Strengthening Traditional Families
Traditional Families Are Important to Oklahoma Economic Development
by Gregory J. Palumbo, Ph.D.
A statistic recently published in The Daily Oklahoman paints a grim
picture for the state.Medicaid pays for 47% of the births in Oklahoma. This
number is important because it is indicative of the large number of poor
households with childrenhouseholds dependent on government assistance and
financed by the taxpayer.
Divorce and broken families, families not forming, teen pregnancy and
out-of-wedlock births signal a bleak economic picture for Oklahoma. Since
1980, the marriage rate has plummeted. While Oklahoma is not the only state
facing these issues, Oklahoma is a national leader in these statistics. This
has exacerbated the decline in Oklahoma's economic prosperity over the past
two decades.
Once ranking near the middle in per capita income, Oklahoma now ranks almost
last. Although not every birth paid for by Medicaid is to a single parent or
broken family, it still serves as a benchmark for the instability in Oklahoma
families today. Why would such a conservative and Christian state be, in
effect, well on the path to socialism and being a welfare state?
The probability that one parent will raise a child today is around 60%,
and rising. As the numbers of broken families increase, so do the taxes that
fund more government programs, the cost of which includes education,
healthcare, and even prisons. Is the continued destruction of the traditional
family a trend in America? Without question. And there are suggestions that
current policy may be promoting this trend, even subsidizing it.
Michael Tanner and Naomi Lopez of the Cato Institute have provided insight
into these destructive forces in a 1995 report. They discovered that
government programs often provided more benefits to a mother with children
outside of marriage than in marriage, more even than she could earn in the
workforce. Until recently, the mother could only qualify for these programs
as long as she was not married to the father. Ultimately, this became an
incentive: if you get married, if you enter into the traditional family
structure, you can't have benefits. For some, this also proved to be a way
to raise their standard of livinga mother could receive benefits, and move
some other male into her household.
The increase in entitlements for broken families has been mirrored by
increases in the number of families on welfare. In 1960, there were over
700,000 families receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children. AFDC was
originally intended to give financial support to a family that had lost a
husband through death or injury such as occurred in war. It was not
intended to be lifelong assistance.
As more benefits were added to the welfare package, the number of single
parent familiesheaded by mothersrose dramatically. By 1994, there were
over 5 million families of this type. This was a 700% increase in welfare
families, though our population did not double. According to the U.S. Census
and the 1996 U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Green Book, this
was more than 15% of all families with children under 18.
According to the Cato Institute, average benefits for a mother with two
children in Oklahoma was $17,700 in 1994. Since welfare reform in 1996, cash
assistance (TANFTemporary Aid to Needy Families) and a housing subsidy
have been limited to 5 years. Still, the benefits received by a single mother
with two children today are more than what was available to them before
welfare reform.
A study done in 2000, by Professor Bob Reed at the University of Oklahoma
clearly shows that benefits to a mother with two children have increased
since those reported by the Cato Institute in 1994. He states:"One observes
that there is little reward for achieving wage gains beyond the minimum wage.
In fact, this welfare recipient would have to earn an incredible $17 per
hour (approximately $34,000 a year assuming full-time, full-year work) before
she was able to attain the same level of income and benefits she received
when she was working at the minimum wage ($5.15 per hour). With respect to
marriage, we find that transfer and tax programs can produce large marriage
disincentives."
Is this what we empower government to doto reward bad behavior with
financial assistance, promote the destruction of two parent family with
financial incentives, with no strings attached and no end in sight? The
recent removal of the marriage tax penalty pales in comparison to the
benefits that can follow the children in a broken family.
Dr. Reed is not alone in his assessment. Mark Rodgers, a former economist
with the Federal Reserve Bank in Atlanta, has conducted similar evaluations.
He documents, in the Family Law Quarterly in 1999, that the net income to a
custodial parentoutside of marriageoften provides a higher standard of
living due to tax laws, and child support payments, for low to middle income
parents.
Since Roe vs. Wade, our nation continues to pass laws that make mothers
the sole arbiter for childrenfrom killing the unborn, to the exclusion of
father's rights and those of the extended family. Oklahoma is no different
and last year sank to a new low. The legislature passed a baby abandonment
bill that allows the mother to give up her child, never mind the father's
wishes. Can you imagine the outcry if we made a law that gave fathers such a
choice; that from conception to birth, all decisions pertaining to the
welfare of your child are yours to make, even if that means a total
abdication of your responsibility?
Our path, however unwittingly, has been one that now devalues the
importance of the two-parent family. It hinders its formation, and encourages
its dissolutiondivorce is, after all, no ones fault anymore. Public
policy, and law, now states that one parent can to do what is his or her best
interests, never mind what's best for the children, without accountability or
responsibility.
The Oklahoma legislature should address all current policies that require
no accountability, that encourage single parenthood, divorce, and the lack of
commitment. We should support young couples that are unmarried, but expecting
a child, by providing assistance if they get married. Oklahoma should make
assistance for young parents dependent on identifying the father of a child,
and if need be, to establish paternity by DNA testing. We should hold the
mother responsible for all Medicaid costs for her pregnancy unless she does
so, and then we should hold each parent equally responsible for a part of
those costs, if not all of them.
There are many other inequities in the laws that need to be addressed in
Oklahoma. We should revamp our paternity establishment laws, both inside and
outside of marriage, and the responsibilities that are assigned due to the
results. Other states are already doing so. We should re-institute fault
divorce. A parent who does not care enough for their children to try anything
to make a marriage work should not be rewarded with custody should the
marriage fail due to their actions.
Nor should we allow physical custody to parents who have live-in partners
outside of marriage. We should re-examine the "move-away" laws, state
policies on assistance and child support, and the rights of children to know
and have meaningful relationships with both parents and extended family. We
should expand our abstinence education programs statewide.Mostly symbolic
though it may be, we should pass the covenant marriage law. And finally, we
should revamp our tax code to reward married parents with children,
especially if one parent chooses to stay home.
As we approach our 5th Annual Pro-Family Day Rally at the Capitol this
spring, we realize that we have much to work on. In an attempt to protect our
children, we have provided incentives that have undermined the traditional
family. Government aid has, to some extent, replaced accountability and
responsibility, and displaced mom and dad. Anti-traditional family
incentives exist today, and the law mandates them. Furthermore, the taxpayer
funds it. Government cannot replace the role of mother and father.
Why should we promote traditional family structure in Oklahoma? Because
the traditional family composed of husband and wife is designed to provide a
child's physical, emotional, spiritual, and social needs. In the absence of
both a mother and father, providing for the emotional and financial needs of
a child becomes more difficult.
A traditional family provides for children the best role models, is less
likely to live in poverty, and provides the safest environment having the
lowest rates of domestic violence and child abuse and neglect. A traditional
family encourages happiness, health, and good education for their children
creating the next generation of citizens that are constructive members of
society maintaining fruitful employment. Most children gain much from being
raised in a traditional family by both a mother and a father.
We must remain vigilant, and remember that the proper role of government
is not to create more government.It is there to serve us.It's time we
revisit our historythat God, marriage and traditional families are the
bedrock upon which liberty, freedom, and civilization exists. Stable family
life is essential for economic prosperity in Oklahoma and the future of
Oklahoma.
