Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Poor Need Job Skills, Not Wedding Rings

By Myra Batchelder, TomPaine.com. Posted October 4, 2006.


Struggling to pay the bills in Washington, D.C.? Some politicians suggest you just get married.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Myra Batchelder

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Sen. Sam Brownback, R.-Kan., and Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.-D.C., were out recently drumming up more funding for a new Washington, D.C.-based marriage promotion incentive program for low-income families. It gives low-income couples who choose to get married many advantages, from priority status for low-income and federally-funded housing to "marriage development accounts," which provide a federally-funded match of three to one for their savings. This program is one of many across the country promoting marriage as a solution to poverty.

At the same time, in another part of the country, the legality of marriage promotion programs is coming into question. Americans United for Separation of Church and State recently filed a lawsuit against the Department of Health and Human Services to block taxpayer funding for a Vancouver, Wash., program that offers "Bible-based" marriage education, citing a violation of the necessary separation between church and state. The debate over marriage promotion programs has officially begun in the courts, and I, for one, hope they are required to change.

The president created the Healthy Marriage Initiative in 2002 to promote marriage among low-income Americans as a way to end poverty and reduce the number of single-parent families. This idea was first presented in the 1996 Welfare Reform Bill, which established the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The Healthy Marriage program was recently given a boost when it was included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that became law this year. The new legislation guarantees $100 million a year over the next five years to be given out to organizations -- many of them religious -- for "healthy marriage promotion activities."

A marriage certificate can't solve every problem faced by America's families. It certainly doesn't keep households across America from the economic strains of job layoffs, inadequate or no health insurance, skyrocketing debt, low wages and the inability to afford higher education. And, in fact, for many women involved in abusive relationships, marriage would be a dangerous step in the wrong direction. Marriage is not the cure-all that the Bush administration claims, nor is it an option for many Americans.

Families across America are indeed struggling, but this program offers no solutions to their real problems: Over 45 million Americans did not have health insurance in 2004. Many are increasingly turning to credit cards to pay their rising bills; Americans now owe over $800 billion in credit card debt. Thirty-seven million Americans live below the poverty line, and 17 percent of children in America live in poverty.

This adds up to a startling reality about the prospects for America's kids, 40 percent of whom are part of low-income families. Their most immediate need is not for their parents to get married -- in fact, half of the children in low-income families live with married parents already. Marriage promotion rings hollow for these families, who are working hard to give their kids a chance in life, yet continuing to fall behind.

This initiative further entrenches an already obvious desire of the this administration and many in Congress -- to create a hierarchy of households in America based on the type of relationship two adults are enjoined in, most notably to the exclusion of same-sex couples. Despite the view offered by many of those on the partisan right, the majority of Americans still believe in the principles of equality, opportunity and fairness for all. Public policies enacted by our government should be beneficial to all Americans who need assistance, not just those in heterosexual marriages.

Yes, marriage offers many benefits to families. But if President Bush really wants to strengthen families, than he'd put his muscle behind policies that would help all families stay healthy, build assets, and plan ahead for education and retirement. Maybe our elected officials need to be reminded of the fact that families need financial security -- a no-brainer, but it seems many have forgotten (witness the recent minimum wage debate). Studies have shown that economic strain is likely a major reason why many marriages split and relationships end. If Congress wants to fortify marriage and the family, they should look more closely at the lives and challenges faced by real families in this country, instead of using religious-fundamentalist ideology to help craft policy, which excludes so many. Unfortunately, the administration is doing just that -- at the cost of programs that are in place to help Americans solve their most pressing concerns. "Healthy Marriage Promotion Activities" divert millions in funding from beneficial programs such as higher education aid, child care, job training and Medicaid that ideally help all families. The Deficit Reduction Act made almost $40 billion in cuts to these and other programs.

As President Bush continues his marriage zealotry, the real economic problems facing families continue to go ignored. Imagine if the president used his power to proclaim a "Living Wage Week" to discuss the importance of livable wages in the fight to end poverty. We might finally have a real debate about the social contract and get down to the business of restoring opportunity for everyone.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Myra Batchelder is a Policy Analyst in the Economic Opportunity Program at Demos.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
decent
Posted by: rsaxto on Oct 4, 2006 2:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bushies don't want a decent society where everyone has a living wage, single-payer health care and votes that count. They want a sick society where the rich are too rich and the poor are too poor and get sick and die young. It seems to me that they have a vision in their heads of how fascism should be and they are forcing the USA toward fascism. We need to force the Bushies toward retirement or jail so that we can have a decent society with justice and liberty for all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: decent Posted by: Conservasaurus
Just what we need
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Oct 4, 2006 3:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
More dysfunctional couples screaming at each other at 2am...which means I have to buy more ear plugs...so the ear plug industry creates more jobs...so the poor can all get jobs at the ear plug factory.

It's the government helping the poor to help the free market to help the poor help themselves.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe our elected officials need to be reminded of the fact that families need financial security
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Oct 4, 2006 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think that Ms. Batchelder is making a common mistake. She along with many others seem to think that all the electorate has to do is point out a problem and our elected leaders will try to solve it. I don't believe this is so. And at least Ms. Batchelder knows at some level that it's not true because she classifies the problem as a "no brainer".

IMHOP I think that our problems aren't solved because both of our political parties and thus our government is controlled by the corporate establishment. For a specific, but typical example, take universal single payer health care. I've read that 75% of Americans favor it. Other developed countries have it so it's apparently not a problem that can't be solved. Does anyone think that our elected officials don't act because nobody reminded them of these facts? Doesn't it seem more likely that they are bowing to the wishes of the corporatocracy that doesn't want to pay taxes for health care? Could that be the "no brainer"?
Bob Reichenbach,
Director, The Lincoln Initiative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Pre WWII professional wage Posted by: BlueTigress
» RE: Pre WWII professional wage Posted by: Lincoln fan
» whatasaurus? Posted by: ezilla
» RE: whatasaurus? Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Honest question: Posted by: YogiBear
» Honest question - my take Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: Honest question: Posted by: Leman
Not that simple...
Posted by: Leman on Oct 4, 2006 4:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's true, just getting everybody paired off will not solve most of the problems. But it will solve some. One of them is the existence of stable committed couples with kids who stay unwed for years, so that the mother could get various single-mom benefits. I don't mind it too much helping a poor mom and an equally poor dad but it seems a bit unfair to those who actually bothered to tie a knot. Well, fair-schmair. That's not my main concern. My main point is that this creative use of the single-mom status is no more constructive than the marriage promotion discussed here.

And, while we are on the subject of oversimplifications and quick fixes: guarantying a "living wage" for everybody is no smarter (and far more destructive economically) than lining everybody up in front of the marriage chapel. Both are cosmetic gimmicks designed for no other purpose but to show how concerned a corresponding Party is with the life of "the working poor".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not that simple... Posted by: thom1525
» RE: Not that simple... Posted by: Leman
Get Married/Get a Job=Get Lost
Posted by: Dianka on Oct 4, 2006 8:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wisconsin took an early lead in transferring tax dollars from welfare aid into funding used to pay off the tax responsibilities of corporations/the wealthy, and to fund a system of "incententives" for businesses to create more jobs. The latter included a number of waivers of labor laws. A huge number of family-supporting jobs were broken down into part-time, no-benefits jobs into which the state poured thousands of welfare recipients. (Also for reasons too complex to detail here, many jobs werte transferred from such businesses as Ray-O-Vac and Friskies cat food into subminimum wage jobs for the disabled/seriously ill, usually at "sheltered workshops", where virtually all labor laws have been waived and workers can be paid as little as $1.25 per hour for routine assembly line/packing chores. A tangle of policies then effectively keeps these people trapped in those jobs.)Thousands found themselves effectively trapped (again too complex to detail here) with an income that consists of a combination of grossly inadequate wages subsidized by a small enough amount of welfare to ensure that their incomes remain well below the poverty line, usually with no way out.
In short, "welfare reform" is actually a system created to establish a large and growing workforce of indentured servants. "The devil is in the details", and those details show how this system keeps people trapped in poverty while dramatically increasing corporate profits. It is a way by which the tax dollars of the people have been used to increase the salaries of CEOs by over 400% in a period of just a few years. And best of all, these policies have have snowball effect: businesses lay off one portion of their workforce, replacing those workers with welfare labor, then lay off another portion, and on and on, saving them the expense of moving factories to Third World nations. Inevitably, a portion of those laid off workers find themselves with no choice but to turn to local Dept. Worforce Development agencies, and they become part of this new super-cheap labor force, and on and on it goes.

The poor already know that marriage is not the answer. We do indeed have a very rigid economic caste system, and people marry into their own caste. Two people in poverty have no better chance of escaping poverty, and marriage only increases the hardships and stresses. Jobs that require hard and dedicated work simply don't pay. One must first have enough money to afford training in specialized areas of employment (i.e., college), and if you don't have the money to begin with, you will remain in poverty. Being poor in America is profoundly stressful, and marriage has little chance of success. There are more options and fewer stresses for those who don't marry. And the poor know it.

This is the "trickle down economy" that Republicans tried to sell during the Reagan administration. What has trickled down is poverty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More Than That
Posted by: NoPCZone on Oct 4, 2006 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The first thing the people of America need is a government that looks out for the interests of it's people first. Right now it's government of, by and for the well-to-do and well connected that has opened our markets up to products from countries with no OSHA, no EPA, no organization rights for labor, etc. No high wage workforce, no matter how smart and productive, can compete with heavily subsidized slave labor.

The poor in this country are taking it up the a** from every direction these days. Unions are being busted, pension plans are vaporizing through corporate bankruptcy, 401k plans are being robbed by Wall Street brokerages, a flood of illegal workers are undercutting wages from beneath, whole industries are being exported to low wage countries, housing prices are out of sight, health insurance plans are getting stingier and pricier every year, higher education costs have outpaced inflation for more than 25 years in a row, the social safety net is full of holes courtesy of the NeoCons and DLC Democrats, etc. Being poor in America these days is an almost inescapable trap.

Getting out of the poverty trap is very difficult for a single person and is squared or cubed if a child or children enter the equation. Add predatory lending and 'bankruptcy reform' to the mix and it's almost impossible. The divide between the private school/gated community crowd and the working poor has never been greater. Such are the seeds of trouble- lots of trouble.

Marriage as an institution in this country is about as relevant as a buggy whip to an airline pilot. Put one poor man and one poor woman into a pot and stir. You now have two poor people and probably three or more before long. What good does that do? Add a faith -based program and you have a poor family of church members. Not much help, is it?

Poverty and the whole matrix of laws and polices that trap people in it are the problem- not a symptom. Until we as a nation begin to value our people, invest in their future, respect their basic human rights, protect them from predatory creditors and provide real equity in our economic, social and legal system it's not going to get better. It's just lipstick on a pig.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the patriarchy, stupid
Posted by: bouyant on Oct 4, 2006 8:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The patriarchy seeks to control women's sexuality and economic status, through punishment for having sex outside patriarchal boundaries and punishment for being uppity enough to want economic self-sufficiency .
The corporatocracy is the result and realization of patriarchal values.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the stupidity of it all Posted by: MartianBachelor
Discrimination based on marital/familial status?
Posted by: rivka_m on Oct 4, 2006 9:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't get why offering special perks to the married isn't discrimination based on marital status and/or familial status? Especially when it comes to the housing. Or does this not apply for some reason? Would anyone care to enlighten me? Outside of the mortgage industry (which this doesn't apply to, and is probably stricter) I'm not familiar with the laws.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

unmarried women are healthier
Posted by: mary-alias on Oct 4, 2006 11:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If I remember the research correctly, unmarried women are healthier than married women, and for men the reverse is true, presumably because the poor boys can't take care of themselves properly.

Maybe we need to make cross-caste marriages more fashionable to spread the wealth.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: unmarried women are healthier Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: unmarried women are healthier Posted by: MartianBachelor
Couple of issues from the piece
Posted by: MartianBachelor on Oct 4, 2006 12:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1) I thought this was all about Bush & Co just trying to go for (seduce?) the woman vote, since it's generally acknowledged women are the "marriage zealots" in this culture, not men.

2) "Studies have shown that economic strain is likely a major reason why many marriages split and relationships end. If Congress wants to fortify marriage..."

They should give them money? I thought that's what was being argued against.

3) Imagine if the president used his power to proclaim a "Living Wage Week"...

Imagine if the people used their power to elect a president who represented their interests. Imagine Ralph Nader being the only candidate in 2004 who made a living wage one of his top priorities, and getting 1/2% of the vote as a result. I'd say the people have spoken loud and clear on this issue.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Couple of issues from the piece Posted by: MartianBachelor
» RE: Couple of issues from the piece Posted by: MartianBachelor
No Program
Posted by: Marverick47 on Oct 4, 2006 9:40 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have friends inside HHS. They tell me they are scrambling to find some content for the marriage programs. The higher ups demand a program with Marriage in the title, but have no real idea, nor any real concern, with the content. I have been asked to provide suggestions by befuddled folks in positions of authority here. This would be funny if it were not so sad.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Program Posted by: hannah
Say what??
Posted by: hannah on Oct 5, 2006 3:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just another way for this administration to get into our bedrooms. Our republican elected leaders seem to think that if they say it isn't so, it won't be. As long as they say that it's illegal for gays to marry, they will quit having relationships. Yeah, right. And as long as they say that poor folks should just get married, everything will be solved. Okey-dokey. Never mind that they know nothing of the kind of lives these folks lead. Drug and alcohol addiction, physical and mental abuse, fathers on a vicious cycle of incarceration. Marriage will solve all of these things? HA!!! The rich politicos live in dream worlds. Get your heads out of your asses. Wake up. Do something about the economy. Get some health care for EVERYONE. Do something to help the single parent families SURVIVE.

And it's not just the severely poor that are struggling. It's the middle class that's having a tough time trying to make ends meet as well. Housing costs that have gone through the roof. STILL no affordable health care. Does marriage solve all these problems? HELL NO!! In fact, the state of our economy and what families are going through now is making it tough on relationships of any shape or form. McMansions going up all around the DC area, most of them costing nearly a million dollars each. These young families buying them, alot of them are paying these interest-only loans. Just wait until the principal part of these loans kick in. And interest rates also starting to head upward. How can relationships survive in the current economy?

The Bushies are heading us in the direction of a country where only the rich can survive. End of story.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]