[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference quark::mennotes-v1

Title:Topics Pertaining to Men
Notice:Archived V1 - Current file is QUARK::MENNOTES
Moderator:QUARK::LIONEL
Created:Fri Nov 07 1986
Last Modified:Tue Jan 26 1993
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:867
Total number of notes:32923

147.0. "Family Security Act" by YODA::BARANSKI (If I were a realist, I'd be dead.) Tue Sep 08 1987 17:14

                  MOYNIHAN BILL ATTACKS AMERICAN FATHERHOOD

Senator Daniel P. Moynihan, Democratic New York, introduced Senate Bill 1511,
the "Family Security Act", FSA, on the floor of the Senate on July 21st.  The
bill amounts to the most profound and global attack on American fatherhood to
date.

The bill provides that child support will be automatically deducted from
fathers' wages and turned over to the state, who will then pass it on to the
mother.   Children of divorce, in effect, will be dependent upon various state
agencies according to the bill, which is designed to bail out a faltering
welfare system by expanding their influence to virtually every child of divorce
in America.

The bill also provides that states set child support formulas which are
"binding upon judges" and that child support awards "be reviewed and adjusted
at least once every two years."  In other words, the matter of child support
will be substantially taken out of the courts and placed into the welfare
system.  The state will decide how much should be paid, give the father 30 days
to hire an attorney and fight their decision which is "binding upon judges,"
and notify the employer to take it out of the father's pay and give it to the
state.  At least once every two years they will review and change the amount
the employee deducts. 

Other provisions of the bill provide for an absurd national effort to establish
paternity by the reporting of social security numbers at the time of a child's
birth, the placing of unemployed fathers on welfare work programs, and in
effect, the exclusion of illegal aliens, who compromise a substantial
proportion of the welfare roles and child support defaults, from most of the
provisions of the bill.  The bill also includes a full array of pork-barrel
demonstration projects designed to bail out the welfare system on the back of
American fatherhood. 


                                   HISTORY

What started out as a well intentioned effort of the National Governor's
Association, NGA, to reform an extremely expensive and ineffective welfare
system known as Aid to Families with Dependent Children, AFDC, was converted
into a feminist manifesto by Senator Moynihan.  Governor Castle (R, DE), the
chairman of the Welfare Prevention Task Force of the NGA, presented a proposal
designed to:  improve the parental child support obligations of *both* parents;
permit flexible state designed employment programs and training;  and create a
"social contract" that requires the state to provide opportunities for welfare
recipient to work or risk losing benefits.

Central to this plan were several startling statistics which document the
national problems encountered with welfare mothers:  In America, 72% of all
mothers with children between 6-18 years of age work and over half of all
mothers with children under three years of age work.  Among welfare mothers,
less then 5% work.  The original NGA proposal would have helped the mothers to
get work with daycare, training and extension of medical benefits as they enter
the work force.  It also provided sanctions against mothers refusing to keep
their work contracts. 

This proposal remained substantially intact when introduced in the House by
Representative Ford, (D, TN).  The Senate version, however, portrays American
fatherhood as irresponsible and shifts the focus off the welfare abusers in
favor of attacking divorced fathers.

                               WAGE DEDUCTIONS

Through a shameful manipulation of statistics, Senator Moynihan has presented
this bill as being likely to increase the amount of child support payments
made.  While 58% of all single mothers have court orders for child support, 42%
do not.  Of the 42% who do not:  60% had children out of wedlock, 19% are
separated rather then divorced, and 12% of their husbands are dead.

While the problem of nonsupport falls squarely on the shoulders of fathers of
children born out of wedlock, who may or may not know they are fathers,
Moynihan prefers to attack American fatherhood:  "If you are man enough to
father a child, you had best be man enough to provide for that child for at
least the next 18 years," said Moynihan  on the Senate floor, asserting himself
as a much less than eloquent feminist proponent.

                                  PATERNITY

The Moynihan bill provides, in very *unclear* terms, for a system by which
parents will give social security numbers at birth, thereby establishing
"presumptive paternity".  In other words, if a man's social security is given
at a hospital at the time of birth, he is PRESUMED TO BE THE FATHER. This is
the Moynihan solution to the massive national problem of out of wedlock births.

Moynihan explains that some states, such as New York, are currently collecting
social security numbers.  He goes on to explain that while "NEW YORK CITY IS
EXEMPT FROM THIS REGULATION," in 1986, "84% of all fathers' numbers were
successfully collected."

What Senator Moynihan does not explain, is *why* "New York City is exempt from
this regulation."  Could it be because if New York City were not exempt it
might have problems with its half million illegal aliens and welfare frauds who
burden both the state and federal government?  Could it be because Moynihan has
a much higher standard for responsible fathers across America then he does for
criminals on the dole in his own backyard?  Could it be because he expects
responsible fathers across America to support big city welfare follies? 

                               STATE GUIDELINES

The Moynihan bill provides for the establishment of state guidelines for child
support which are "rebuttable" and "binding on judges."  In other words, the
state will decide by formula how much child support will be paid, judges will
rubberstamp the paperwork, and fathers can hire lawyers to change the minds of
judges in an environment in which guidelines are "binding on judges."

These provisions, in effect, take the setting of child support out of the realm
of the discretion of judges and into the realm of bureaucracy.  In all
likelihood, mothers will be effective in litigating to *raise* levels of
support for "special" circumstances, while fathers will be bound to
"guidelines."  But the federalization of divorce doesn't end here, fathers will
also be assured of "automatic" increases in child support. 

                               AUTOMATIC REVIEW

The Moynihan bill provides that child support awards will be reviewed, by a
state agency, "at least once every two years."  Following the review, the
father and his employer will be notified of the new child support award. The
father will be given 30 days to hire a lawyer and argue against guidelines
which are "binding on judges."

This, in effect, will do away with the "change of circumstances" requirement
for the modification of a divorce decree.  Divorced fathers will have as much
control under the Moynihan welfare as taxpayers now have over how much of their
tax dollars go into the endless welfare pit.  Sadly, divorced mothers and
children are likely to be treated with the same dignity and respect as welfare
recipients. 

                               WELFARE BAILOUT

Under the Moynihan bill responsible fathers, divorced mothers and children will
all be economic losers.  But faltering departments of welfare will be
revitalized, especially in places such as New York City, known as a bastion of
welfare abuse.  This bill will mean full employment for social workers.

The interest on the billions of dollars turned over to states will be used to
accomplish welfare goals not likely to be achieved through the use of normal tax
revenue.  Money will flow through the welfare coffers as a kind of "float",
much as banks use money in clearing checks.  Moreover, millions of private
citizens and businesses will be involved in an economic relationship with the
state; the most major expansion of the welfare state in our lifetime. 

                              BUSINESS OUTRAGED

American business will be involved in a very intimate part of many employee's
lives, and will have to foot the bill for millions of payroll deductions.
Additionally, business will now have to deal with yet another government
bureaucracy.  As mistakes are made, children of divorce will not receive their
support.  The cost involved in these deductions amount to a tax on American
business.

Since every state currently has provisions for the deduction of child support
from the wages of irresponsible parents, the bill will, in effect, only make
automatic deductions from the wages of responsible parents.  Parents working in
the "informal economy," welfare frauds and illegal aliens will be unaffected by
the Moynihan bill.

Moreover, the privacy of employees will be violated as confidential
information is now disclosed to employers.  Bank presidents will now have their
personal, family business reviewed by payroll clerks.  How long will it be
before credit bureaus begin denying credit on the basis of a father making high
child support payments?  What effect will these disclosures have on the hiring
of employees?  And what kind of disputes will employers become party to as
employees, courts and the state have different opinions of what should be
deducted?  Will businesses have to start hiring social workers to be in
compliance with the law?  Will business, in effect, become an extension of the
welfare state? 

                               SENATOR MOYNIHAN

It's hard to understand how such a bill made its way to the Senate until you
understand its author, Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Born in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 1927, the Moynihan family move to New York City and
suffered under a father described as an "indebted hard drinking, deserter" who
left his wife and children to live in a succession of coldwater flats in
Manhattan slum neighborhoods, on welfare. 

Being a survivor to the core, Senator Moynihan received a Catholic school
education and went on to City College, which at the time did not charge
tuition.  He enlisted in the Navy which sent him to Middlebury College in
Vermont and Tufts University in Massachusetts.  Thus, the New York City
welfare child emerged as a Navy Officer, complete with  New England accent and
a burning desire to leave his mark on society.

With a Salamander like ability to survive in a variety of settings, Moynihan
served under Presidents Kennedy and Nixon and in the U.N. under President Ford.
A prolific author in the area of social reform, he has managed to rally support
for many to his efforts while alienating even civil rights leaders with his
creative use of research and statistics and acid remarks.

The current bill is no exception.  Moynihan has rallied the support of 26
cosponsors, including six Republications. 

                              CHANCES OF PASSAGE

By all estimates, the Moynihan welfare bill has a very good chance of becoming
law.  Well organized, broad based opposition to the bill could result in the
deletion of provisions, such as the automatic wage deductions.

F.A.I.R. has received calls and letters from across the nation in opposition to
the bill.  David L. Levy, President of the National Council For Children's
Rights, has recently given his organization's support to F.A.I.R. in our
attempt to defeat the bill. 

In the event that this bill becomes law, there are several constitutional
issues to be challenged such as:  privacy violations, unreasonable seizure of
property, due process and infringement of state's rights.  F.A.I.R. is
currently mounting organized opposition to the bill and has contacted every
member of the Senate.

                              YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

We have listed the cosponsors of the bill, and the names of *all* U.S.
Senators.  Write them.  Tell them how you feel and tell them that you would
like F.A.I.R. to testify at hearings.

There is much more that you can do:  This bill is going to cost you a fortune.
It is also going to harm children and take away many of your current rights.

Since the bill will affect virtually all businesses in its efforts to
federalize divorce, speak to others and urge them to support our efforts.
F.A.I.R. can not defeat this bill *without your* support.


                                U.S. SENATORS

                               Mailing address:
                                      

                           The Honorable __________
                                  The Senate
                             Washington, DC 20510

*Senators are cosponsors of the Moynihan "Family Security Act", Senate Bill
1511.

Alabama:    Howell T. Heflin D., Richard Shelby, D.

Alaska:     Ted Stevens, R., Frank H. Murkowski, R.

Arizona:    Dennis DeConcini, D., John McCain, R.

Arkansas:   *Dale Bumpers, D., *David H. Pryor D.

California: Alan Cranston, D., Pete Wilson, R.

Colorado:  William L. Armstrong, R., *Timothy F. Wirth, D.

Connecticut:  Lowell P. Weicker, Jr., R., Christopher J. Dodd, D.

Delaware:  William V. Roth, R., *Joseph R. Biden, Jr. D.

Florida:  Lawton Chiles, D., Bob Graham, D.

Georgia:  Sam Nunn, D., *Wyche Fowler, Jr., D.

Hawaii:  Daniel K. Inouye, D., *Spark M. Matsunaga, D.

Idaho:  James A. McClure, R., Steven D. Symms, R.

Illinois:  Alan J. Dixon, D., *Paul Simon, D.

Indiana:  Richard G. Lugar, R., Dan Quayle, r.

Iowa:  Charles E. Grassley, R., Tom Harkin, D.

Kansas:  Robert J. Dole, R., Nancy Landon Kassebaum, R.

Kentucky:  Wendell H. Ford, D., Mitch McConnell, R.

Louisiana:  J. Bennett Johnson, D., John B. Breaux, D.

Maine:  William S. Cohen, R., George J. Mitchell, D.

Maryland:  Paul S. Sarbanes, D., Barbara A. Mikulski, D.

Massachusetts: *Edward M. Kennedy, D., *John F. Kerry, D.

Michigan:  *Donald W. Riegle, Jr., D., Carl Levin, D.

Minnesota:  *David F. Durenberger, R., Rudy Boschwitz, R.

Mississippi:  John C. Stennis, D., *Thad Cochran, R.

Missouri:  *John C. Danforth, R., Christopher S. Bond, R.

Montana:  John Melcher, D., Max Baucus, D.

Nebraska:  Edward Zorinsky, D., J. James Exon., D.

Nevada:  Chic Hecht, R., Harry M. Reid, D.

New Hampshire:  Gordon J. Humphrey, R., Warren B. Rudman, R.

New Jersey:  *Bill Bradley, D., Frank R. Lautenberg, D.

New Mexico:  Pete V. Domenici, R., *Jeff Bingaman, D.

New York:  *Daniel P. Moynihan, D., Alfonso M. D'amato, R.

North Carolina:  Jesse Helms, R., *Terry Sanford, D.

North Dakota:  Quentin N. Burdick, D., Kent Conrad, D.

Ohio:  John H. Glenn Jr., D., Howard M. Metzenbaum, D.

Oklahoma: David L. Boren, D., Don Nickles., R.

Oregon:  Mark O. Hatfield, R., Bob Packwood, R.

Pennsylvania:  John Heinz, R., Arlen Specter, R.

Rhode Island:  *Claiborne Pell, D., *John H. Chafee, R.

South Carolina:  Strom Thurmond, R., Ernest F. Hollings, D.

South Dakota:  Larry Pressler, R., *Thomas A. Daschle, D.

Tennessee:  James R. Sasser, D., *albert Gore, Jr., D.

Texas:  Lloyd M. Bentson, D., Phil Gramm, R.

Utah:  E. Jake Garn, R., Orrin G. Hatch, R.

Vermont:  Robert T. Stafford, R., Patrick J. Leahy, D.

Washington: *Daniel L. Evans, R., Brock Adams, D.

West Virginia:  Robert C. Byrd, D., John D. Rockefeller IV, D.

Wisconsin:  William Proxmire, D., Robert W. Kasten, Jr., R.

Wyoming:  Malcom Wallop, R., Alan K. Simpson, R.



My thanks to those who managed to read all this.  My apoligies for multiple
postings.

Jim Baranski
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
147.3What's a better way?YODA::BARANSKILaw?!? Hell! Give me *Justice*!Sat Sep 19 1987 16:328
RE: .2

"fathers ... adopt more realistic approaches to protecting their children and
their own freedom."

Such as?

Jim.
147.4Not all women like this bill eitherVCQUAL::THOMPSONNoter at largeTue Nov 17 1987 13:066
    Interesting little paragraph in the newspaper the other day. It
    seems that the Mass. Chapter of NOW has come out *against* this
    bill. I don't remember the particulars but it had something to
    do with it hurting what women could get from welfare.
    
    			Alfred
147.5>> MORE TROUBLE <<SHRBIZ::FIOREThu Nov 19 1987 00:44107
FROM THE OCTOBER 1987 F.A.I.R newsletter

page 8

	Albany, NY - A bill introduced by assemblywoman Helene E.
Weinstein (D, Brooklyn) appears to be the most oppressive of its kind in NY 
history.  The bill calls for childsupport to be awarded by formula based on
non-custodial parents *GROSS* income.  The rate will be from 17-35% of 
gross, dependent upon ther number of children.  It is a flat-rate support bill
which does not take into account the custodial parent's income.  According
to the bill, the court must allow the support paying parent to remain "above
the poverty level."  This means that only $5500 of the father's income will
be his in the worst case.  This bill, if it becomes law, *WILL BE 
RETROACTIVE*, raising the average amount of support paid by 15%.  F.A.I.R.
which is currently sponsoring a special project in NY., is very interested
in helping local groups and individuals in the context of the implications
of "unreasonable" support.  F.A.I.R. is currently in the process of talking
to several local groups and is interested in hearing from others.  National
program director, Edward Nichols, said, "As the largest father's
organization in America, we have substantial resources waiting for local
groups which demonstrate their ability to work toward reasonable
goals." The special NY project hotline is 1-800-262-FAIR.


PAGE 3

	The introduction of Senator Moynihan's (D,NY) welfare bailout bill
(S.1511) has raised more questions than it has answered in terms of the plight
of the American family.  Calls and letters have inundated F.A.I.R. 
headquarters from thos concerned about the bill and who are dedicated to 
blocking its passage.  The Moynihan plan of enriching welfare coffers by
gaining huge revenues from the brokering of child support payments from
responsible fathers, appears as if it may backfire.

	The welfare bill, ironically called the "Family Security Act of
1987," provides that responsible fathers, who have never missed a support 
payment will have child suppport taken from their wages and turned over
to state agencies.  THese agencies, in turn, will pay the money to children,
in a very complicated and huge welfare scheme, designed to involve the 
department of welfare in the lives of virtually every divorced family.  Other
provisions of the bill provide for harsh sanctions and seizures for 
traditionally responsible fathers, while providing for bureaucratic veils to
protect chronic welfare populations such as those in Moynihan's backyard -
New York City.

	F.A.I.R.'s work in educating the public as to the provisions of 
the bill has helped to inspire a national public outcry to have certain
questions answered: Why is Moynihan protecting the large population
of illegal aliens and othe populations of chronic welfare abusers in NYC?
Why does Moynihan want to radically *INCREASE* the size of those dependant 
on welfare by, in effect, federalizing divorce in America and involving
welfare agencies in the lives of millions of children of divorce?  And
why is the responsible father the brunt of Moynihan's welfare expansion plans?

	Our analysis reveals taht, consistent with Moynihan's past 
public exploits, he is once again attempting to rally the support of one 
block of constitutents at the expense of the urban center minorities he is
pretending to protect.  He is attending to the greedy at the expense of 
the needy.  If his plan backfires, Moynihan's failure may not only affect
his reelection bid, but also may expose nationally, once and for all, the
dangers of the welfare state mentality, which believes in government by
bureaucracy.

	Program director, Edward Nichols, has developed a number of 
informal channels to national leadership.  He explains, "We have to work 
behind the scenes because leaders are fearful of the feminist political
machine."  He adds, "But the tide is berginning to turn as it becomes
clear thet divorced dads are now represented by a strong, national
organization."

	Never in F.A.I.R's history have so many contibuted so much.
Additionally, women across America have begun supporting F.A.I.R. in even
larger numbers.  J. Annette Vanini, F.A.I.R's national service director,
said, "As it is today, many women, typically second-wives and grandmothers,
are suffering emotional and economic harm as a direct result of
feminist propaganda."  She adds, "Women are turning their support to
F.A.I.R. since we are helping the *ENTIRE* divorced family."

	Moynihan, who has written extensively in favor of the welfare state,
has failed uner two administrations (Nixon and Carter) to have a 
welfare bill to his liking become law.  In the ultr-feminist environment
that prevails in New York and other large citites, it is speculated that 
perhaps this time Moynihan will be able to twist the arm of congress
with the threat of the feminist political machine.  That is why the
portrayal of the responsible divorced father as an opressive enemy is the 
key to the Moynihan plan.  Moynihan, who has been the recipient of
substanstial disapproval from minority groups in the past, persists in
his notion that there is "SECURITY" in welfare, and that minorities are
worth no more than a government handout.  Moynihan's latest brainstorm,
to include children of divorce among the ranks of welfare recipients, has
stripped him of the pretense of social responsibility, and drawn the line
between those who believe in the welfare state.

	Based upon the support being given to F.A.I.R., all indications
are that F.A.I.R. parents believe more in their ability to raise and
support their own children than the state's.  Your continued support
makes this clear and allows us to represent your interests.



	N.B.  Because of the possible passage of the above bill
the state of RI has put into practice a child support formula to determine
the amount of the payment to be made

			MORE ON THIS LATER

					$BILFJR
147.6CommentsMSDOA2::CUNNINGHAMFri Jan 15 1988 14:3155
    re .5
    
    	I found the article from F.A.I.R. to be interesting, but it
    seemed pretty slanted to me.  I had several observations, if I
    understood the implications of the bill correctly.
    
    	Regarding the bill introduced by Helene Weinstein:
    
    	1)  Under the worst case scenario, a father that be making the
    least amount of income allowed - $5,500, and paying the highest
    possible award -35%, would have to be making only $8,500 a year,
    or $4/hr. for 40 hours a week.  Even McDonalds pays more than that.
    This would provide only 57.70 a week to support the child.  I don't
    think were asking too much of the father here.
    	
    	2)  Whats wrong with basing the rates on the GROSS income? 
    That seems just as accurate and fair as basing it on the NET income.
    
    	3)  I don't see the problem with letting the government be the
    middleman.  Obviously, somebody needs to make sure the children
    get the money.  I also believe the governemnt should get involved
    in making sure the father gets his rights protected to see the children
    without having to put up with the mother being around.  Maybe the
    same people could administer that portion of the laws.  It also
    protects the father from mothers who tell the world they are not
    getting their money in order to gain sympathy and agreement about
    how divorced fathers are wretches, when in fact the fathers is
    providing the money all along.  When you are angry with someone
    and you want to make then look really bad, what better way?  
    
    	4)  If I understand correctly, if the mother made $500,000 a
    year and the father $8,500, he would still be expected to provide
    $3,000 a year to support his children.  I could agree to this, but
    the real kicker, is that since he would not be providing more that
    50% of the children's support, he would not even be able to carry
    them as a deduction, his wife would.  This strikes me as a little
    crazy.
    
    	The real weakness is not government protecting children by making
    sure they are provided for, but in the arbitrary assignment of the
    children to the mother.  Men would be less bitter about this if
    their rights were protected too, and you saw men also being awarded
    custody and women being forced to support themselves and come up
    with the extra cash for the children.
    
    	I have been through this personally, and in my case, with my
    wife having custody of the children, I found it hard to convince
    her that the money I provided was to go to the children, that it
    was not provided to support her, that that was her own responsibility,
    and that she was also responsible for their support also, that it
    wasn't just a "mans" responsiblity.  
    
    DRC
    
    
147.7Penalties for all because of a few?ANGORA::BUSHEEGeorge BusheeFri Jan 15 1988 15:3626
    	RE: .6
    
    	  My understanding of this bill is that the children would
    	fall under the direction of the welfare system. This is what
    	I object to, not the fact that there is now a fool-proof was
    	to insure the monies are paid. My ex and I atleast were able to
    	do the divorce right, we both agreed on amount of support and
    	to custody and visitation. Now, if I hold up my end and she
    	hers, why the need to have the goverment step in? Wouldn't it
    	be better to have all the money I pay go to the kids rather
    	than a portion going to support the welfare system (which, BTW
    	is also proposed in the bill)? It seems the only Security is
    	for the welfare system to get more money. I mean I pay enough
    	to support that system now through my taxes, why should I be
    	further subjected to extra cost just because I got divorced?
    	Let's get real here, every state already has laws to collect
    	money (under court supervision) that is delquient from an non-
    	paying parent. Why not try inforcing these first and go after
    	the non-paying scum without making the ones that do pay pay
    	more? How would you like it if say everyone that had a student
    	loan had money taken directly from their pay just because a
    	few didn't repay, and btw have to pay x% more to the goverment
    	to "administer" the program? Let's keep the goverment running
    	the country, not running or marriages(divorces?).
    
    	G_B