Thursday, July 13, 2006

The 21st century political alchemy of the ether

(My core policy message posted on the New York Times Empire Zone blog today likely reached, or eventually will reach the world's movers and shakers.)


Republicans as of late have tried to purport to be, for want of a better term, the “Leave it to Beaver” party — a party of responsible families, cheery can do American attitudes, and domestic tranquiilty.

But KT and Pirro seem to be auditioning for a role in a GOP version of the Soprannnos. The dirty laundry, malice and cavalier contempt for civil and legal norms never stops coming.
Comment by David Gottfried — July 13, 2006 @ 9:59 am
______________
David,
You can never compare the national Republican party to its New York counterpart, which is why Rudy (and Pataki and Bloomberg) is unelectable for President.
He’s “seriously considering” a run, kind of like how I am seriously considering eating lunch in a couple hours.
Comment by New York Hotlist — July 13, 2006 @ 11:06 am
_________________
Unless Bloomberg plans to run as a Democrat, wrapping himself in the JFK legend won’t play well with the Republican base. As Democrat he’d be a far more effective and attractive candidate than Hillary Clinton. There’s a world of difference between great success in business and hands on government leadership than simply policy wonketting.

I agree with David Gottfried’s comment above. What he alludes to is why the GOP base is up in arms and I’m testing the waters for the nomination. We want the administration to walk the walk on effective family policy which means among things ending federal policy which perversely promotes divorce and family discord.
Comment by MARK KLEIN, M.D. — July 13, 2006 @ 11:19 am
__________________________
Mark,
Can you elaborate as to which federal policies promote divorce? I can only think of many that do the opposite (which I think is still wrong - the government should have no preference towards single, married, widowed or divorced people).
Thanks.
Comment by New York Hotlist — July 13, 2006 @ 12:05 pm
__________________________

REPLY TO HOTLIST

Federal family policy destroys families by promoting the main reasons couples split up–money, revenge and getting the children.

Like gambling, liquor and tobacco taxes the massive subsidies states receive to collect child support incentive divorce. Subsidies are linked to the amount collected so levels are set very high. The “deadbeat dad” canard is most the result of people mostly simply unable to pay. Federal dollars also underwrite the cost of jailing these folks. The system operates much like the old welfare system which destroyed the black family.

The draconian Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) is a perfect to extract revenge. Without fear of legal retribution baseless complaints result in a spouse being automatically jailed without an evidentiary hearing, create an unfair advantage for the complainant in the divorce courts, and provide a mechanism to automatically seize the family home.

A Klein Administration could slash the divorce rate overnight by tying federal subsidies for family programs to a rebuttal presumption of joint physical custody in a divorce action, and requiring recipients of child support to file periodic reports supported by documentation showing how the money was used for the direct benefit of the child.

Finally it would be a civil rights felony to file a knowingly false complaint of spousal or child abuse resulting in someone getting jailed without a full due process trial.

I could easily win the White House with the votes of the 25 million non custodial parents (mostly men), their heartbroken parents, the children of divorce, and middle class folks for whom enjoying stable family life trumps ideology.
Comment by MARK KLEIN, M.D. — July 13, 2006 @ 3:33 pm
_______________________________
What federal policies promote divorce? Your kidding right?Start with the $.66 federal incentive for every dollar of child support collected. The more divorces with children that occur the more child support ordered. AND if a state gives mom sole custody (which she gets simply by asking or claiming abuse) then dad will, in the vast majority of cases, pay huge child support awards resulting in more federal incentives.Yes it’s true. Our Federal government is incentivising the states to have more divorces, sole custody awards (instead of equal parenting where dad can actually be a parent) and high child support awards in return for billions of Federal dollars.
Comment by John Fowler — July 13, 2006 @ 3:49 pm
_________________________________

Bloomberg, Giulaini and Hillary have one thing in common they will never talk about this “family” issue in their Morning Buzz. The issue of the federal policy that promotes divorce: Social Security Title 42 US Code Part 4d; Subsection 666-This law deals with the federal incentives for the collection of child support. This is the engine that drives the train of the divorce industry. Judges almost always vote against dads for custody because they know this simple concept: The more non-custodial dads, the more child support generated, the more federal kickbacks for the counties who collect it. This is why we work tireless to support Dr. Klein’s presidential exploratory committee. I hear wonderful speeches from others concerning the rights for terrorists and foreigners. What about the constitutional rights of the 25 million American dads; 90% of the dads never even get a trial! Only Dr. Klein has enough wisdom and guts to even speak about this issue which will effect HALF of all the married men who read this article. Feel free to call me when you hear ANY other candidate speak about custodial rights of dads. 412-829-2278 http://www.dadscustodysupportgroup.com/ Tony.Taylor@yahoo.com
Comment by Tony Taylor — July 13, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
___________________--

Republicans at the federal level are in serious trouble with their core conservative constituency. They listened on Harriet Miers, after a huge backlash. But they have completely failed to pay any attention to the very large numbers of pro-marriage, anti-divorce, anti-entitled-welfare state Americans. In fact, Republicans have gone out of their way to ignore it.
Over half of Americans have been seriously impacted by the entitled welfare state, and they are not happy. This spans both liberals and conservatives. I estimate that about 40% of the Republican vote would immediately come from a well-done social reform pro-family platform. This is the only thing that can motivate both the conservative base and bring home the mainstream vote.

The Federal government spends more money destroying families, then studying the wreckage and attempting to mask the results, than it spends on anything else. This must end: we do things to citizens that even the Chinese find disgusting.

Dr. Mark Klein did extremely well at the SRLC, and every other convention he has attended, because he speaks to these issues with positive solutions. States know what is going on. They want change. Republicans who are trying very hard to ignore both Klein and these issues are sealing the fate of the party in 2008.

Comment by David R. Usher — July 13, 2006 @ 10:08 pm

The rights of men are often denigrated, and the political discourse is for the most part wholly oblvious to this.

For example, although Farahakan is, to my mind at least, an odious figure, he hit a nerve with his idea for a million man march. This is because the problems of black men have been so thoroughly overlooked. And I hate to say it, but much of this is because so many of my fellow liberals, enthrall to feminism, could only see the plight of black women and forgot about black men.

But enough of the abstract and let’s get to the concrete: At one of my old employers, it was established that black women could be hired but that black men would never be hired. This is because black men were considered a greater criminal risk.

Of course, I am sure many conservatives think this is impossible, that this cannot happen, because of statutes prohibiting such discrimination. They fail to realize that it isn’t easy to bring such a discrimination suit, that a man trying to find a job usually doesn’t have the money to hire attorneys to bring suit, and that counsel might shun such a suit. Do you really think that in the course of pretrial discovery one will find a memo that says “Don’t hire black men.”

There are various governmental entities that are supposed to combat discrimination, but don’t get me started on the impotence, lethargy and inconsequence of such bogus remedial programs that create the illusion of liberal intervention and don’t do a damn thing.
Comment by David Gottfried — July 13, 2006 @ 10:17 pm
______________________
I am a small business owner who lives near Pittsburgh, PA. When I met Dr Klein in Aug 2005 and listened to his empathy for the middle class citizens and the non custodial parents I was shocked. There is NO one who is talking about families today.

I am appalled with our federal policy which is designed not only to break up families, but to “force” them to be dependent upon them. Children of divorced parents today have the federal government as their father.

It is totally baffling to me that Americans just sit by and let the government spend their hard earned dollars (billions) to CREATE situations in which we have to raise taxes to try and fix.
Since August of 2005 I have traveled with Dr Klein to DC (several times), MN, San Antonio (TX GOP), IA, Memphis (TN GOP), OH, PA. During our travels I have not had any negativity about Dr Klein. His word is very well received. We are tired of brass buttoned politicians who are ‘career oriented.’ We want someone who has morals and values. All one needs to do is talk with Dr Klein for a couple minutes to see his authenticity. I believe Dr Klein has appeared at the right place/right time. He is the political leader for us 25 million Non Custodial Parents and our families/friends.
Comment by carol carpec — July 14, 2006 @ 6:26 am

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Google