There is evidence above that shows that the "attempt", if that is even what it was, has not really succeeded.
It helps to practice what is preached, but we have a breach in practice evidenced above with the personalization nonsense.
The reference I made was in response to an element in your post that ran contrary to the national facts in play currently.
That's not news to me.
I'm not the topic of the discussion.
That is not an accurate representation of what I stated. In response to this:
I posted this:
The indication that child support debts don't arise to the level of a national interest is a misrepresenation of the facts in play already.
We had legislation passed in 1996 to handmaiden the US passport denial program.
We have passport denial is a form of exit control.
The version of fact signed into law by a POTUS whom I served too.
Indeed.
Sure there are constraints and limits on what a department or agency can lawfully do. However, departments/agencies have a way to get things changed on the Hill too; and more than one Department/Agency has figured out a way to run circles around even Congressional intent as memorialized in signed legislation; and more than one Department/Agency has figured out a way to run circles around even the White House.
By the way, blaming agencies can be a very effective way to get Congress to change laws that the agencies use; and blaming agencies can be a very effective way to get agency practices to change in large or small part. It's no surprise that such agencies have their own PR resources and media-monitoring efforts.