As far as enforcement goes, the searyrnstuff is in the large print. The IRS willrncollect child support the same way it collectsrntaxes: “without judicial interventionrn… summarily … by seizing the taxpayer’srnproperty.” In short, it will use thernsame Gestapo-like tactics to houndrn”deadbeat dads” that it uses to houndrnlaw-abiding taxpayers. “That’s exactlyrnwhy we are doing it,” Hyde’s spokesmanrnTom Chesno says. “It’s the most fearedrn[and efficient] collection agency in thernworld.” And to show how fearsome andrnefficient the IRS can be, Hyde andrnWoosley quote an article from Reader’srnDigest that documented the agency’srnabuse of taxpayers.rnThis is the kind of bill no one on CapitolrnHill wants to oppose, includingrnHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich and hisrndeputy, Representative Dick Armey, thernMajority Leader. It has more than 80rncosponsors, one of whom is RepresentativernSteve Largent, a freshman Republicanrnfrom Oklahoma. He told Chesno,rn”this is the only time you’ll see me voternfor the federalization of anything,” butrnperhaps that’s because Largent’s fatherrnwas a deadbeat, too. Mr. Largent wantsrnto “send a signal to young men,”rnalthough whether he thinks young menrnshould marry before they have childrenrnor that women should stay with theirrnhusbands is anyone’s guess.rnBut neither Largent nor Hyde norrnWoosley, who claims a “deadbeat” husbandrnforced her onto welfare 30 yearsrnago, has stopped to ask about the constitutionalityrnof this bill or whether collectingrnchild support and enforcing divorcerndecrees is a legitimate function of thernfederal government. Nor has it occurredrnto Mr. Hyde that he may run into troublernif Majority Leader Armey’s flat-tax billrnever passes. Mr. Armey, who supportsrnHyde’s totalitarian measure, would eliminaternwithholding, which begs the questionrnof how Mr. Hyde’s paladins at thernIRS would conduct their crusade.rnThese issues notwithstanding, thernproblems here are not just “deadbeatrnDads” and “single Moms,” but divorcernand what we used to call bastards, or “illegitimaternchildren.” Millions of singlernmothers and their children suffer inrnpoverty because they live in a societyrnthat no longer views marriage as a lifelongrncommitment and allows, encourages,rnand subsidizes divorce on demand,rnrecreational sex, and the birth of whatrnDiana Ross would call a “love child.” Itrnmay be true that many children havernbeen abandoned by their fathers, butrnperhaps that’s because “Dad” ain’trngonna buy the cow when he can get thernmilk for free. Where there is no sacredrnvow to bind irrevocably a man andrnwoman, where there is neither legal,rnsocial, nor religious sanction for promiscuity,rnadultery, abandonment, and divorce,rndon’t expect a man or woman tornfeel a sense of duty to each other or tornthe offspring that sprang from theirrnloins.rnThen there’s the case of the man whornmade a marriage vow in a church andrnkept it. In the abstract, Hyde’s pointmanrnChesno is right when he says therernis no excuse for not supporting yourrnchildren. But a marriage vow creates notrnonly certain rights but also reciprocalrnduties. A man is duty-bound to supportrnhis children, but that duty assumes anrnintact marriage with their mother.rnWhen the “unhappy” liberated womanrngets a “no-fault” divorce and moves thernchildren 3,000 miles away from thernfather, she has denied him any role inrnraising his children. She is the one responsiblernfor the squalor in which theyrnmay be living. Yet he must smilingly payrnthe freight so Mom, the kids, and perhapsrnMom’s live-in beau can have arnblast. The jilted ex-husband is allowedrnno complaint. He is not allowed to askrnwhy his wife can destroy his home andrnfamily on a whim and get paid for it. Hernshuts up. He pays up. Or else.rnMost people don’t know it, but inrnsome circumstances it’s already a federalrncrime not to pay child support, and thernIRS collects child support from deadbeatrnparents if a state supplies the names. Yetrnit seems the Party of Alvin Toffler and itsrnfuturist monarch aren’t much concernedrnabout the promise they made to diminishrnthe power of the state. Instead, theyrnwill increase it by allowing the IRSrnto poke its nose further into the affairsrnof the American family and its handsrndeeper into the pockets of the workingrnman.rnThe Democrats were right. The GOPrndidn’t offer a Contract with America.rnThey put a contract out on America.rn—R. Cort KirkwoodrnWHEN JACK KEMP ducked out ofrnthe presidential run, who really regrettedrnit? Mostly, leaders on the left. He wasrntheir foil to the other Republicans.rnWhen Kemp yelped at voters for beingrninsufficiently loving of the urban poor—rnnobody, not even Jesse Jackson, can maurnmau like Kemp—the media could complainrnthat others aren’t “reaching out forrnthe black vote.” But why must reachingrnout for that bloc entail reaching forrneveryone else’s wallet?rnKemp was like that, passionatelyrndevoted to welfare, big government, bigrnspending, and even welfare for illegalrnaliens, not to mention foreign wars andrnforeign aid. But he also loved marginalrntax cuts, meaning he did not have therndecency to tell the truth about governmentrnaccounting. He made some noisesrnagainst the bailout of Mexico, thernUnited States banks holding its debt, butrngiven his history, who could take thisrnseriously?rnHe was as verbally tricky as WilliamrnClinton, and, like him, his speeches werernalways much too long. The difference isrnthat Clinton is smarter. Kemp could notrnresist openly offending his audiences.rnOnce at a Heritage Foundation event, anrninnocent young intern asked what hernthought about the work of Thomas Sowell.rnKemp interrupted the question torndenounce conservatives—and implicitlyrnthe questioner—for not celebrating civilrnrights, Rosa Parks, and racial integrationrnas guided by the federal government.rnRepublicans finally stopped pretendingrnthat his fanatical egalitarianism wasrnmerely an attempt to sell free enterprisernto a new audience. The clincher camernwhen he flew to California to vilifyrnProposition 187. His aides were embarrassed,rnhis followers were disillusioned,rnand his prospects for the presidency,rnalready low, were wiped out. “At fundraisingrnevents,” he said in his final pressrnconference, “I didn’t seem to be talkingrnabout the things that fund-raisingrnpeople wanted me to talk about.” Nornkidding.rnThis magazine was the earliest andrnmost relentless of Jack Kemp’s critics,rnand much of that material was stolen byrnsunshine soldiers. Fine: we can declarernvictory and move on. It’s too bad Kemp’srninfluence and style aren’t going to disappearrnwith him.rnThe Wall Street Journal’s editorialrnpage ended its political obituary ofrnKemp this way: ” [Kemp’s] optimism hasrnhelped to transcend crabby right-wingrntribalism. . . . While others will have tornfinish the job, they should rememberrnwhat—and who—got them this far.”rnProgressive conservatives should rememberrnhow far this got Kemp.rn—Jeffrey Tuckerrn6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn