Ponderings

In honor of tax day (April 15th) the Institute for American Values released a study entitled “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States.”

An inflammatory title, perhaps, but insomuch as the article addresses the plight of childhood in America, the alarm is appropriate. Today in America, 12.5 million children are hungry, 1.2 million children are homeless , 69% are reading below grade level , and a third will not graduate from high school. These numbers are, from any view, totally unacceptable.

Why are so many of our children hungry, homeless, and undereducated? While everyone can agree that no child ought to be hungry in a land of abundance, political roads diverge as we identify the cause(s).

Ben Scafidi (Economics, Georgia State University) decided to look at the number of these children who have only one parent, and imagined a world where each of them had two. Most of these single parents, he points out, are moms. In fact, one of his assumptions (which he admits might be ‘conservative’) is that zero single dad households would be lifted out of poverty by marriage because (again, his ‘conservative’ estimate) there are no single dad households in poverty. Therefore, while single moms need a male to emerge from poverty, single dads do not need women. If we could get a man into every home, we could, he reasons, end poverty.

The goal of ending poverty is certainly laudable, but just in case we are not moved by nameless children, Scafidi appeals to us as taxpayers. Although the Children’s Defense Fund would point out that our communal support for vulnerable children is woefully lacking, Scafidi suggests that we could actually spend less and get more with a communal emphasis on marriage. He identifies the percentage of poor children in single parent homes and assumes that the equivalent percentage of spending is attributable to marital status. Eliminating single mothers (and their children) would save an estimated $112 billion dollars, annually.

To be sure, one way to lift our children out of poverty would be to add additional wage earners (of either gender) to each home. Single moms would be helpted not only by an additional male wage earner but also by a female one. This welcome of additional adult support in female form is probably not the intent of the study’s sponsors. Given that the Institute for American Values is a self-professed leader in the movement to “save” marriage, the indirect support of Scafidi’s study for lesbian families is an ironic if unintended byproduct.

Before we rush to the altar or cash the refund check, though, I would like to revisit one of at Scafidi’s assumptions. He correctly identifies that single dads fare better than single moms do, a reality that deserves more attention. In fact, dads (men) consistently earn more than moms (women). The United States Bureau of Labor that reports that working full time, women earn only 77.5% of what men earn. Looking at the salary numbers, the AAUW suggests a different approach to the problem Scafidi identifies. They point out that if men and women who share the same hours, education, union status and geographic location also had the same salaries, women’s annual family income would increase by $4000 and poverty would decrease by half. Despite all of our efforts and protestations to the contrary, sexism in the payroll department is irrefutable.

Although Scafidi is technically correct in suggesting that an additional adult (male or female) wage earner to the family will reduce poverty, the more immediate and just response is to raise the mother’s salary.

Co-sponsors of the study include the Georgia Family Council, the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, and Families Northwest
http://www.familyhomelessness.org/pdf/fact_outcasts.pdf http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/edu2.asp
http://www.aypf.org/publications/WhateverItTakes/WIT_nineseconds.pdf
http://www.aypf.org/publications/WhateverItTakes/WIT_nineseconds.pdf