Las Vegas Sun

November 30, 2009

Currently: 60° | Complete forecast | Log in

Editorial: Deadbeat collection plan is too intrusive

Friday, Jan. 28, 2000 | 9:27 a.m.

In recent years government has increased its efforts to get deadbeat parents to pay court-ordered support, ensuring that children aren't forced to financially suffer simply because they have a negligent parent. Between 1992 and 1999, it's estimated that child support collections almost doubled, from $8 billion to $15.5 billion. In a bid to improve upon this President Clinton is proposing new initiatives to collect $2 billion in back child support over the next five years. But one element of that proposal announced Wednesday by the White House -- requiring casinos and other gaming establishments to withhold large jackpots won by deadbeat parents -- goes too far.

Here's how the plan would work: Casinos, as they go about withholding federal income taxes from big winners, also would try to determine whether the gamblers owe child support. This would be done by tapping into a computerized national database that would determine whether the gambler was delinquent on child support. If the check shows the customer owes money, then the gambler's winnings would be withheld. The administration estimates that over five years this would result in the collection of $348 million, although this projection seems overly optimistic.

The goal of getting more deadbeat parents to pay their support is laudable, but government gets on a slippery slope when it asks a business, which has no connection to the individual other than the fact that he is a customer, to enforce court orders. Supporters of this plan will note that state lotteries already perform this task, but the fact is that these are state agencies -- not private businesses. Using gambling establishments is an innovative suggestion, but the problem is that it asks a business to do something that really is the responsibility of a government agency. Casinos are correct to be worried about such a scheme. It just isn't right to ask businesses to be an agent for state government in this manner.

archive

  • Most Read
  • Discussed
  • Most E-mailed

Calendar »

  • 30 Mon
  • 1 Tue
  • 2 Wed
  • 3 Thu
  • 4 Fri