Posted on 04/24/2008 7:48:05 AM PDT by RogerFGay
It’s long been known that family break-up inflicts massive social costs on communities and children. But what about the burden it imposes on the American taxpayer?
It’s a proven fact that family dissolution places children at greater risk of poverty, mental and physical illness, juvenile delinquency, abuse, substance abuse, and educational failure. A few years ago Wade Horn, former director of the federal Administration for Children and Families, revealed, “My agency spends $46 billion per year operating 65 different social programs. If one goes down the list of these programs… the need for each is either created or exacerbated by the breakup of families and marriages.”
But what about the impact of heavier demands on the criminal justice system? Medical care services? And losses in tax revenues? At last we have a good idea of the answer.
Last week — Tax Day to be exact — the Institute for American Values released its ground-breaking report, “Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing.” [www.americanvalues.org/html/coff_mediaadvisory.htm] Researched by economist Benjamin Scafidi, the document lays out an elegant four-step logic:
1. Anti-poverty programs like TANF, housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, WIC, etc. – family break-up is responsible for 32% of these programs’ costs.
2. Government programs for children such as Head Start, SCHIP, school breakfast programs, etc. – family dissolution causes 36% of these costs.
3. Justice system — 24% of crime is the result of childhood poverty.
4. Lost taxes – Newly employed workers would presumably pay taxes to the IRS (10% of wages), state and local government (11%), and FICA (15%).
Tally up the numbers and – voila! – the total taxpayer cost of fragile families comes out to $112 billion dollars a year. That’s billion with a B.
But what’s clear is these numbers vastly underestimate the financial impact of family break-down, in at least three ways.
When men marry, their wages go up 8-15%, thus increasing tax revenues.
Second, children who grow up in a single-parent household are at greater risk of health problems and sexual promiscuity. Even if they don’t fall into the clutches of poverty, they will likely call upon federally-subsidized programs to render medical help and care for their children.
And single elderly women are four times more likely to be warehoused in a nursing home, compared to their married counterparts. That places an enormous burden on Medicaid.
In one respect, though, the Institute for American Values report is flawed. To encourage persons to marry, IAV proposes “marriage-strengthening programs.” But touting the marriage education Band-aid is like saying we can fix a broken welfare system by teaching teenage moms to refrain from sex.
The reason for plummeting marriage rates, of course, is not a dearth of marriage education. The problem is tangle of laws and programs that weaken the role of marriage, marginalize fathers, and dangle incentives in front of women to leave their families.
Like the school curricula that teach gay marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual union.
Like the no-fuss, no-fault divorce laws that allow partners to casually discard their sacred vows.
Like the gender studies programs that brainwash co-eds into believing marriage exploits women. (According to rad-fem Catherine MacKinnon: “Feminism stresses the indistinguishability of prostitution, marriage, and sexual harassment.”)
It’s the domestic violence programs, underwritten to the tune of $1 billion in federal money each year, that escalate partner conflict and prohibit couples counseling, all the while fostering contempt for men.
It’s ham-fisted child support programs that take away persons’ drivers’ licenses and toss low-income dads in jail.
It’s the deplorable Supreme Court Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling that precludes a father from being informed about his partner’s plan to abort.
And it’s female empowerment programs like the federally-endorsed “Girl Power!” that undercut the role of families.
For years social and fiscal conservatives have co-existed in a sometimes uneasy alliance – call it a marriage of convenience if you will. “We’ll tolerate your musings on abortion and gay marriage, just so long as you don’t fool with our tax cuts and de-regulation plans,” the green-visored conservatives would say.
But now, both wings of conservatism have found common ground – restore the traditional family, rally around the needs of children, staunch the growth of social welfare programs, and save billions in taxpayer money.
Call it a match made in heaven.
That’s it. Outlaw divorce.
Wow. Lots of this could have been written by a fundy muslim.
I’d have to say that I don’t get what you mean. You’re posting comments like a reading comprehension challenged lefty; with an attention span that’s too short even to write what you think in one post.
Ease up, he’s really a poet.
For years social and fiscal conservatives have co-existed in a sometimes uneasy alliance – call it a marriage of convenience if you will. “We’ll tolerate your musings on abortion and gay marriage, just so long as you don’t fool with our tax cuts and de-regulation plans,” the green-visored conservatives would say.
But now, both wings of conservatism have found common ground – restore the traditional family, rally around the needs of children, staunch the growth of social welfare programs, and save billions in taxpayer money.
Wouldn't entitlement spending go UP if we banned abortion? Millions of new babies a year would need to be fed and cared for.
What are the odds that the people who conceived an unwanted child are responsible enough to take care of this on their own?
There’s the whole adoption aspect, but in all honesty, people are aren’t prepared for a baby in their lives shouldn’t be having sex to begin with.
A friend of mine is getting married in May. I'll have to ask him what he's going to spend his bonus on.
I found that quite surprising, and wonder if it’s a matter of backwards correlation. I mean - people with higher income may be in a better position to marry - not that their income increases because they marry. I quite frankly was able to spend more time working as a single guy and made quite a bit more money.
“Like the no-fuss, no-fault divorce laws that allow partners to casually discard their sacred vows.”
I got one of these. We didn’t even need to put money in the pockets of lawyers. It was great, the entire hearing took 10 minutes. Was there fault? Sure but having the no-fault made the proceedings go a lot easier.
“Like the school curricula that teach gay marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual union.”
I am no fan of gay anything but when this hit the schools around here, my kids came home and we discussed it. They were taught in school that every couple in love should be allowed to marry, based on fairness and equity. They were taught at home that the government ought to have no role in anyones’ marriage. The school flatly refused to bring morals into the equation.
“It’s the domestic violence programs, underwritten to the tune of $1 billion in federal money each year,”
Abused partners should have no escape?
“that escalate partner conflict and prohibit couples counseling, all the while fostering contempt for men.”
Pure opinion, but probably a degree of truth there.
“It’s ham-fisted child support programs that take away persons’ drivers’ licenses and toss low-income dads in jail.”
I pay my child support. It is not easy and I wish it was not as high as it is but I do not understand what you mean by “ham-fisted.” While I disagree that my CS should be so high, I was given a copy of the paperwork showing how they came to the decision that they did. Funny thing is, if my daughter decided to live with me, her mother would be paying even more than I do now. I have NO sympathy for the deadbeats that refuse to support their kids.
There are currently about 100,000 adoptions per year, and about 1.2 million abortions.
Adoption is currently a huge mess (way too much red tape and expense IMO) so maybe deregulating the process could help. But at the end of the day, the adoption system would still be overwhelmed by 1.2 million new babies.
Also, most adoptive parents don’t want a minority child. Sometimes because they want their kid to look like them, sometimes for other reasons. Since minorities are disproportionately represented in the abortion stats, what do you do with all of those unwanted babies?
Oops. Just noticed that I erred when posting. I am not the author of this article. Does anyone know if I can contact someone to have it corrected?
Uh-oh! The report involved David Blankenhorn and Ron Haskins. They have traditionally been openly anti-father and never saw an anti-family policy they didn’t like. Their job is to put a conservative pro-family spin on pork and arbitrary government intrusion.
Better idea, make marriage mandatory.
If you're not married by one year after you leave school, ANY school - high school, trade school, college, etc - you go to prison.
“Like the school curricula that teach gay marriage is morally equivalent to heterosexual union.”
Hey Mabel, I know we been married for 20 years now, but I done heard that homo marriage is just as good as hetero so I’m leaving to try that out for a while. You take are of the kids.
Wait till she remarries and tells you that she's spending your CS payments on purses, shoes and other items for her. CS with no accountability for the $$$ is little more than permanent alimony
"What's the matter?", she asked.
"You remember the day before your sixteenth birthday, when your daddy caught us in the back seat of my car, and he told me that I had a choice to either marry you or go to jail for 25 years?"
"Yes, I remember."
"Well, I would have got out today."
Actully, the Massachussetts Supreme Court decided that same-sex marriage is better than real marriage, much better. One of the reasons was that there were a lot of divorces resulting from real marriage, and none on record from same-sex marriage. The fact that there was no such thing as same-sex marriage and therefore no way to legally get a divorce from one did not figure into their analysis.
“If my impression is correct, you are in favor of arbitrary government intrusion and huge amounts of pork-barrel spending, regardless of the damage it does to individuals. Is that correct?”
Your impression is incorrect. I am in favor of as little government as possible in almost every case. Is it possible to have a negative amount of government?
Better idea, make marriage mandatory.
If you’re not married by one year after you leave school, ANY school - high school, trade school, college, etc - you go to prison.
Why support those deadbeats? Death penalty!
Wait till she remarries and tells you that she’s spending your CS payments on purses, shoes and other items for her. CS with no accountability for the $$$ is little more than permanent alimony
This is not a possibility with my ex. One kid has already gone over 18 the other is going on 16 and they both have very big mouths. If their mother started spending that money on herself, I’d know pretty much immediately. As far as the re-marriage, won’t happen. She’s not the type to want to get tied down in another ltr and what do you mean by “permanent?” One of my daughters turned 18 and the support got cut by half, the other one will be 18 in a couple years and I am done with bleeding money. Some guys have to pay if the kid goes to college but both of mine are talking about the military so....I’m probably going to be lucky on that count.
And yet you defend big government pork-barrel programs that have destroyed Constitutional control - even while you are personally suffering from them.
Marriage may be cost-effective, but atomizing families into their parts gives more for the custodial medical-industrial to charge, bill, and monitor.
Also, most adoptive parents don’t want a minority child. Sometimes because they want their kid to look like them, sometimes for other reasons. Since minorities are disproportionately represented in the abortion stats, what do you do with all of those unwanted babies?
We adopt them. Wonderful healthy babies, turn into wonderful healthy children. I have been most fortunate.
Well, naturally we would have to bring back the chain gangs.
We just update the concept of the chain gang for the actual date.
Someone that graduated from medical school that wasn't married could be the doctor for the other inmates.
Someone that didn't make it out of high school might be doing manual labor picking up garbage off the freeways.
A horticulturalist would, of course, be in charge of the prison farms.
Make 'em support themselves.
It is not either or. Having “some” government is not equal to having “big government pork-barrel programs.”
LOL, bleeding heart.
(sarcasm)
Having big government pork barrel programs is not just some government - it’s having big government pork barrel programs. You have defended those.
You are using extremism to advance your point. Not unheard of on the internet, just sad. Having DV counseling and shelters is not in and of itself “having big government pork barrel programs.”
Or would you simply prefer that the abused party take those vows to stay “until death do us part” more seriously?
“If you’re such an extreme left-wing feminist”
I am not going to read past here, no point. One need not be a feminist to disagree with the pap in this article.
One thing irked me in this article....In one respect, though, the Institute for American Values report is flawed. To encourage persons to marry, IAV proposes “marriage-strengthening programs.” But touting the marriage education Band-aid is like saying we can fix a broken welfare system by teaching teenage moms to refrain from sex.
I get so tired of the Fathers Rights groups dissing marriage. Just because they tried and failed, should not give them the right to denounce these “marriage-strengthening programs.”
The only real effective way to reduce the numbers of fatherless homes is to build up marriages.
Two easy ways:
1. End no fault divorce.
2. Initiate tax breaks for traditional families who stay married.
LOL! I love it when your kind crumbles into ad homs so quickly when your positions can’t be supported by reasonable argument.
There situation though I doubt would be hard to duplicate they even worked out a percentage per head for vet bills for the dog and the same for the electric bill etc. It was the days before CSA got involved and set the amount they sorted it out and before the money was paid to the children direct if his ex felt that an increase was needed she would contact him and explain what the reason was and work if to increase the money or who on that occasion should cover whatever the additional cost was.
“If you’re such an extreme left-wing feminist”
Speaking of “ad hominems.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.