Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Out-of-wedlock births have to be talked about
Atlanta Journal-Constitution ^ | 9/4/07 | Jim Wooten

Posted on 09/04/2007 6:08:36 AM PDT by madprof98

Analyze this, the first sentence of an account of a Michael Bloomberg speech to the National Press Club last week, and then take the quiz on why notable public opinion leaders are reluctant to weigh in on the sensitive question of fathers, marriage and child poverty:

"New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a divorced, billionaire dad, said Tuesday that unwed fathers increase poverty and the government should take steps to get them back with their families."

A divorced, billionaire dad. Meaning what? A gratuitous insertion in a wire service account, it's clearly intended to convey a message. But what? That because Bloomberg is divorced, he lacks moral authority to urge that tax laws be amended to entice the absentee male back into children's lives? That because Bloomberg is rich, he lacks legitimacy to speak of poverty?

The gratuitous reference to his wealth and marital status —- both matters unrelated to the issue he addressed or content of his remarks —- are noteworthy in that they are warnings to public figures to avoid topics where they risk being accused of hypocrisy. Topics like the epidemic of births to unmarried women and the disadvantage and poverty that results.

Bloomberg wasn't approaching the hot-button issue at the heart of the problem he addressed. He was, instead, proposing financial incentives to buy men back into their children's lives, including "a substantial expansion and reform" of the earned income tax credit.

"Why should we expect young mothers to work and not young fathers?" he asked, a reference to the 1996 welfare reform law that, with the EITC, "led millions of people into the labor market, where they attained the dignity of work and a chance to rise out of poverty." With that, he said, the welfare caseload in New York City had dropped by a third over the past five years.

"Right now," he continued, "fathers are missing from our strategy to drive down the poverty rate. The gains that we've made over the past 10 years have been fueled by mothers. ... If we are going to achieve another round of substantial gains ... we have to do more to connect fathers to jobs and to their families. We have to increase the rewards for work. ..."

Among the changes he suggested is eliminating the EITC "marriage penalty" for families with and without children. "Marriage increase a family's chances of rising out of poverty —- why would government discourage it? It shouldn't. ... The EITC should be a catalyst for fathers to fulfill their obligations as responsible spouses, parents and citizens."

No hot-button cultural rhetoric there. Dry. Nuts-and-bolts.

To the extent that influential voices are dissuaded from addressing vital issues, such as the consequences of the missing father, because they themselves aren't poor or have failed marriages, everybody loses. Imagine the treatment had Bloomberg chosen to talk about the real dynamic driving poverty, the creation of babies without bothering to marry.

Bloomberg started his conversation with the usual pabulum about education as "one of the best ways to fight poverty." It is of course true. No question. But when 69.3 percent of black children, 46.4 of Hispanic and 24.5 of white children are born to unmarried women, the die is cast long before the first schoolteacher enters their lives. And even then, it's fantasy land to believe any public school system anywhere in America can backfill the hours of guidance and teaching the walkaway father might have provided.

When the War on Poverty was first launched in 1964, single women headed 30 percent of the poor families with children. Today it's double that. The Brookings Institution, to which Bloomberg delivered the same speech, noted in 2002 that in 2000, 40 percent of the children in female-headed families were poor, compared to 8 percent of the children in married families. Only 20 percent of children in families with incomes of less than $15.000 a year live with both parents.

Marriage reduces poverty. Now, because we're reached the tipping point where the crisis of out-of-wedlock births is so deeply rooted, few public figures who wish to cultivate a following dare mention it. So they walk around it and talk around it.

But sooner or later, leaders rich and poor, married and divorced, do have to start the conversation. And we have to encourage them.

> Jim Wooten is associate editor of the editorial page. His column appears Tuesdays, Fridays and Sundays.

jwooten@ajc.com


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: bloomberg; fatherhood; moralabsolutes; poverty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last
The leftists have made clear as day: Any politician who tries to discuss a "family values" issue from now on will get branded a hypocrite. And there always seems to be enough dirt in a politician's background to make that charge plausible.
1 posted on 09/04/2007 6:08:38 AM PDT by madprof98
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: madprof98
They only have to be talked about if marriage and one-man, one-woman marriage really matters to the children and to society. We are told every day and in various ways by people who insist they are smarter than the rest of us that children can be raised just as well by single parents, by or by two people of the same sex sharing a “committed” relationship.
2 posted on 09/04/2007 6:12:05 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Talking about out of wedlock births is racist.


3 posted on 09/04/2007 6:12:50 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

Q: Why are politicians so interested in unwed mothers?

A: Because they comprise so much of the welfare and crime portion of society. They want someone to pay for that kid, believing that money will help the problem.

If dad is a deadbeat who doesn’t want to support his own kid, you don’t want him around. Welfare moms figure that out pretty quickly. He’s just an interference. That government check comes a lot more regularly.

Bloomie just has no clue. He only cares because he knows one of these kids could bust his head with a bottle and take his wallet.


4 posted on 09/04/2007 6:14:01 AM PDT by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
But when 69.3 percent of black children, 46.4 of Hispanic and 24.5 of white children are born to unmarried women

You also can't discuss how race and ethnicity figure into the problem. Or that half of the children ages 0-5 in America are minorities. Demography is destiny.

5 posted on 09/04/2007 6:18:57 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

I made it out with 6 weeks to spare.


6 posted on 09/04/2007 6:25:15 AM PDT by period end of story (Si vis pacem, para bellum.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar
The Wooten piece ran in this morning's AJC, which also has a front-page piece on a new private school in Atlanta's inner city, the Ron Clark Academy, funded by millions of dollars of mostly liberal money, that will attempt to save 60 poor, black children who would otherwise be chewed up in Atlanta's disastrous public school system. It's a noble enough venture, but it's a venture that would not be needed if the black family had not collapsed under the weight of the sexual revolution and the public welfare system.
7 posted on 09/04/2007 6:26:53 AM PDT by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

You wouldn’t believe how many ladies don’t know who the baby daddy is..........


8 posted on 09/04/2007 6:28:50 AM PDT by yldstrk (My heros have always been cowboys--Reagan and Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
Am I reading this right? First, we have...

"New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a divorced, billionaire dad, said Tuesday that unwed fathers increase poverty and the government should take steps to get them back with their families."

...and then...

The gratuitous reference to his wealth and marital status —- both matters unrelated to the issue he addressed or content of his remarks...

Did the meaning of the word "gratuitous" change? I use it to mean "without reason," to refer to something which is unjustifiable.

9 posted on 09/04/2007 6:31:49 AM PDT by grellis (Femininists for Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk
You wouldn’t believe how many ladies don’t know who the baby daddy is..........

I know some women who don't. But I also know some who were told by helpful social workers at the public hospital that their dealings with the welfare office would be a lot easier if they just put "unknown" on the birth certificate.

10 posted on 09/04/2007 6:34:20 AM PDT by madprof98 ("moritur et ridet" - salvianus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

You’ll never see this: “Hillary Clinton, who once tried to write off her husband’s underwear donation on their income taxes, stated that rich people should be taxed more.”


11 posted on 09/04/2007 6:37:18 AM PDT by Larry Lucido (Hunter 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

And another thing you’ll never see is that income taxes DO NOT AFFECT THE WEALTHY.

The truly rich (Kerry, Edwards, Gore, Kennedy, etc) do not have “income” to be taxed.

Leftists need to be bounced on this fact every time they mention taxing the wealthy - “when are you going to propose a tax that actually affects the wealthy instead of those with high incomes?”


12 posted on 09/04/2007 6:39:42 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Probably so is saying that some of these out of wedlock births are due to the “lady” being of very low moral standards aka a S**t.

There, i said it.

Flame away, PC lovers.


13 posted on 09/04/2007 6:42:23 AM PDT by Axlrose
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: madprof98

“the real dynamic driving poverty, the creation of babies without bothering to marry.”

It’s actually the corollary of that:

“Out-of-wedlock !#$#$#$!$ing”, period.

That is the basic cause of the problems here.


14 posted on 09/04/2007 6:43:16 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kabar

Yes, you can’t discuss the mindset of “I’m owed, because Whitey is a bigot”. And that welfare was established partly because of the white-guilt concept. Neither can you discuss that blacks were geting better off on their own as a race before welfare threw them off course.

Notice how orientals are NEVER mentioned in these discussions.

Well, they have been a bit more lately, but to the chagrin of the hate-mongering libs, these minorities facing discrimination DON’T fall under all those categories.


15 posted on 09/04/2007 6:47:41 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MrB

Jobs for Democrats. Social workers, bureaucrats, prison guards. In large measure the deadbeat dads are the last generation of untended offspring of welfare moms. It is a self-perpetuating system.


16 posted on 09/04/2007 6:48:39 AM PDT by ClaireSolt (Have you have gotten mixed up in a mish-masher?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

Yes, and that will always be 1 of the big problems with trying to drag the sires into this.


17 posted on 09/04/2007 6:49:19 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Axlrose

Never mind the morals of the sires. They are sluts, too.


18 posted on 09/04/2007 6:51:41 AM PDT by the OlLine Rebel (Common sense is an uncommon virtue.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: madprof98
But he is a hypocrite. I would not vote for him or be motivated by anything he has to say.

If I were a deadbeat philanderer I would probably not even know who he is. I definitely would not care anything about him.

Politicians who don't love and care for their own families, especially their wives, are less than worthless. They disgust me.

19 posted on 09/04/2007 6:53:57 AM PDT by Theophilus (Nothing can make Americans safer than to stop aborting them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the OlLine Rebel
Well, they have been a bit more lately, but to the chagrin of the hate-mongering libs, these minorities facing discrimination DON’T fall under all those categories.

Asians are actually doing better than whites in most cases, including out of wedlock births and educational attainment. It all goes back to the family and the social pathology of the single parent household that places the child at a significant disadvantage in terms of achievement and success.

20 posted on 09/04/2007 6:56:25 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson