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.
ping
The problem is way deeper than Great Society programs and liberal welfare entitlements.
The sad fact is that men and women want to go to war with each other more than they want to love and support one another.That,and the feminist movement,have totally sabotaged traditional marriage and family structure.
Its even worse in the black community where things were shaky already.Now its way off the chain and the kids are acting out their anger in more and more vicious ways.
“It’s amazing how promiscuous and irresponsible people will be when they don’t need to take responsibility for it.”
I agree and more.
If you imagine how irresponsible they are when they get paid and rewarded for promiscuity you see why we are where we are today.
The low incidence of divorce among Indians and Asians is because they tend to have more of a groupthink attitude.They feel divorce shames their family and community and thus are likely to stay married under trying circumstances.
Americans are way more individualistic.We don’t want to put up with any crap and will jettison a relationship quick if it doesn’t”fulfill”us.
“So there are no fathers, just sperm donors? Gloria Steinem, is that you?”
Quite the contrary.
Not only are men are not allowed to be fathers(thus the courts enforce child support payments and not visitation rights).... just walking wallets, but in your oh so just gynocentric system they dont even have to have donated the sperm.
34% of all men paying child support have proven thru DNA that they are not the father, yet they are forced to pay support for a kid that is not theirs.
Furthermore, in states like Washington, if you associate w a single mother for more than six months the court can decide that the child has “bonded” to you and you will have to pay support.
Any other ignorance you need me to set you straight on?
“The low incidence of divorce among Indians and Asians is because they tend to have more of a groupthink attitude.”
Dont know if that is such a good example.
Considering the abuse and adultery rates of both races.
Sure they stay together. And mom and pop longfeather drink and try to murder each other w knives.
And Tak Fujimoto has his “entertainment” mistresses....
Forced abortions?
I believe that is the case outside of rape - each party has a say in whether they partake in activities that can result in conception. I'm not even a hardliner and I know that...
Your post implies that if the woman decides to have the child without the father’s consent, he should be able to walk away scot free. That’s absurd.
The government likes it that way. Liberals are using this money to buy votes with. Never mind that morality and personal responsibility happens to be the right way and the best way.
“This wouldnt be the case if BOTH parents had a say in becomming parents.”
“I believe that is the case outside of rape - each party has a say in whether they partake in activities that can result in conception. I’m not even a hardliner and I know that...”
You are wrong.
They can and should agree on having sex, and even what kind of sex.
But once the woman is pregnant the man has no say in anything relating to any post conception decisions even married.
If you still dont want to belive me, point to a case where a man has gotten a court to make the woman bear him a child and made her pay him child support for up to 32 years.
“Your post implies that if the woman decides to have the child without the father’s consent, he should be able to walk away scot free. That’s absurd.”
Why?
A woman can abort her husband’s child w/o his consent.
A woman can cuckhold her husband and force the husband to pay for it.
I bet if we told women that they were going to have to be as responsible as men, no welfare, and they’d have to pay for their mistakes and selfishness all alone, the birthrate would drop.
And maybe children would become beloved and planned for treasures, instead of lottery prizes for whores that they are now.
Before you get upset at my terminology, dont forget that whores are women who get paid for having sex.
Or just "accidentally" skip her birth control without telling him. Happens ALL the time.
But hey, no worries, somebody else will pick up the tab.
I agree with that, and to an american, it seems backwards. They give up happiness as a primary goal, and concentrate on stability, family upbringing, and support, and they end up with happiness, almost for free. We demand happiness, don’t work on stability or support, and end up with nothing, or worse off than before we got married.
“Or just “accidentally” skip her birth control without telling him. Happens ALL the time.
But hey, no worries, somebody else will pick up the tab.”
No joke.
The courts are so bad here in WA I have seen a woman leave here kids and inform the husband that she’d be by to pick them up in a month or two when she got settled.
The guy went to an atty, who told them that she was right... she was going to get custody no matter what.
And she did.
Great system we have.
That pretty much sums up the Government, at all levels, although the Federals are the most glaring example.
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.
Normally, I agree with the Republican-American's editorials, but exactly why must more government be the solution to this problem?
The easiest way to deal with single mothers is to reduce or outright restrict public benefits to those who have legitimate need (e.g., the husband died very suddenly). And, as one other poster mentioned, restrict the availability of birthright U.S. citizenship, although I would not go so far as to require a U.S. citizen parent. (Permanent resident parents are okay, too.) Last, restrict abortions to only those in the first trimester that are needed to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. In other words, no more abortion on demand.
As yet another poster mentioned in post 37, accountability is a good thing.
“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.”
Apparently this author has never heard of the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, or know that Congress passed several laws granting them authority to garnish wages for child support, or that in fact most child support is paid for through this system. If a woman has a Court Order for child support, money is collected through this system, and states are remibursed the cost of collecting the child support and paid an incentive payment. Fathers are seldom allowed to send money directly to the mother because the state would losse their incentive payments. And thoes are some big tax payer bucks.
You are painting single mothers with a very broad and very inaccurate brush. When I became a single mother due to divorce, I went back to school and still held down a job. With a degree I could properly support my children. My x-husband lived in a golf course community but could never make child support payments.
I know a lot of single mothers, I don't know one that is sitting at home or working only part time. I know some women do, but in my entire life I have not known one of those women. All the single women I know are working their tails off. Maybe you should hang out with a better crowd.
I completely understand what you are saying, and I'm in full agreement that the court system is radically skewed toward women. I just think the decision about sex can and should include the possibility that a child will result, and that's part of the equation for both men and women. I know it always has been for me - I never really trusted contraception completely, and did actually end up getting pregnant twice while using contraception. We were married, but wanted to get more secure before having children... oh well, the Good Lord saw it differently than we did ;-)
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.