"War On Poverty" Waged War On Marriage

by JASmius



You could call the Gipper a prophet, except it doesn't exactly require divine revelation to be able to figure out that, to quote another of Dutch's sage observations, "Anything you subsidize, you'll get more of" - in this case, poverty - "and anything you tax, you'll get less of."

Also if what you subsidize disincentivizes what actually works as an anti-poverty device (via Newsmax Insider):

The "War on Poverty" declared by President Lyndon Johnson in 1964 has had only a minor effect on poverty in America, but it has taken a major toll on marriage.

The so-called "Great Society" programs that grew out of the "War on Poverty" included food stamps, Medicare, Medicaid, Head Start, educational funding, housing assistance, and others.

"Ironically, the Great Society legislation seemed to simultaneously both ignore — and hinder — the most effective antipoverty program: marriage," Devon M. Herrick writes in a report from the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).

"The 'War on Poverty' and many of the Great Society programs that grew out of it created perverse incentives to forgo marriage among those who are already poor," because the tax penalties that accompany marriage take a bigger bite out of lower income couples' budgets.

Around 1970, about 84% of native-born 30-to-44-year-old Americans were married. By 2007, the percentage had dropped to 60%. For those without a college degree, it dropped to 56%, and for black women, to 33%.

Many of the Great Society programs are means-tested, and financial penalties kick in when couples get married.

Not the only factor in the War on Marriage, certainly; the "sexual revolution" certainly took its toll, as has abortion on demand, both of which removed the incentive to restrict sexual activity to the "marriage bed" by removing any and all consequences of fornication and adultery.  And that was a prelude to the debaucheries and debasement and degradations being inflicted on the beleaguered institution of marriage these days by homosexual extremists.  But the welfare state certainly got the wrecking ball rolling, so to speak.

Herrick cites the example of a young couple living together out of wedlock who each earn $23,340 a year, twice the poverty level for an individual. If they married, their combined income would rise from 200% to nearly 300% of the poverty level for a family of two.

This could have a profound effect on their eligibility for a range of benefits, including food stamps.

"As a result, this young couple who might otherwise marry may decide they cannot afford to," notes Herrick, a senior fellow with the NCPA.

Precisely as welfare statists intended.  Marriage is so bourgeoisie, so middle class, and a large, robust - which is to say, responsible and independent - middle class is the bane of any would-be socialist dictatorship.  The poorer and more ignorant and dependent the populace can be made, the less likely a constitutional republic is to survive, in the long and even the short run.

The past six years is the dismal proof.

If the couple had a child together and married, they would suffer an estimated penalty of $2,857 per year in higher taxes. But if the mother remained single and reported only her own income, she would qualify for $1,800 more in annual food stamp assistance than she could if she were married. As to why marriage is an anti-poverty tool, Herrick cites a report from the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia that states: "Marriage is a wealth-generating institution; married couples create more economic assets on average than do otherwise similar singles or cohabiting couples." [emphasis added]

Amazing what commitment and hard work can accomplish, isn't it?

Herrick concludes that as a result of marriage penalties related to the War on Poverty programs, "many moderate-income — and middle-income — couples will decide marriage is a luxury they cannot afford."

And thus, the middle class will evaporate away to nothing, Democrat constituencies will swell to near-unanimity, the Right and the GOP will die, and the Left will rule Obamerikastan forever.

That, at least, is the plan - as it always has been.

Exit question: You know what libs' answer to this anti-marriage charge against them will be, right?  Repeal welfare means testing!  After all, it'd only be "fair".