Do you know what is one of the best ways to predict whether or not a child growing up in poverty will remain in poverty as an adult? The answer is the marital status of the kid's parents; for poor children with two married parents, 50% move to higher income levels while those raised with divorced parents succeed on reaching higher incomes only 26% of the time. It is a staggering difference. It is also the subject of a rather insightful column today by Michael Barone at National Review Online.
This difference in outcomes is well documented and beyond dispute. It is also not something about which we hear very often. That may seem strange since these days we hear an almost endless discussion about the increasing inequality of income distribution in America. How can it be that one of the most important causes of continuing income inequality is not discussed? Of course, the answer to this riddle is a simple one. The constant talk of income inequality comes from the left, and that group is the same one that celebrates all sorts of "diverse" lifestyles. The liberals cannot stand the thought that one parent homes are causing continuing poverty for the children in those homes. Indeed, to admit that fact would require the liberals to agree to policies designed to promote marriage and stable, two parent households. In other words, the liberals would have to promote traditional values, and there is no way that they can bring themselves to do that.
One thing that Michael Barone points out in his column that needs to be repeated here is his discussion of the supposed epidemic of divorce. You may recall hearing how one marriage in two ends in divorce. That statistic is often repeated, but -- here's the good news -- it is no longer true. Barone reports that among college educated whites, divorce has fallen dramatically and is now down almost to the levels of the 1960's. It is in the rest of the population that single parenthood has become the norm. When you throw in all the liberal "anti-poverty" policies that have promoted the disintegration of poor families, you realize that one of the big consequences of the War on Poverty that began in the 1960s has been a reduction in social mobility. Unlike earlier times, the poor have tended to stay poor while the wealthy have tended to stayed wealthy.
In a rational world, the demonstrated consequences of many of the liberal anti-poverty programs would lead to their repeal so as to limit the damage that they do to society. That never happens, however. Any attempt to change or end a policy described as "anti-poverty" is portrayed as heartless and mean-spirited. The debate never centers on whether or not the program works or helps the poor; the issue is always portrayed as whether or not one wants to help end poverty. As a result, few, if any, politicians are willing to take a stand against destructive liberal policies that continue to do damage year after year. Ignorance and politics win out over rationality and the good of the nation.
This difference in outcomes is well documented and beyond dispute. It is also not something about which we hear very often. That may seem strange since these days we hear an almost endless discussion about the increasing inequality of income distribution in America. How can it be that one of the most important causes of continuing income inequality is not discussed? Of course, the answer to this riddle is a simple one. The constant talk of income inequality comes from the left, and that group is the same one that celebrates all sorts of "diverse" lifestyles. The liberals cannot stand the thought that one parent homes are causing continuing poverty for the children in those homes. Indeed, to admit that fact would require the liberals to agree to policies designed to promote marriage and stable, two parent households. In other words, the liberals would have to promote traditional values, and there is no way that they can bring themselves to do that.
One thing that Michael Barone points out in his column that needs to be repeated here is his discussion of the supposed epidemic of divorce. You may recall hearing how one marriage in two ends in divorce. That statistic is often repeated, but -- here's the good news -- it is no longer true. Barone reports that among college educated whites, divorce has fallen dramatically and is now down almost to the levels of the 1960's. It is in the rest of the population that single parenthood has become the norm. When you throw in all the liberal "anti-poverty" policies that have promoted the disintegration of poor families, you realize that one of the big consequences of the War on Poverty that began in the 1960s has been a reduction in social mobility. Unlike earlier times, the poor have tended to stay poor while the wealthy have tended to stayed wealthy.
In a rational world, the demonstrated consequences of many of the liberal anti-poverty programs would lead to their repeal so as to limit the damage that they do to society. That never happens, however. Any attempt to change or end a policy described as "anti-poverty" is portrayed as heartless and mean-spirited. The debate never centers on whether or not the program works or helps the poor; the issue is always portrayed as whether or not one wants to help end poverty. As a result, few, if any, politicians are willing to take a stand against destructive liberal policies that continue to do damage year after year. Ignorance and politics win out over rationality and the good of the nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment