Sorry to reply to my own post but below is a copy of what I sent to the tv
station. Warning it's long.

"AZ Astrea" wrote in message
...
Just heard on the news they pulled another "round-up of dead beat parents"
here in Tucson. They named it "Operation Child-support". Channel 4 news
reported all the standard "politically correct" bull**** and used the term
"dead beat parents". I guess that's more 'correct' than dead beat dads
but
no matter what, the reality is that out of the 21 people still sitting in
jail as of this evening, (the "round-up" was at 5am), there is *one*
woman.
The token woman.

I'm writing an e-mail to Channel 4 (www.kvoa.com) , hoping to enlighten
them
a little as to the reality of dead-broke dads. I can't find the story on
their website yet. They just aired it so maybe it's not on it yet.

With all the talented writers and ranters we have here I'm hoping we can
all
send them a bit of enlightening e-mail. Who knows? Maybe somebody will
be
listening?

~AZ~
-----------------------------------
Operation child-support
Letter to KVOA.com for their coverage of this
April 1, 2004

It's frustrating and makes me angry every time I hear another news story
about a round-up of 'dead beat' parents.

The reality is that 1. Men make up the majority of those ordered to pay
child support,(of the 21 people still sitting in jail as of this evening 1
is a woman). 2.The main reason men don't pay their child support is that
they *can't* pay it.

Since 1988 child support orders could no longer be determined by a judge
according to the reasonable needs of the children. Instead, the Family
Support Act required each state to adopt its own numerical "guideline" to
calculate child support, or risk losing federal welfare funding. The only
restriction on state child support guidelines was that awards be
"appropriate." Federal law funded child support enforcement programs in
every state, and most importantly, rewarded states with "incentive payments"
based on a percentage of money collected.

In 1989, to comply with federal law, states hastily adopted the required
child support guidelines. The heavily promoted Income Shares guideline is
based on the premise that child support should guarantee children the same
theoretical "share" of parental income that they would have enjoyed had
their parents been living together. Omitted is the troublesome fact that
after separation, two households need to be supported instead of one.

Virtually overnight, child support awards tripled. Inflated child support
awards maximize state child support collections, justify the administrative
expenses of child support enforcement programs, and ensure the continuing
influx of federal incentive payments. But there is nothing in place to
assure that the money is actually spent on the children. Only the father is
held accountable for paying money that is supposed to help the children. The
mother can spend the money on the kids, or not, as she feels and is not
accountable to anyone.

While good for state budgets, excessive child support awards are extremely
harmful to working, middle-class divorced fathers.
For example, in California, a mother earning $35,000 per year, living with
two children 75% of the time, would receive $15,000 tax-free from her
ex-husband earning $75,000. After taxes, the mother would net $44,000, the
father $34,000.
This baseline Income Shares award excludes child care expenses, special
educational expenses, and health insurance costs, which are "add-ons" to the
father's support obligation.

Child support enforcement is rife with conflicts of interest and overt
corruption:
? The OCSE contracted with a firm called Child Support Recoveries, Inc. to
certify that state child support guidelines were "appropriate." This company
contracts with states as a child support collection agency, and has a direct
financial stake in high child support awards.
? State legislatures, including California's, routinely contract with a firm
called Policy Studies, Inc. to review the "appropriateness" of state child
support guidelines. This closely held Denver firm is headed by none other
than child support entrepreneur Robert Williams, who developed the Income
Shares guideline. Again, in a clear conflict of interest, Policy Studies,
Inc. derives substantial revenue from child support collections. The higher
the child support awards, the more money this company makes.

The original goal of federal child support enforcement, to reimburse the
welfare program, has not been achieved by any state. This is because
welfare-related child support debt, especially at these absurd guideline
levels, appears to be largely uncollectable.

There is no legitimate federal interest in subsidizing state child support
collections in non-welfare cases. Indeed, as shown above, the federal
government, through the OCSE and incentive payments, has caused the gross
inflation of child support awards. Poor fathers simply can't pay, and
middle-income fathers are financially devastated.

"Operation childsupport" and the propaganda that surrounds it needs to be
exposed for the fraud that it is and news people all over need to become
enlightened to the sad reality of what is happening to the children and the
fathers victimized by the family court system.

There is a newsgroup, alt-child-support, where you can begin to hear some of
the real-life stories of disenfranchised fathers and what has become of
their lives since the child support collectors have come after them. That
is, if you really want to learn the truth.