt instruments, sort of like bread, peace, and land. There are casualties in all such endeavors, but on the whole at this point in time I don't think you have made a case that less child support enforcement would be better than more.
In your follow-up post, you say:
Max, take a look at this, too. Allowing the welfare reformists to have
work & child support substitute for public assistance has increased the
problem for poor mothers. Yoshie
>>>>>>
CS payments have always been used to offset welfare payments. What's new is rising enforcement.
As for paternity, social workers explained to me a long time ago that determining paternity was good for children, besides helping the state do collections. Think about the difference between growing up knowing or not knowing the identity of one's father. Also the potential effect on the father of knowing that he is known.
To administrate you need rules, and rules are usually drawn imperfectly. Obviously if benefits are based on mothers providing information they are unable to provide, this is a problem. It is plausible that the state would draw rules to squeeze an extra percent out of the caseload, or trim benefits. Neither is it surprising that in the process of reorganizing huge systems, including the participation of profit-thirsty contractors, there have been and will be huge screw-ups. This does not mean the underlying principle -- the state should be informed of paternity to facilitate child support enforcement -- is wrong.
cheers, mbs