June 24, President Clinton Signed a new bill called the Deadbeat Parents Punishment Act making it a felony to move from the state with the intent of evading child support payments if the debt has been unpaid for over a year, or is above $5,000. There are further penalties as well, based on the degree of unpaid debt, involving prison time. The President didn't fail to make mention of how fathers are the main problem, though he did fail to mention that mothers are typically shown preferential treatment and awarded the custody. "One of the main reasons single mothers go on welfare is that fathers have failed to meet their responsibilities to the children...", said he.

The welfare agencies themselves disagree. Their studies show that on the order of 3% of women would go off welfare if all CS ordered were paid.

Although this may look like many women are on welfare because they want to be, this most likely not so. The truth is that the fathers of these kids are typically as poor as the mothers. They grew up in the same lousy neighborhood, went to the same lousy schools, and yet here comes Clinton pretending that these guys should just go out and get themselves nice high-paying jobs and start paying lots of child support.

Somebody has to make about twice the minimum wage to realistically support themselves. And that's a very bare-bones lifestyle... studio apartment, no car, very little discretionary income. If you also want to extract from that person a child support payment equal to or higher than the welfare benefit, you have to raise their salary into the $30K range.

Somehow I doubt that this bill would even be being passed if men weren't the highest percentage who would be being punished on behalf of the women.

How come there's no federal mobilization to stop abusive visitation practices on the part of moms? If the states enforced visitation, statistics show that there would be very little unpaid child support.

Where's the law to prevent Custodial Parents from crossing state lines without first notifying non-custodial parents?

How come visitation is treated like a non issue? It's as least as important as child support.

It seems that anytime anyone passes any type of bill in this country, they first investigate the demographics of a problem that it purports to address, and they know beforehand who they are going to punish the most and who will be helped the most. Then they give it a universal name that makes it appear to help all parties equally. They do that specifically in order to help certain classes of people - mainly women and minorities - keep up with others, and therefore - in the interests of not being at cross purposes with this social engineering of theirs - they automatically avoid passing any legislation that would ever impact the favored groups as negatively as they normally do the others. That's rigging an outcome, and that's the result of special interest movements in government.

This bill is a perfect example of why men can't form or base any kind of movement for ourselves by fighting the system through the existing kinds of laws that we pass. They're socially rigged. Even when we win our cases, so few of us do that, even if we won them all, our resulting coalition would still be a tiny one. How many custodial fathers are there to begin with that would benefit from applying a rigged law like this one? The reason that even that doesn't happen is because when the laws are engineered to favor certain classes of people over others, then besides the obvious benefits that these laws bestow on them, there is also a very powerful side-effect that occurs as well: power over the system itself.

So, when the President openly announces who the main beneficiaries will be, of some legislation that he's signing or advocating, then what he is really doing is hinting to the judges, police, and all other concerned judicial authorities, in case there's any doubt: "The point is to help this particular group of people to change their status as a class. Not to apply the law impartially to everyone in such a way that they get no special help over the other." - because we don't believe in impartial laws in this special interest termed, syndicate run, country. We believe in balancing outcomes in the name of "social progression".

And men are the designated bad guys who are supposed to be held back and cheated in order to help women "progress."

Compiled and Submitted by BEASTMAN.
Original Writers are:
NICK DANGER
TURIN