How our tax dollars subsidize family breakup

WorldNetDaily ^ | April 26, 2008 | Stephen Baskerville

[RogerFGay]

Divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers at least $112 billion each year or more than $1 trillion over the last decade. This estimate from the Institute for American Values is, as the authors suggest, likely to be an underestimate.

This staggering but plausible tally of the economic costs of family dissolution follows what we have long known about the social costs. All our major social ills -- poverty, violent crime, substance abuse, truancy and more -- are more closely linked to family breakdown and single-parent homes than to any other factor. A poor black child from an intact home is more likely to succeed than a rich white one from a single-mother home.

[RogerFGay]

ping

[fweingart]

We can thank Lyndon-Bird for creating the 'Great Society.'

The guy who used to sit at the head of the table at dinnertime has been replaced by a government check.

That guy's daughter has become a welfare 'ho giving birth to a gaggle of kids that hit the streets, doing drugs, robbing and killing.

Great Society my Clinton!

[Eurale]

This is precisely where our country has derailed, and what liberal socialists depend on for power.

Like a scene out of Independence Day”, liberal fascism has positioned itself over our country like the pall of death. It is the final confluence of decades of public education brain-washing, welfare programs and socialist ideology. And, here we sit waiting for an alien invasion from either Hitlery or Obeyme - each of whom is posturing to launch an all out assault on America.

[Fido969]

The guy who used to sit at the head of the table at dinnertime has been replaced by a government check.

The leftists and the feminists hate that guy. He is perpetuating the "evil patriarchy," doncha know. Don't you know that going to work every day to a hard, stressful and sometimes dangerous job, making sacrifices for his family, dropping dead from a heart attack 8 years before his wife, is an "abuse of male privilege"?

And why use that time at the dinner table to provide education and pass on moral values to the next generation for free, when Obama and the rest of the Chicago South Side Marxists want to give that job solely to the government?

I mean they do such a good job at it, don't they?

"The Audacity of Hope."

[fweingart]

I like the way you think and how you express yourself!

[PrincessB]

I know this only talks about tax dollars, but what is the overall effect on the economy?

I work with some one who is recently divorced. She had to take off a lot of time for lawyers meetings, depositions, court dates, not to mention the personal time used during the day to make phone calls, fax things, etc.

There were no minor children involved in this case. How much productive time is lost dealing with all this stuff? And when there are children I understand it can go on for years.

I do not mean to advocate simpler divorce, but another measure that demonstrates the negative effect of a divorce on everyone.

[RogerFGay]

Actually, the author had a good point about - contrary to the beliefs of even most conservatives. The Great Society still confined the expansion of welfare to handouts and help programs, including early education. What's happened involves a major paradigm shift. The two parties are forcing every aspect of private life into expensive government programs as rapidly as possible - and it's not just for poor people anymore. You don't have to need or want to be involved in a big government program. You just automatically are.

The reason it's important to mention conservatives is that this shift would not have been possible without their full support. It's become fashionable to blame people with imperfect lives for every problem in society, and to invent expensive government programs to punish them for it. You can thank conservatives, starting with Ronald Reagan for that. The propaganda tactic is "moral crusade." Democrats didn't even dare think of selling such things in that way, and really only fully got on the band wagon when Clinton started taking credit for Reagan era reforms.

But these things take more than just a lot of money. They involve unconstitutional intrusions into personal life. So, they for example, had to get the courts to reclassify marriage and family legally, so that they are now in the same class as welfare programs. That's how marriage finally actually died in the US - at the hands of the very people who kept telling us they were trying to save it.

[RogerFGay]

I’m on a mission to get people to stop using the word “liberal” incorrectly. Liberals invented the US Constitution and would not be at all pleased with the combined effort from the left and right to destroy it. Besides that, the term commonly implies reference to the Democratic Party. Believe me - I’m sure - we’ve reached a crisis level with this stuff - and it would not have been possible without strong bipartisan support.

[RogerFGay]

"I know this only talks about tax dollars, but what is the overall effect on the economy?"

I was thinking about the same thing yesterday after reading a related article that cited the same $112 billion. Government is not intruding arbitrarily, not only into business activities and practices, but also into personal life. The result is very costly, and it's not counted in government costs. I don't know how to estimate very accurately, but off the top of my head, I'd say the current level of unnecessary intrusion for the sake of pork barreling must be costing at least a trillion annually.

[RogerFGay]

Instead of government “not” intruding arbitrarily, I meant “now.” Government is “now” intruding arbitrarily. They definitely are engaged in arbitrary intrusion into personal life.

[RogerFGay]

It’s a bipartisan agenda.

[Fido969]

Hi Roger, good to see you. You and me have been fighting the good fight for a long time!

[Beagle8U]

“But these things take more than just a lot of money. They involve unconstitutional intrusions into personal life. So, they for example, had to get the courts to reclassify marriage and family legally, so that they are now in the same class as welfare programs. That's how marriage finally actually died in the US - at the hands of the very people who kept telling us they were trying to save it.”

Huh? How does defining marriage ( One man, One woman) cause divorce? That doesn't make sense to me.

[RogerFGay]

Huh? How does defining marriage ( One man, One woman) cause divorce? That doesn't make sense to me.

What you said doesn't make sense to anyone, I'm sure. Luckily, I know enough about the subject to straighten things out. Defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is not what the courts did. The one man, one woman definition is in a proposed federal constitutional amendment that will never pass, but has been adopted in some states. What the courts did (P.O.P.S. v Gardner, 998 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1993)), was to reclassify marriage and family issues from civil law to social policy.

Social policy is an artificial classification invented by the courts to allow greater federal powers. It is at least logically applied to welfare policy. Welfare policy is an arbitrary government policy providing support. It is arbitrary in that rates, i.e. "entitlement" levels, are set only by political decision. There are no individual rights involved - except for the principle of "entitlement" - a non-discriminatory concept that means that you can receive the benefits of the program based on constitutionally allowed conditions (need), regardless of race, etc.

Marriage and family issues have been part of civil law since the nation was founded, and before that in other countries, including England from which we stole a bunch of "common law." In the civil law context, marriage and family are private issues, individual rights must be respected, and the established institutions survived; protected from arbitrary government intrusion.

The one man, one woman constitutional amendment, whether implemented at the federal level or as has now been done in some states, does not begin to address the issue. Marriage and family are still classified as "social policy." They are legally in fact, defined as part of government programs. In the legal sense, the institutions no longer exist, and the marriage vows, taken however seriously, have nothing whatsoever to do with it. From a legal perspective they are meaningless remnants of a bygone era.

The root of the problem is federal pork-barreling, and I'm afraid nothing will cure the problem without forcing the federal government out of the marriage and family business. Constitutionally, the fed. is not authorized to be involved in marriage and family issues - and that's what created the problem. It was necessary for the courts to reclassify marriage and family to social policy, in order to allow the federal government's new involvement - and further to allow arbitrary political control now that they're in. A constitutional amendment reclassifying marriage and family back into civil law seems a logical step - but it's never going to happen while the fed is still using marriage and family for huge arbitrary pork-barrel programs. The two parties simply won't allow it.

[RogerFGay]

Nice that you’re here. I see we still have some fake conservatives to contend with, as well as a crowd that still doesn’t know what happened to marriage and family.

[finnsheep]

Our state has some deal where disaffected underage teens can decide they wish to become “emancipated” and leave home and then the state whips in and supports them.

I don’t really understand how this works, but I know it worked that way for a pregnant teen. She was supplied with an appartment, a vehicle, schooling and babysitting. All this was while she had a home with two parents available.

[Beagle8U]

As long as “marriage” and “family” is used as a term in legal documents it has to be defined somehow in legal terms.

[RogerFGay]

Marriage and family are part of government programs now. They are no longer private institutions. Government has taken over the role of parents, the role of the church, etc. etc.

[RogerFGay]

I have to wonder whether you intend to play nay-sayer no matter how detailed my explanations are. Of course there must be legal definitions for use in legal documents. There are laws on marriage and family and always have been in any form of modern society. In fact, what you said is really a truism in the modern world, isn’t it. If there are legal documents, there must be law and legal definitions. But that in no way avoids the problem that I explained, or justifies its creation.