Kansas license bill unfair to noncustodial parents

The Kansas House just passed a highly publicized bill that would allow the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to have the driver's licenses of so-called "deadbeat" parents seized if they have child-support arrearages of $500 or more. House Bill 2706 is scheduled for a Senate hearing today. While such measures always make for good sound bites and electoral politics, they make poor public policy. That's because the vast majority of those behind on child support are low-income parents who have been saddled with artificially inflated paper arrearages that they couldn't possibly pay.

Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement data shows that two-thirds of those behind on child support nationwide earned less than $10,000 in the previous year; less than four percent of the national child support debt is owed by those earning $40,000 or more a year. According to the largest federally-funded study of divorced dads ever conducted, unemployment is the largest cause of failure to pay child support.

The inflated arrearages are created in large part because the child support system is mulishly impervious to the economic realities working people face, such as layoffs, wage cuts, unemployment, and work-related injuries. According to the Urban Institute, less than one in 20 non-custodial parents who suffers a substantial drop in income is able to get courts to reduce his or her child support payments. In such cases, the amounts owed mount quickly, as do interest and penalties. Only three states charge a higher interest rate on past due support than Kansas' 12 percent. The situation is further complicated by the fact that child support enforcement agencies are notorious for their errors and bureaucratic bungling. Audits and evaluations have shown that such errors often comprise a significant portion of arrearages.

The "Most Wanted Deadbeat Parents" lists put out by many states illustrate this problem. Far from being lists of well-heeled businessmen, lawyers, and accountants, the vast majority of the men on these lists do low wage and often seasonal work, and owe large sums of money which they could never hope to pay off. Even a person with a college degree is a rare find on these lists. Perhaps this is why while DSRS recently announced that their top five deadbeats owe an average of $225,000 in back child support, they have refused to disclose these individuals' occupations. The pot of child support gold which DSRS Secretary Gary Daniels professes he'll find if he gets "the [enforcement] tools that some other states have" simply does not exist.

Family courts' tragic indifference towards protecting noncustodial parents' relationships with their children is also part of the problem. According to the Children's Rights Council, a Washington, DC-based children's advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents interfered with or blocked by custodial parents. Because so many noncustodial parents must wage expensive court battles in order to see their children, money which could be going to their kids instead goes to lawyers.

HB 2706's $500 arrearage limit is particularly misguided and destructive. A Kansas father of three who earns a pre-tax income of $3,850 a month pays about $1,050 a month in child support. If he is out of work for even a brief period, HB 2706's punitive measures could impede his ability to earn a living, sending him into a downward spiral of arrearages and debt.

Dads aren't the only ones affected, since noncustodial mothers in the child support system are significantly more likely to be in arrears than fathers. Like many "deadbeat dads," most of these mothers never walked out on their children, but instead were made into delinquents by the rigidity and unrealistic expectations of the system.

Daniels says a crackdown is needed because only 54 percent of Kansas children who are owed support receive their full shares. However, DSRS is already able to get drivers' licenses suspended through contempt of court proceedings. The real problem is that the vast majority of the child support debt is simply uncollectible. Instead of enacting new draconian measures, the legislature should instead mandate that DSRS focus its enforcement efforts on true scofflaws with real arrearages instead of hard luck parents with counterfeit ones.

Source



It's the Food, Stupid: People don't seem to understand how eating works

By Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan

Pointless to persecute restaurants

Last week an FDA-sponsored and -funded report on "Away from Home Foods" recommended ways restaurants might lend a hand in our nation's fight against obesity. The report was based on input from a number of scientists, consumer advocates, and food-industry representatives, including members of the National Restaurant Association (which in the end did not support the report's conclusions because they "unfairly targeted its industry").

Among other things, the committee urged the FDA to prevail upon restaurants to reduce portion sizes; to increase the number of low-calorie dishes on menus, particularly when it comes to fruits, vegetables, and unfried foods; to use foods that are low in saturated fats and trans-fatty acids; and to provide nutritional and caloric information on all menu selections.

While well-intended, the FDA recommendations fall short for three reasons: They are largely impractical and inconsistent with basic practices of running a business; they confuse concerns about calories with concerns about "good" and "bad" fats; and they omit some more obvious changes and additions restaurants could make that would reduce caloric consumption due to "away from home" meals.

While having the government instruct restaurants that they should reduce portion sizes sounds good, it is unlikely to have any impact on the risk of obesity. This is not to suggest that the gargantuan portions served at restaurants are not astonishing, and even sometimes horrifying; and it is extremely annoying to be chided by waiters about "not liking the meal" because it's been left mostly uneaten. But all of that is besides the point. Many years ago, my late colleague, Harvard's Dr. Fredrick J. Stare, expressed his concern about portion size in restaurants by writing to 100 establishments requesting that they put less food on the plates. He learned something surprising about the restaurant business; the overwhelming response from restaurateurs was: "The food is the least expensive component of a meal. We understand that only a small percentage of our patrons will eat what we serve them, but it is more cost efficient for us to serve more food than most will eat (and throw the balance away) than to make the minority of eaters who want large portions unhappy and likely to complain."

When asked if restaurants might offer smaller portions for a lower price, the response was the same: "Our costs are the same whether the portion size is large or small, so we cannot offer reduced prices for smaller-sized meals." The same issue would apply to meal-splitting. Many restaurants now add a surcharge onto shared meals.

Perhaps, in time, some clever marketers will find a way to base an ad campaign on the growing demand for somewhat less expensive, smaller meals. In the meantime, the solution is not to have the government telling restaurants how to run their businesses, but to educate consumers to eat only to the point that hunger is satiated - and not to feel obligated always to be a member of "the clean plate club."

As to nutrition-labeling at restaurants, I am ambivalent: ideally, customers should be able to request such information from the restaurant - but this simply may not be practical given the constantly changing menus and ingredients (although, it is possible at restaurants like McDonald's that offer standard fare). Further, many of us would prefer not to characterize a dinner out as a purely biological experience to be assessed in terms of grams of fat. A little common sense should do the trick: obviously fettucini alfredo is calorically loaded - and if you do order it, it might be prudent to eat only half.

In recommending that restaurants combat obesity by promoting "foods low in saturated fats and trans-fatty acids," the FDA panel misses the point. If you are trying to cut calories, the type of fat is not your concern. No matter what the type of fat, it is calorically dense, at nine calories per gram. Indeed, this whole current kerfuffle in ads and on food labels about trans fats has become downright misleading, since consumers may think "no trans fats" means "low in calories." It does not. Wendy's restaurants, for example, have just switched to nonhydrogenated oil, reducing trans fats, but this is unlikely to make a significant difference in the total number of calories their customers consume or, thus, in their likelihood of not becoming obese and suffering health problems. Trans fats are just one part of a larger diet, and it's the big picture that matters.

The FDA report also fails to suggest that restaurants add more menu options which would allow customers to enjoy the foods they love while taking in fewer calories. Offering reduced-calorie spreads (like oleo/yogurt blends) and salad dressings, or lower-calorie, full-taste "lite" ice creams, would be a good place to start. Creative chefs could be encouraged to experiment with Z-Trim or Simplesse, which are currently available fat substitutes that can be used to create such items as reduced-calorie butter, mayonnaise, cream cheese, and mashed potatoes, all nearly indistinguishable from their full-fat counterparts. If the unfairly maligned fat-substitute olestra is ever welcomed back from exile, the options for creating tasty, low-fat foods - including, for instance, French fries - will increase even more dramatically.

Restaurants, like any business, operate on the principle "give the customers what they want." Restaurants cannot coerce patrons to choose salads over burgers and fries, and it is hopeless to ask them to do so. It is the customer who calls the shots. Until we can educate consumers about the ideal caloric intake - and the calorie content of specific foods and portion sizes - and motivate them to keep caloric intake within the desirable range, they are going to continue to order what they want. And restaurants will continue to accommodate them.

Source



Australian Senate debates same-sex union Bill

Opposition and minor party members have moved in the Senate to overturn the government's regulation disallowing the ACT's same sex union law. But with the government holding a majority in the Senate, the attempt to overturn the ban is expected to fail.

Opening the debate, Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle said the government was out of step with community attitudes on gay civil unions. The Greens Senator said that a recent poll showed that support for same-sex civil unions stood at 50 per cent, with two-thirds accepting gay relationships. Senator Nettle said young people are overwhelmingly supportive of both. She said parliamentarians aren't representatives of the community as a whole, being older, more conservative and more religious.

ACT Liberal Senator Gary Humphries strongly objected to the government move but hasn't officially declared his position. However, the government can rely on support from Family First Senator Steve Fielding. Government Senate leader Nick Minchin said the legislation was "repugnant", and argued the bill would have a deleterious effect on the sanctity of marriage. "Whatever might be said, it is clear that the intent and purpose of that act is to equate a civil union to a marriage, and in that sense we regard it as repugnant," he told the Senate.

The coalition had made a number of attempts to find a compromise with the ACT government, Senator Minchin claimed. "We have made (our decision) against the background of very, very deliberate and considered efforts to try to find a middle ground with the ACT," he said. "Of course were not opposed to same sex unions as such - but to seek to equate a same sex union to marriage is objectionable, and we will not accept that."

But Labor senator Joe Ludwig argued that the ACT legislation would have no impact on the traditional concept of marriage. "The ACT Civil Unions Act does not deal with marriage - it doesn't compromise, contradict or impinge on that principle," Senator Ludwig said. "Given our view that this law does not deal with marriage, Labor supports the states and territories recognising same-sex relationships in the way they see fit."

Source



Risk: it's a boy thing



Boys should be boys, say Australians who have come out in support a book that encourages old-fashioned rough-and-tumble play. The Dangerous Book for Boys -- which promotes risky pursuits such as climbing trees, skimming stones, building treehouses and making slingshots -- is a top-seller in Britain and heading our way. It urges boys to switch off the TV, computer and games console to enjoy childhood pursuits from the past.

Kidsafe Victoria vice-president Robert Caulfield said the book had his group's full support. "You can't cover kids in cotton wool and protect them from everything," he said. "They have to learn safety and learn to be aware of dangers in the environment. "If you eliminate all of the dangers . . . so the child doesn't have to take any precaution, one day they will go into an environment that isn't safe and they'll get really hurt. So we would encourage kids to climb trees and do all those sorts of things."

The book was also given the thumbs-up by Camberwell friends Max, 12, and Angus, 11. "Making slingshots and stuff would be awesome," Max said. Computer whiz Angus said such activities would be "good for a laugh" but he'd still play computer games. The book, by British brothers Conn and Hal Iggulden, has also won over many dads nostalgic for their youth.

Source