Posted on 04/19/2008 3:03:01 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Imagine a stranger coming up to you and demanding to use your credit card to finance a weekend fling. Any rational person would refuse. Now imagine that the stranger's good time showed up on your credit card bill anyway, and your credit card company insisted that not only did you have to pay but that the money would come directly out of your paycheck.
It's not imaginary. A nationwide study released last week by Ben Scafidi of Georgia College & State University found that children born out of wedlock or left to the support of only one parent after a divorce cost taxpayers more than $112 billion a year. The costs, as calculated by Mr. Scafidi, included increased direct expenses for assistance such as Medicaid ($27.9 billion a year) and indirect expenses such as lost tax revenue ($22.3 billion).
Let's put those numbers in perspective. The discretionary part of the 2007 federal budget spent about $56 billion on education, $34.7 billion on housing, $10.7 billion on transportation and another $10.3 billion on parks and conservation. That adds up to $111.7 billion, or about $0.3 billion less than the cost of insufficiently supported children. And don't let that $0.3 billion fool you into thinking it's not all that much: Expressed the same way, the largest Powerball jackpot (as a 30-payment annuity, not a lump sum) was $0.295 billion.
In any case, children relying on taxpayer help because only one parent is in the picture cost more than the federal government's discretionary spending on schools, housing, transportation and conservation put together. As David Blankenhorn, president of the Institute for American Values, said: "The study documents for the first time that divorce and unwed childbearing — besides being bad for children — are costing taxpayers a ton of money."
Messrs. Blankenhorn and Scafidi said reducing those costs "is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators."
One mechanism for reducing those costs is already in place. All that is required is the legislative will to mandate that an absent parent contribute to a child's upkeep through the same sort of automatic withholding already enforced on everybody else to subsidize that parent's child. Another would be to make it clear as a matter of law that the financial security of children be the top priority in any divorce proceeding, perhaps with a mandatory trial period before any divorce becomes final, just to make sure all support payments are being made.
Here's another way to think about it. About 130 million tax returns were filed for 2007 as of last week's deadline. Those who filed individually are expecting economic stimulus payments of up to $600; joint filers will be getting up to $1,200. But by the time those checks arrive, children born out of wedlock or left stranded by a divorce will already have cost an average $861.54 per return. In other words, even with the stimulus money, single filers are $261.54 behind.
What Mr. Scafidi's study shows is that financially, it doesn't take a village to raise a child. It takes a mother and a father.
The answer to your question is: Pray for Revival.
So how vast exactly is your “experience” with single mothers?
“This wouldn’t be the case if BOTH parents were required to both support and raise the child (hands-on, not long distance), regardless of marital status.”
This wouldnt be the case if BOTH parents had a say in becomming parents.
“What’s the solution?”
Hold women totally responsible for their actions.
They wanted total post conception choice, fine then let them pay for it.
Alone.
If they falter, then we take the kids and give them to the thousands of waiting adoptive families, sterilize the mother, and if she tries again...jail her.
Something tells me that conceptions would fall dramatically if this were the case.
It's amazing how promiscuous and irresponsible people will be when they don't need to take responsibility for it.
Then after that comes married couples having to prove they are capable.
Next comes all parents proving they will raise children according to government standards (ie. inductrination)
Besides, whether the incapable single mother has custody or the government, our tax dollars are hard at "work".
A big one...take away American citizenship priviledges for those who do not have an American mother or father born free of charge on our soil.
So there are no fathers, just sperm donors? Gloria Steinem, is that you?
The vast majority of middle-class employed fathers support their kids
What you are seeing are the effects of underclass women getting pregnant by males who CANNOT be made to pay (because their income comes from crime, or they are in prison, or they are dead, or the woman never learned their right name in the first place).
Lorianne: would you think it a good idea to FORCE a drug dealer to be in the same residence as young children?
Then after that comes married couples having to prove they are capable.
Better idea -- NO welfare for single moms. None. If they are unable to take care of the kid they can give it up for adoption, with said adoption being permanent
I agree, but let’s face reality, they’re not going to carry those babies to term, they’re going to abort.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Though I agree with your sentiments, apply my earlier points to this.
Then after that comes married couples having to prove they are capable.
Next comes all parents proving they will raise children according to government standards (ie. inductrination)
INSIST upon legislators of high moral standard. INSIST upon statesmen and refuse the politics of 'electability'.
INSIST upon REAGAN COALITION CONSERVATISM. Men of God with a love of country, and a reverence for the Constitution. Vote for nothing else.
That's fine by me. I have my own children to support, which I find difficult if I have to also support the children of welfare mothers via taxes.
Or have their tubes tied after the birth of a second child?
More likely, they will take precautions to avoid getting pregnant in the first place, if they can’t force somebody else to pay for it.
It’s amazing what a little accountability can do for people. Conservatism at work.
SAd but true, the articel mentions more Govt theft involving a paycheck hijacking, it never dares to breach the subjec to of “Keep it in your pants” or “That is a 18 yr expense”..
Or to the single woman “This is not a winning lottery ticket”
I work with a lot of Indians and other Asians. I am amazed at how well arranged marriages work in Indian society. They always seem to have happy, contented marriages. The other asians, while not in arranged marriages, never seem to get divorced either. Only the Americans in the company are completely messed up, about 80% of us are divorced.
oh yes! because there is such a shortage of unwanted older children with wonderful parents just waiting for them! Get real. Adoption should never be joked about as a serious option. Adoption rips children and babies away from their blood relatives and takes away their identity and causes life long attachment disorders.
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.