Skip to main content

I can't help thinking that the New York Times is making the case for government intervention in marriage

No, I'm not kidding.

In a recent article the NYT narrated the differences between the lives of single parents and married couples, and included this demographic information:

The economic storms of recent years have raised concerns about growing inequality and questions about a core national faith, that even Americans of humble backgrounds have a good chance of getting ahead. Most of the discussion has focused on labor market forces like falling blue-collar wages and lavish Wall Street pay.
But striking changes in family structure have also broadened income gaps and posed new barriers to upward mobility. College-educated Americans like the Faulkners are increasingly likely to marry one another, compounding their growing advantages in pay. Less-educated women like Ms. Schairer, who left college without finishing her degree, are growing less likely to marry at all, raising children on pinched paychecks that come in ones, not twos.
Estimates vary widely, but scholars have said that changes in marriage patterns — as opposed to changes in individual earnings — may account for as much as 40 percent of the growth in certain measures of inequality. Long a nation of economic extremes, the United States is also becoming a society of family haves and family have-nots, with marriage and its rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes.
“It is the privileged Americans who are marrying, and marrying helps them stay privileged,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University.

It is the language that this is being framed in that is so troubling.  In a nation in which language like "barriers to upward mobility," "growing advantages in pay," "growth in certain measures of inequality," "rewards evermore confined to the fortunate classes," and "marrying helps them stay privileged," often immediately preceeds a call for government intervention, I wonder what this article is setting us up for.

I can think of several ideas that are--when I first consider them--laughable, but which grow less amusing as I reflect that there will be politicians (even in the White House) who will eventually champion them.

If marriage equates to privilege and creating socioeconomic inequality, how long will it be before we see a campaign for a "single parent tax credit" designed to insure that the children in such families are given an "equal chance" at "upward social mobility"?

How would we pay for such a tax credit (which more than likely would take the form of a direct payment, like the current EITC)?

I see several options:

I can see people arguing with a straight face that married couples should have to pay an excise tax on childcare and summer camps in order to share their privilege with others (after all, we must all take care of each other, even if it comes at the expense of taking the best possible care of our own children).

I can see legislators, even in this State, willing to introduce legislation that creates an intentionally larger "marriage penalty" into the tax code to offset the economic advantages of marriage.  In some cases, wherein the married couple's income totaled over $250,000/year, I can see a second Obama administration arguing that "you didn't get married into a college-educated, two income family on your own merits," but that "government created that opportunity for you to meet a suitably productive lifemate in college, and you need to be prepared to give something back."  I

t will be argued that married couples who don't want to share a greater portion of their economic success due the "fortunate advantage" of being married are being "selfish" and "unpatriotic" to want to invest their wealth exclusively toward the well-being of their own children.

This may all sound like amusing hyperbole today, but give it a few years and I don't think you will be chuckling any more.

Comments

Unknown said…
Sheer silliness. But then again, we've been down this path before. Welcome to the monkey house.
tom said…
"THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal. They weren't only equal before God and the law. They were equal every which way. Nobody was smarter than anybody else. Nobody was better looking than anybody else. Nobody was stronger or quicker than anybody else. All this equality was due to the 211th, 212th, and 213th Amendments to the Constitution, and to the unceasing vigilance of agents of the United States Handicapper General."
tom said…
a progressive utopia if ever there was one...
delacrat said…
Steve,

I read the NYT article in its entirety. Nowhere does it call for any government program like a "single parent tax credit" or "EITC" that would help a single parent. While the NYT laments Ms. Schairer's circumstances, you may rest assured it does not advocate actually be done about them.
delacrat

Nowhere in my post did I allege that the author advocated government intervention.

What I said is that this is definite precursor language to proposing intervention.

Thanks, but I do Ok with reading comprehension on my own.

Popular posts from this blog

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?

New Warfare: I started my posts with a discussion.....

.....on Unrestricted warfare . The US Air force Institute for National Security Studies have developed a reasonable systems approach to deter non-state violent actors who they label as NSVA's. It is an exceptionally important report if we want to deter violent extremism and other potential violent actors that could threaten this nation and its security. It is THE report our political officials should be listening to to shape policy so that we do not become excessive in using force against those who do not agree with policy and dispute it with reason and normal non-violent civil disobedience. This report, should be carefully read by everyone really concerned with protecting civil liberties while deterring violent terrorism and I recommend if you are a professional you send your recommendations via e-mail at the link above so that either 1.) additional safeguards to civil liberties are included, or 2.) additional viable strategies can be used. Finally, one can only hope that politici

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba