Yeah, I am sure you are all tired of the brou ha ha surrounding the Child Support Bill introduced and withdrawn by State Representative Joel Kleefisch. As Zach published earlier, Rep. Kleefisch received help in preparing the bill from wealthy campaign contributor Michael Eisenga. I am not going to recount all of that…but I did find it interesting that the media was all fired up over the ghost writing but not necessarily the cap on earnings (at $150,000 to be exact) that could be considered in family court when child support is being determined.
And in support of that limitation, we have this quote from State Representative Tom Larson:
Larson said the public isn’t served by a system that allows children to receive such a large sum in support payments.
“There’s some value in having some hardship with life,” Larson said. “Even if I were a rich person, I probably would struggle a little bit to make sure my kids earned what they get. What’s the purpose of this money going to child support if it’s only going to create a child with maybe less values.”
?”…create a child with maybe less values…? How is receiving substantial child support result in different values than living in a household with similar income available…like if Mr. Eisenga and his family were still intact?
So if we think having a lot of household income is creating the wrong values in our children…then why aren’t we taxing the absolute living hell out of rich parents until we reduce them to the per capita income for the State of Wisconsin? That’ll show ’em! I mean after all: spare the rod, spoil the child?
Ok…that’s a fair amount of hyperbole…but really Representatives Kleefisch and Larson: Where are your family values??? Why aren’t these children worth the financial support that their father can readily afford them?
sarcasm–> And for those of you having some type of hardship in life…let that be a valuable lesson to you <--sarcasm