Political Speech: Elimination of permanent alimony

This is a political speech I had to do for Rhetoric class. I'm advocating for the elimination of permanent alimony. 

Exordium: 

What happens after happily ever after isn’t so happy anymore? Everything started off perfectly. The wedding went off without a hitch and for the past few years, you two have been happy. But then the relationship took a sour turn. Eventually, the constant arguing and fighting resulted in a divorce. While you are in this messy divorce process you are confronted with the question of alimony. Are we going to pay alimony checks and, more importantly, who is going to pay the alimony checks? How much and how often are they going to be payed? These questions surrounding alimony are ones that every couple going through divorce must face. 

Narratio: 

The original idea behind alimony was that the husband is responsible for his wife, whether or not they get a divorce or stay together. (Dominique). This idea originated from England in the 17th century and appeared in America in 1866 when a wife wanted alimony so that she could keep up the same lifestyle she had before the divorce (Dominique). Alimony itself is when after the divorce one spouse, the payer, makes, usually monthly, payments of a certain amount of money to the other spouse, the recipient. This is not to be confused with child support and though the two are often grouped together, there is a difference. Alimony can be payed to the other spouse whether or not there is a child, but if there is a child in the mix, child support is an additional payment. Permanent alimony, or lifetime alimony, is when the spouse pays the predetermined amount of money (pause) indefinitely. Temporary alimony is just what it sounds like: temporary alimony. This is the more flexible option where the alimony is payed for a limited amount of time and the amount being payed can be changed depending on either of the former spouses financial situations. 

Partitio:

I am arguing that alimony laws be changed to limit the duration of the payments and put a cap on the amount being payed, reserving permanent alimony for special circumstances, determined by the judge. This reform to the current alimony laws should be implemented because  permanent alimony can end up financially crippling the spouse being forced to pay alimony and, secondly, because both women and men are capable of financially providing for themselves. 

Confirmatio: 

In an article titled “The New Art of Alimony”, the author Jennifer Levitz outlines the story of the Caggianos. “When the Caggianos divorced in 2003, they split their assets. He got their home in Cape Cod. She got their home in a Boston suburb, and paid him the $57,000 difference in the value of their homes. Ms. Caggiano earned more at the time, so the court ordered her to pay $125 in weekly alimony until her death or her former husband’s remarriage... Mr. Caggiano, who is 68, said in an interview he had no mortgage and that his girlfriend, who works full-time, has moved in. He says the couple recently traveled to Italy, and that he spent $60,000 to install hardwood floor, granite countertops and big windows... Asked why he should receive alimony, Mr. Caggiano said he sees it as reimbursement for a time early in their marriage when he paid most expenses... Ms. Caggiano says she wants a court to modify her payments but can’t afford an attorney” (Levitz). 

Unfortunately, this is not the only situation where alimony payments have financially crippled the spouse who should not even have had to be making permanent alimony payments in the first place. Massachusetts especially is paving the way for other states in reforming their alimony laws. In an article in USA TODAY, the author Yamiche Alcindor writes that “The new alimony law creates different types of alimony with varying durations, depending on length of marriage and the finances of each spouse. The law also allows those paying alimony to modify their terms later and calls for ending payments if a recipient has a live-in mate or, in most cases, when the payer reaches retirement age” (Alcindor). This allows the recipient of these temporary alimony payments time to get back on their feet and get a job while not indefinitely crippling the payer. It also allows the alimony to be more flexible and can be modified to fit the current financial circumstances of the recipient, and, more importantly, the payer. 

Lastly, alimony laws should be changed to reflect the working situation of women today. For those of you who may not know, this is the 21st century and women are allowed to work and make a living for themselves. In the aforementioned article in USA TODAY, Alcindor states that “In targeted states, alimony laws are decades old. They were written when divorce was rare, and when most women did not work outside the home and faced possible impoverishment after divorce” (Alcindor). In most cases, the permanent alimony is payed by the man, making the women the recipients of the alimony payments. The original and intended purpose of these alimony payments were to take care of the recipient with the presupposed idea that they cannot financially take care of themselves after divorce. This is no longer the case in most divorces, however, but the alimony laws have not changed in many states to reflect that. With temporary alimony and a cap on the amount, it would allow, and give incentive, for the recipient to get back on their feet and get a job so that they can financially support themselves (Levitz). 

Refutatio: 

Two of the main arguments against these reforms are that these newly-single mothers or father will have no way to care for the child and that these changes limit the judges ability to make each case individualized (Levitz). 

Kenneth Altschuler, a divorce lawyer in Portland, says that “It really is an unnecessary exercise in trying to control judges’ decisions... There’s really no need for legislatures to dictate to judges that in certain situation there shouldn’t be lifetime alimony” (Alcindor). These critics think the because of reforms, judges would not be able to allow permanent alimony in cases where it is necessary. These reforms do not necessarily have to completely eliminate permanent alimony, however. In certain cases, at the judges discretion, permanent alimony may be the best for the spouse receiving the payment. For instance, if the spouse is handicapped or is unable to keep a job because of other health reasons, permanent alimony may be acceptable. These reforms would also allow for the terms of the alimony payments to be modified at the judges discretion based on the finances of each spouse. The primary target of these alimony reforms is to replace permanent alimony with temporary alimony in cases where the recipient is capable of financially taking care of themselves. 

Another argument against these reforms is the issue of taking care of children. The main concern is that the spouse is unable to get a job because they are busy taking care of the child. What this ultimately goes back to is the difference between child support and alimony. As I have said before, these are two separate things that are often incorrectly combined together. In these situations, the other spouse would still have to pay for child support, which could include the price of a nanny or daycare. Many schools also offer an after school day care. The temporary alimony could also extend to cover the time when the child is not in school all day, allowing for the parent to stay home with the child during those years. Permanent alimony is not necessary in these cases, child support and decent laws allowing for temporary alimony are needed. 

Peroratio: 

With the issues of child care and the judges discretion, there are options other than shooting down the alimony reform bills. There is the option of longer, rather than permanent, alimony and child support and the option of outlining certain exceptions allowing for permanent alimony, determined at the judges discretion. Limiting the duration of the alimony and putting a monetary limit on the amount being paid would allow the recipient time to regroup financially. It would also allow the payer to move on and not become burdened by lifetime payments. And most importantly, by reforming the alimony process, it would make the entire divorce process much simpler and easier to manage. 

Works Cited

1. Alcindor, Yamiche. "Demands for Reform of Alimony Laws Sweep USA." USA TODAY. 24 Jan 2012: B.1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 03 Nov 2013.

2. Dominique, Jill. "alimony." Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. ABC-CLIO, 2013. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

3. Levitz, Jennifer. "The New Art of Alimony." Wall Street Journal. 31 Oct 2009: W.1. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 03 Nov 2013.