Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Katelew who wrote (421058)	4/10/2011 1:12:12 PM
From: Alan Smithee	1 Recommendation Respond to of 793955

"I rather like the intent of the bill, which was to reduce amount of welfare previously given but cushion the blow by cracking down on negligent fathers. Shifting responsibility onto individuals and off the govt. is something I can always get behind. Maybe enhancing child support collection was even a Republican initiative and didn't originate with Clinton at all." That is a laudable goal. Just don't think it's an area for federal involvement. To say the states were not doing as good a job at enforcing foreign support orders as one might hope for does not justify yet another law that extends the reach of the feds and involves the federal government in an area where it traditionally has not had a role. There seems to be. The assumption on the part of many people in this country that if the Feds want to assume regulation of something it can do so. In response, I'd refer to the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, which provides that all powers not expressly granted to the federal government are reserved to the states.