Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous None Provided17 None Provided17 Formal writing assignment: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 versus Deadbeat Dads I chose to review opposing positions on the implementation of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996. The act requires all employers to submit new employee information to a national database to be used by social services to locate individuals who are not paying child support to their eligible children. The Department of Health and Human Services provided a typical governmental “talking paper” style of article explaining how the PRWORA would be implemented and utilized to improve the current management of the child support system. Jeffrey Asher, a concerned citizen, submitted the opposing view to the Gazette. His bottom line is that the act further inflicts the current trend of the court system discriminating against men who want to be good fathers. I located both viewpoints at web site http://www.nonline.com/procon/. Jeffrey Asher claims that imposing the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) impedes on the rights and the relationship that complying fathers have with their children. He tries to persuade us that fathers, in general, want to support their children but the courts support the mothers who “reduce them to wallets”. He claims that “fathers support children as best they can when they are allowed to remain parents” but he seems totally oblivious to the fact that some men don’t. Asher provides a purely emotive argument using some startling words to conjure up your support for his view to which credit is due. He is a creative writer who attempts to engage your emotional support for each of his points. Although he does not provide sources for any of his statements, he does deliver them with an emotional punch. Unfortunately, creativity does not establish his credibility. Describing children as “chattel”, the act as a legalized debtor’s prison and references to the feminist movement are just a couple of examples of this attempt to influence your emotions. Asher makes an obvious assumption is that the act applies only to men and that it would never negatively effect a woman. He blatantly applied the act to men only, implying that women involved in these cases were gold diggers with an unfair advantage the legal system. His tries to paint a picture that all women involved in custody disputes are vicious, malicious, and vindictive, choosing to use the courts as a battleground with no concern for the impact on the children. Instead of sounding like a valid stand on the issue he began to sound like a chauvinist. He claims “Ninety-five percent of all contested custody cases are awarded to mothers.” He claims that “research studies show that custody battles lead to parents competing…and incite resentment of the other parent.” Each unsupported statement drives home the point that men’s rights are being violated by the act. No mention is made of who accomplished the study. Asher expresses his concern for fathers who genuinely want to support their children. He believes this to be the majority of men involved in custody battles but he fails to support that with statistics or validated sources of information. He expresses that all women are after money and do not want to allow these men to continue their paternal roles. His implied values seem to be clearly identified in his last line; “The best interests of children will be met with continuing love and care, equally from both parents.” If we lived in a perfect world, parents would stay married happily ever after. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of today’s society. His closing signature of “Father and Grandfather” supports my analysis of Archer. I began to consider his age and the social mores engrained in him. Throughout the article he presented his view as a support for all men without regard to the fact that some men do not wish to have contact or support the children. It seemed that this idea was inconceivable to him. I suggest that he is of a softer, gentler generation where you were expected to marry your high school sweetheart, stay happily married for life and you raised your children with the same standards and expectations. Perhaps he accomplished this feat. Perhaps he is embittered by a nasty custody battle that just impacted his oldest son and his contact with his grandchildren. If we accept Archer’s idea that this act is to be imposed by women against men then we truly do have a problem with the court system. If we assume his facts referencing 95% of contested custody cases are awarded to the mother are valid, we may need to take a hard look at our society. Are we biased toward the idea of the mother as the better parent? How can we better resolve custody issues when one parent lives out of state? Out of country? Consider the military family situation. Is the female responsible for giving up a career move to ensure that the children stay in contact with the father or could the father give up his career in the same situation? Asher provides a totally emotional stand against the implementation of this act and sometimes even seems to have a personal defense mechanism in use. He does not substantiate any of the items that he attempts to present to us as fact. He relies entirely on his choice of words to evoke the strongest of emotions and feelings from everything from slavery to the potential suicide attempts of non-custodial fathers. Archer does not provide any answers or suggestions to improve our current situation. He paints a picture that all is well and we all just need to get along, not impose politics into family life. The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) side of the argument is presented as a factual document explaining the purpose of the PRWORA. It states the intent of the Act is to establish a standard system of tracking all employed individuals to ensure support payments are being paid to eligible children, resulting in less funding from state and federal aid programs. The ultimate goal is to provide appropriate support to deserving children. It is well presented with factual support. The entire style of writing is clear, and informative, rather than a position of supporting the act. It calmly explains how the act will improve the process of collecting child support payments. Because of the format of the DHSS document, most of the verbiage has been carefully selected to be non-specific in gender and to be clear and concise. In my opinion, the words most crucial to the argument include the statistics provided. A few words and selected phrases that were vague included the reference to a “strengthened Child Support System” and the opportunity for it to be “more effectively enforced”. Neither one of these claims can be measured to validate the effectiveness of the act. The format of the DSSH document is such that biases and background are neutralized. The only possible biases and background influences were in respect to similar laws. Their assumption that governmental control is the appropriate way to instill a sense of responsibility is a reflection of the effectiveness of several other controversial issues including abortion. An undeniable fact is that money is the true driver in this act. Any income that can be generated from the responsible individual will reduce the amount of state and federal income assistance programs required supporting the children. The advocate view provides several strongly supported statements including “The Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) estimates that over 30% of child support cases involve parents who do not live in the same state as their children.” The idea of centralized collection and distribution of support payments is strengthened by the statistic that “Almost two out of every three dollars collected…come from income withholding” indicating a valid need for a standard system to track all employees. DHSS statement assumes all employers will comply with the reporting requirements and that social services will access the database on a regular basis to make most effective use of the data. Unfortunately, a database is only as accurate as the information maintained. If DSHH employees only review the data on an annual basis then changes could have been made numerous times between reviews. The document was not intended to be a lengthy explanation of how they intend to enforce compliance but I feel that addressing these issues would have strengthened their position. The mere fact that the DSSH had to issue such an act implies that we live in a society that requires regulation and governmental intervention to ensure that parents accept their responsibility to their children. Unfortunately, the DSSH has credible sources and uses the references to support their stand. Implications from implementation of the act include increased revenue for child support, less demand on federal and state revenues and possibly reduced taxes or at least a realignment of tax spending. This could possibly roll into social changes as well. If individuals understand that there is no way to get out of paying child support to their proven children can I suggest an increased concern for contraception? Sometime money is the change agent. On the contrary, this could also increase cost of managing the child support system. How much additional manning will be required to manage this database? What kind of increased workload is being imposed on the employer as well? As a result of analyzing these opposing views I feel that the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 is necessary evil. As much as we want to discourage governmental interference in our personal lives, we know that implementing a system to locate all working non-custodial parents to withhold support payments will reduce governmental subsidies and improve the quality of life of the effected children. I believe the Department of Health and Human Services may not have addressed all of the intricacies of managing the program intentionally, attempting to steer the reader away from unanswered questions. Archer truly missed these potential flaws in the program and therefore missed his opportunity to provide a strong opposing argument. Bibliography: Word Count: 1688
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.