Ever wonder what divorce and illegitimacy cost us taxpayers? Try over $112 billion.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/29/...-the-taxpayer/

David R. Usher

$112-billion: What Divorce and Illegitimacy Costs the Taxpayer
June 29, 2008

The Institute for American Values (IAV) has issued a major report titled
"The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing", conservatively
estimating the cost to taxpayers at $112 billion.

This is a very conservative estimate because it either understates or does
not include federal expenditures driving decisions to not marry or to have
children for profit. Programs that stimulate marriage-absence include
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and programs that are widely
abused to abort marriage such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and
the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA).

The IAV understates the cost and impact of TANF, which gives states
$16-billion annually in seed money to generate more child support orders
under the guise of welfare. IAV values TANF at $5-billion - a significant
understatement of the actual cost. Most Americans do not realize that TANF
is not a tithe to help a few single mothers living in poverty. It formalizes
the "man out of the house rule" and is nothing more than a loan to a woman
to be collected from some guy as "child support".

Both VAWA and VOCA contain provisions funding arbitrary and irresponsible
destruction of marriage in the name of "choice" and "domestic violence".
VAWA pegs in at $1-billion. I am not sure what portion of VOCA applies.

Other costs to taxpayers are not included. A good portion of the home loan
crises is strongly associated with divorce. Many loans were made to
unqualified single parents. Divorcing families move into high-risk category
because they have to support two households on the same income. Nobody yet
knows what the home loan crisis will ultimately cost the taxpayer - but we
do know it is a horrendous figure taking down banks, threatening the Federal
Reserve system, and the value of the dollar on the world market.

It is estimated that three-quarters of our massive national health care
insurance problem would go away if mothers simply married the fathers of
their children. We do not yet know what Congress will do to pass this off on
the taxpayer.

Most importantly, readers should understand the political meaning and
purpose of the IAV report. Failed welfare reform policies of the 1990's
evolved in an identical arena of concern about taxpayer burdens and blaming
father-absence on men created by Blankenhorn. This report is a predecessor
to some even nastier legislation they have in mind.

David Blankenhorn's primary thesis still improperly blames father-absence on
men "abdicating" their roles as fathers and husbands, while claiming that
"father-absence is the greatest social problem we face". There is no study
in existence supporting these notions.

The vast body of studies prove the "Blankenhorn paradox" to be absolutely
wrong. Nevertheless, the Blankenhorn paradox was the basis for welfare
reform policies in the 1990's - which are failures because they propelled
illegitimacy and non-marriage to new historic levels and made poverty a
crime if one happens to be a poor father.

How did Blankenhorn pull this off? Liberals love collecting child support
and building bigger welfare states. Conservatives were absolutely addicted
to Blankenorn's voluminous and brilliant writings on the "importance of
marriage". Conservatives subsequently bought Blankenhorn's father-absence
abdication theory without questioning the premises. Conservatives literally
fell head-first into radical liberal policy in the name of "personal
responsibility".

If Blankenhorn's thesis is wrong, then what is right?

Marriage-absence is the greatest social problem we face.

Father-absence, poverty, and illegitimacy are the results of government
programs that have aggressively undermined the marriage market since 1960.
When we view our national problems from the correct heirarchical
perspective, the disastrous impact on women, children, men, and marriage is
quite simple to discern.

The Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council are beginning to
understand what went wrong, but there are still many stumbling blocks to be
cleared. With time and conference calls, we will clear them and begin the
second Republican revolution - this time founded on solid social policy
agenda.

I recommend we welcome IAV's report. but we should expect that IAV's policy
recommendations will be wrong every time because it consistently analyzes
the wrong problem from the wrong perspective. The use of misdirected anger
about father-absence as a an emotional cover to push federal policies
funding more divorce and illegitimacy, at the direct expense of marriage,
must never be permitted again.

I just don't care anymore!



"Dusty" wrote in message
...
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/06/29/...-the-taxpayer/

David R. Usher

$112-billion: What Divorce and Illegitimacy Costs the Taxpayer
June 29, 2008

The Institute for American Values (IAV) has issued a major report titled
"The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing", conservatively
estimating the cost to taxpayers at $112 billion.

This is a very conservative estimate because it either understates or does
not include federal expenditures driving decisions to not marry or to have
children for profit. Programs that stimulate marriage-absence include
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and programs that are
widely abused to abort marriage such as the Violence Against Women Act
(VAWA), and the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA).

The IAV understates the cost and impact of TANF, which gives states
$16-billion annually in seed money to generate more child support orders
under the guise of welfare. IAV values TANF at $5-billion - a significant
understatement of the actual cost. Most Americans do not realize that TANF
is not a tithe to help a few single mothers living in poverty. It
formalizes the "man out of the house rule" and is nothing more than a loan
to a woman to be collected from some guy as "child support".

Both VAWA and VOCA contain provisions funding arbitrary and irresponsible
destruction of marriage in the name of "choice" and "domestic violence".
VAWA pegs in at $1-billion. I am not sure what portion of VOCA applies.

Other costs to taxpayers are not included. A good portion of the home loan
crises is strongly associated with divorce. Many loans were made to
unqualified single parents. Divorcing families move into high-risk
category because they have to support two households on the same income.
Nobody yet knows what the home loan crisis will ultimately cost the
taxpayer - but we do know it is a horrendous figure taking down banks,
threatening the Federal Reserve system, and the value of the dollar on the
world market.

It is estimated that three-quarters of our massive national health care
insurance problem would go away if mothers simply married the fathers of
their children. We do not yet know what Congress will do to pass this off
on the taxpayer.

Most importantly, readers should understand the political meaning and
purpose of the IAV report. Failed welfare reform policies of the 1990's
evolved in an identical arena of concern about taxpayer burdens and
blaming father-absence on men created by Blankenhorn. This report is a
predecessor to some even nastier legislation they have in mind.

David Blankenhorn's primary thesis still improperly blames father-absence
on men "abdicating" their roles as fathers and husbands, while claiming
that "father-absence is the greatest social problem we face". There is no
study in existence supporting these notions.

The vast body of studies prove the "Blankenhorn paradox" to be absolutely
wrong. Nevertheless, the Blankenhorn paradox was the basis for welfare
reform policies in the 1990's - which are failures because they propelled
illegitimacy and non-marriage to new historic levels and made poverty a
crime if one happens to be a poor father.

How did Blankenhorn pull this off? Liberals love collecting child support
and building bigger welfare states. Conservatives were absolutely addicted
to Blankenorn's voluminous and brilliant writings on the "importance of
marriage". Conservatives subsequently bought Blankenhorn's father-absence
abdication theory without questioning the premises. Conservatives
literally fell head-first into radical liberal policy in the name of
"personal responsibility".

If Blankenhorn's thesis is wrong, then what is right?

Marriage-absence is the greatest social problem we face.

Father-absence, poverty, and illegitimacy are the results of government
programs that have aggressively undermined the marriage market since 1960.
When we view our national problems from the correct heirarchical
perspective, the disastrous impact on women, children, men, and marriage
is quite simple to discern.

The Heritage Foundation and Family Research Council are beginning to
understand what went wrong, but there are still many stumbling blocks to
be cleared. With time and conference calls, we will clear them and begin
the second Republican revolution - this time founded on solid social
policy agenda.

I recommend we welcome IAV's report. but we should expect that IAV's
policy recommendations will be wrong every time because it consistently
analyzes the wrong problem from the wrong perspective. The use of
misdirected anger about father-absence as a an emotional cover to push
federal policies funding more divorce and illegitimacy, at the direct
expense of marriage, must never be permitted again.

"DB" wrote in message
...
I just don't care anymore!

Well I damned well do!! It's my bloody money they're screwin' around with!!

(psst.. and yours too)

"Dusty" wrote in message
...
"DB" wrote in message
...
I just don't care anymore!

Well I damned well do!! It's my bloody money they're screwin' around
with!!

(psst.. and yours too)


Yea I know, I just watch them take more taxes, bank fees, extortionate CS
rates, higher gas prices, and now tolls for using the same highways we have
already paid for.

Every control and interest group has their hands in my pockets along with
charities wanting more too.
IN this country you can't even take a **** without is being taxed and
regulated.


I'm at the point now where they can just take it all! All I ask is leave me
a couple food tickets so I can get some macaroni and cheese and leave me the
**** alone!!!!!!

America, home of the Fee, land of the Lawyer.