Marriage is the Strongest Factor in Reducing Child Poverty in the U.S.
Over a third of single-parent families with children are poor, compared to only seven percent of married families. Overall, children in married families are 82 percent less likely to be poor than are children of single parents. The strong impact of marriage in reducing poverty still appears when married and non-married families of the same race and education level are compared.
In responding to crimes such as the
Public survey studies of same-sex marriage have been largely inconsistent. It is true that support is polls juxtaposed to performance at the ballot box is lacking, but the trend is clear if we look at the long-term.
Congress should require the President’s annual budget to detail current and future aggregate federal means-tested welfare spending. The budget should also provide estimates of state contributions to federal welfare programs.
Abstract
In United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Supreme Court will consider the constitutionality of government policies that reflect traditional marriage—that is, marriage as a union between one man and one woman. If the Court does not dismiss these cases on jurisdictional grounds, it should act to uphold traditional marriage. Nothing in the Court’s jurisprudence suggests that the right of same-sex couples to have their relationships recognized as marriages is so fundamental as to be protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. Nor does the Equal Protection Clause require that result, given the societal purpose and value of marriage as furthering procreation and child-rearing. Because the Constitution does not speak to this question, it is one that is left to ordinary political processes, not to judicial fiat.
During the Kermit Gosnell trial, abortionist groups
President Obama’s approval rating has fallen to 47 percent, and the GOP has taken a small 1 percent lead in the Generic Congressional Ballot. Interestingly, and perhaps even more importantly, the GOP is now trusted more on the issue of government ethics and corruption.
Saving the American Dream is the one plan that will balance America’s budget—once and for all. From entitlements to tax reform to government spending, it tackles the big problems. Together, we can change the status quo in Washington.
The American welfare state is not as different from the European welfare state as conventional wisdom would have it. If we define the welfare state as that part of the state (the whole apparatus of government at all levels) devoted to taking charge of the welfare of the public, welfare-state functions cover social protection (which includes public pensions), health, and education. As shown in Table 1, these functions make up 57 percent of total U.S. government expenditures compared to 63 percent for the typical eurozone country.1 In this sense, the American welfare state is only about 10 percent smaller than the European welfare state.
Margaret Thatcher once quipped about the problem facing modern social welfare states: “They always run out of other people’s money.” Today, in country after country, we are seeing that prophetic remark coming true.
