Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Promotion of Marriage

The New York Times ^ | 01/14/04 | ROBERT PEAR and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

[Mulder]

I've been incredibly impressed with the people I've met at Health and Human Services and the Justice Department. I expected hold overs from the Clinton Administration and career bureaucrats, but I met conservatives who are proud of being part of the Bush Administration and working with Secretary Thompson and Attorney General Ashcroft.

LOL! So socialism works so long as the right people are running it?

The government tried a "war on poverty", now there is more poverty.

They tried a "war on illiteracy", so now there is more illiteracy.

They tried a "war on drugs", and now there are more drugs.

And this pro-marriage crusade will result in more wrecked marriages, more lawyers getting rich, and more politicians empowered by the war between the sexes.

Government programs simply don't work.

[cyborg]

I realized today that perhaps the reason we see some resistence on this topic is because the topic hits home or darn close to home

***Oh yes visit any of the dating threads/divorce threads and you'll the problem sure isn't in the 'low income areas' only.

[hocndoc]

The Health Families initiative isn't new, and it's already working. I spoke to one of the men who administers the Health and Human Services funds in Colorado and he had stories of success. We will have to wait for the really big numbers, and, hopefully the next generation of kids will grow up with both their parents, expecting to raise their kids in monogamous marriages.

The point is that this money is already earmarked by old laws. Even with the current Congress, the President can't get this spending cut. But, he can encourage ways that it is spent, so that research funds go to counting the blessings of marriage, and so that education funds can be spent on programs done by women and men who might have their offices, appointments and classes in buildings with religious symbols visible, and where preference is given to hiring Godly employees. That's better than forcing all agencies to be completely separate from a room with a Cross on the wall or forcing the agencies to hire employees despite their living in and praising sin or spending their off time volunteering at the abortion facility around the corner. Under the old rules, even the Catholic agencies were proscribed from encouraging marriage or discouraging sexual immorality.

[luckydevi]

Sooner or later we have to pay for this.

[FITZ]

Are you enjoying your tax cut this President gave you? I hope so..........

I hope none of that tax cut money went to pay for a divorce.

[FITZ]

The government can do a lot ---- but it would have to do less --- less welfare handouts. Stop rewarding broken families with a government check.

A government agent showing up to counsel an engaged couple isn't going to accomplish anything.

[ohioWfan]

I am NOT for a 'nanny state' and I am NOT a pseudo-Conservative, and I DON'T like the amount of taxes we pay, I am NOT happy with spending other people's money, nor do I like people who don't know me from Adam making that accusation.

If you go back to my first post, you will see that I said, IF we are spending money (which we are), then THIS is as good a thing to spend it on as anything because our marriages and families are in real crisis, and the health of America depends on the health of the family......the strength of this representative republic on the moral strength of its people.

I am a realist about government. It's not going to get smaller (and a 4% increase is a whole lot better than a 15% increase), and there's very little any President will ever be able to do to make it do so. If he's spending existing money on making marriage stronger, and stopping the spending of money on 'mood stones' (a program he eliminated, by the way), then he is being more responsible with our money.

President Bush is using his MBA to streamline agencies, and make things run more efficiently. He is reducing the percentage of growth, he is giving us part of our money back (which IS significant, breakem), and because of his moral convictions, he is attaching personal responsibility to government programs, and some of them (the education bill for one) are already showing results. These are all good things.

NOW. I am finished with this discussion.

[ohioWfan]

If marital counseling with engaged couples is a waste of time, why is it done?

You cannot say with certainty that it 'isn't going to accomplish anything,' until you see how it works.

(Don't get the wrong idea that I'm overly optimistic that it would. I just don't accept your premise that there is no chance it would succeed before you know how the program would work).

[Publius6961]

This whole subject is disgusting. If throwing money at a problem is the best way to solve it, we would have the best educated people in the universe. If "engagement" is voluntary, the excercise is doomed to failure.

This is just another huge money pit, another flavor of welfare and a new entitlement. What a dumb idea! Pay people to be touchy feelie, while they assiduously continue evading and avoiding work or any useful activity. Brilliant!

[Huck]

Honestly I don't have the time to engage in a big discussion about it. I gather from your profile that social issues are a high priority, so it doesn't surprise me that you are supportive of this. It's quite typical, I suppose, that spending is usually less of a concern for a person when the spending is on something they like.

I did learn something though. I learned that social conservatives are willing to spend big heaping piles of tax money to advance their pet projects and causes. Fiscal conservatism is a lower priority for them. That's what I gather, anyway. Who knows how many votes this buys them, and how many it costs them. I am sure they have crunched those numbers.

[scripter]

I can certainly understand time constraints and when coupled with following the right priorities in life, engaging others in discussion doesn't seem and isn't all that important at times. Thanks for your time.

For some or perhaps most it probably is typical for spending to be less of a concern when the spending is on something they like. That's probably a natural response. I think biases and emotions get in the way as well. To stay objective I try to remember to ask others for information that discredits my position on a matter. Healthy disagreement is a good thing.

Yes, social issues are important to me - I'm a social and fiscal conservative and as I see it, the fiscal conservative position doesn't imply zero spending.

My position is that this country is seeing the results of social issues running wildly rampant for ~40 years. Lives ruined and lost, families ruined, and a lot of it seems tied to people living selfish lives and divorce. This conservative thinks it's important to try and fix what appears to be the root cause of the current state of the country. But not at any cost. We need to remain fiscally conservative in the fix.

[Huck]

Thanks. Take care,

Huck

[Huck]

Alan M. Hershey, a senior fellow at Mathematica Policy Research in Princeton, N.J., said his company had a $19.8 million federal contract to measure the effectiveness of such programs for unwed parents. Already, Mr. Hershey said, he is providing technical assistance to marriage-education projects in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico and Texas.

20 millon spent checking the effectiveness. No reason to hold off spending another 1.5 billion.

[breakem]

how do we know you're REALLY finished? This is the second time you've said so.

[sawyer]

Kids have always had problem just not all the same. !00 years ago does not make things better only different. We can not go back to the 'good old days' because they were not.Course I am not saying you should believe me, I never think that way, but I do have the right to think it is a crazy plan if I like. I would like to see that cash put into say Pell grants with all the jobs leaving, I think it would help more.