The latest installment in our “New Marriage Conversation” partnership with Huffington Post is a new piece by David Blankenhorn, Amber Lapp and me reacting to President Obama’s call in his State of the Union that we ought to eliminate marriage penalities for low-income Americans.
We write, in part:
Too often in America, debates about marriage have divided us. Here is an example of a marriage reform that could unite us.
Liberals should like this proposal because it increases assets for the poor. Conservatives should like it because it encourages young parents to get married instead of shacking up, and it could reduce welfare dependency over the long term. President Obama often says that our nation’s seniors should not be forced to choose between putting food on the table and getting their prescriptions. Similarly, young mothers like Stephanie should not have to choose between getting married or continuing to feed their children.
Categories: Marriage
I’m thrilled you’re advocating for this. However, I want more!
I’m concerned about what would happen after three years. I think the couple might also be worried about that, especially if they are living close to the fault line.
So would it help if step-fathers weren’t expected to support their step-children, at least if they have incomes at the border of needing SNAP (previously known as food stamps)?
What if with couples who are living near poverty we counting the incomes for a married couple separately? Would that be workable?
Is there any other way to work this?
I think this is a good idea. I’d like to see someone in Congress pick this up as an issue, so that the CBO could be requested to do an estimate of how much this program would cost.
“How would this be paid for” is a critical question, although I understand why you didn’t address that in your piece. I’d personally want this paid for with deficit spending, at least until the economy is in better shape, but that probably wouldn’t be a politically viable option, alas.
Good point about costs. I wonder if in the long-run there might be some savings, though.
I think this is a great idea as long as it’s doesn’t leech funds from anywhere else. So now that that’s out of the way what’s next? The way things are going she’s going to lose her food stamps married or not. The government is in the process of gutting the social safety net, TANF included. How about a post on political action? Lots of people read this blog and Dreher and Front Porch. Why not organize on this one issue? Write some editorials, NRO and the NYT. There are primers all over the net. How to call your rep, work for candidates who support these programs, donate to candidates. Policy can be moved if you organize.
Mont brings up a really good question. I have read the last couple of years of State of Our Unions, and I am all for the work behind them, but do you have suggestions for the best ways we can jump on board and work with rather than independently from your efforts?
@Barry – Here’s a link to the US Department of Health and Human Services (State Policies to Promote Marriage).
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/marriage02f/report.htm#exh1
Look under the column “State Tax: No or Reduced Marriage Penalty.” As you can see, the majority of states are ALREADY doing this so I’m not sure why we’re demanding more. At what point, do we stop throwing money at a problem? In my opinion, the root of the issue is no-fault divorce.
There are other columns to note: “Marriage Education for Adults” and “Incentives for Marriage Preparation.” It seems the state is already trying to strengthen marriage by ‘incentiving’ it in the best interests of children.
*Correction Addendum: “Incentivizing” versus “Incentiving”
Oops