For a quick review of the Bradley Amendment this website has most of what you need.
For a quick summary and poll, visit my Squidoo link!
If the idea of subterfuge in politics is new to you, I recommend reading this article that is loosely based on children and the use of children in politics. Unfortunately, our friend Hillary Clinton happens to be the topic. What can I say? History speaks for itself.
Whether you agree with this article or not, this article is worth your time and makes valuable points that any honest-thinking American must consider. Since this is election time, your knowledge and opinion are more important than ever. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.
From the Politico:
By: Martin Kady II
October 2, 2007
In the battle of sound bites over President Bush’s expected veto of the children’s health insurance bill, the White House position boils down to this: Beware, beware — it’s the first step toward federalized health care.
Nonsense, say supporters from both sides of the aisle, who swear they would never vote for a bill that was the proverbial camel’s nose under a tent on government-run health care.
But a look back at the fine print of the 1993 “Hillarycare” debacle shows there may be a grain of truth in the Republican suspicions — and also demonstrates that the GOP believes there is still significant political power to be mined from one of the Clinton administration’s greatest political and tactical failures.
Back in 1993, according to an internal White House staff memo, then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton’s staff saw federal coverage of children as a “precursor” to universal coverage.
In a section of the memo titled “Kids First,” Clinton’s staff laid out backup plans in the event the universal coverage idea failed.
And one of the key options was creating a state-run health plan for children who didn’t qualify for Medicaid but were uninsured.
That idea sounds a lot like the current State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was eventually created by the Republican Congress in 1997.
“Under this approach, health care reform is phased in by population, beginning with children,” the memo says. “Kids First is really a precursor to the new system. It is intended to be freestanding and administratively simple, with states given broad flexibility in its design so that it can be easily folded into existing/future program structures.”
The memo was sent to Politico by a Republican congressional office.
But the document is part of a trove of paperwork released as part of a 1993 lawsuit between the Clinton health care task force and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign did not dispute the intent of the 1993 memo but pointed out that Clinton herself never publicly pushed the Kids First concept and that covering children first was just one of several options laid out during the mid-1990s debate…
“Everyone knows that Clinton has had government-run health care on her to-do list for at least a decade,” said Ryan Loskarn, a spokesman for the Senate Republican Conference. “The memo helps make clear the reason Democrats have pushed SCHIP legislation that includes coverage for adults and upper-income families. This isn’t about helping poor kids. For them, it’s about making big government even bigger.” …
Not that this should surprise anyone. Hillary has always hidden behind children.
It’s one of the tactics she learned from the Communist Saul Alinsky.
From the late Barbara Olson’s great book, “Hell To Pay” (pp 113-5):
What comes through in [Hillary’s] essays is the arrogant voice of the social engineer, the activist who believes that reshaping the most intimate of human relationships is as simple as rotating crops. There is more than a little foreshadowing here of Hillary’s future effort to centralize the management of Arkansas education from the governor’s office in Little Rock, and of her great socialist health care debacle in President Clinton’s first term.
In a 1978 article Hillary wrote that the federal school lunch program “became politically acceptable not because of arguments about hungry children, but because of an alliance between children’s advocates and the association of school cafeteria workers who seized the opportunity to increase its membership.” Children, she concludes, deserve similarly “competent and effective advocates.” It doesn’t seem to matter to her that the cafeteria workers were not interested in the children, but the power of their work force. Children and their real interests don’t seem nearly as important to Hillary as the power of the political lever they represent…
These advocates, to the extent not motivated by high fees, would come to each case not essentially as representatives of the child-client, but as activists looking to see how this little boy, or that little girl, fits into a greater strategy to expand an entitlement or control how a government agency functions.
“The notion,” Christopher Lasch commented in his criticism of Hillary’s writings, “that children are not fully capable of speaking for themselves makes it possible for ventriloquists to speak through them and thus to disguise their own objectives as the child.”
Hillary wrote in a 1978 book review for Public Welfare, “Collective action is needed on the community, state and federal level to wrest from machines and those who profit from their use the extraordinary power they hold over us all, but particularly over children.”
The idea that power must be wrested from “machines” is peculiar, ignoring that, at bottom, Hillary’s children’s crusade is a hard-nosed exercise in expanding power in a different direction, in the direction of public interest trial lawyers with a social engineering agenda. Children are useful, just as migrant workers and the indigent elderly are useful, as tools to pry loose the controls, to get into the guts of the machinery of law and governance. Children are the rhetorical vehicles she still uses as first lady, whether pressing for national health care or to get Congress to pay UN dues…
This has always been Hillary’s modus operandi. She has always used children as her sword and (especially) buckler to bully through her socialist agenda. But the document is part of a trove of paperwork released as part of a 1993 lawsuit between the Clinton health care task force and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Just imagine how much more information we would know about Mrs. Bill Clinton if her records from her days as First Lady were not hidden away under lock and key at the Clinton Library.
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.
Many Americans believe that 2008 will be the most important election of their lifetimes. Whether this is true or not, the state of affairs in this country makes your electorial voice is very important.
Campaign Issues 2008
The campaign issues website is for voters more interested in issues than in personalities and political drama. This is an opportunity to check out your candidates as you decide what is important to you. I would like to see the Bradley Amendment in lights as a relevant topic for the election. If there is enough public interest, the politicians will be unable to avoid the topic. Consider fighting for restoring states rights and civil rights in child support law by making your voice known. Demand your rights and create change for the better.