Republicans are launching a major push to make marriage promotion a center piece of domestic policy.
Republicans have launched a major rhetorical push in the last few weeks to promote the idea that marriage promotion is a great way to address childhood poverty and income inequality. Marco Rubio, the Republican senator from Florida, recently said in a speech, “The truth is, the greatest tool to lift children and families from poverty is one that decreases the probability of child poverty by 82%. But it isn’t a government spending program. It’s called marriage.”
To some degree Rubio is right, marriage does reduce the poverty rate, but this is largely due to how the government calculates poverty, rather than the implied idea that getting married automatically makes you more responsible or something. As Slate’s Mathew Yglesias recently pointed out:
If you look up the Federal Poverty Guidelines you’ll see that the way it works is that one person is poor if he or she earns less than $11,490. But due to household economies of scale, the FPG says that for two people to be non-poor they need to make $15,510 not $22,980. Indeed, the poverty line for a family of three is only $19,530—less than double the poverty line for one. Basically poverty is $11,490 for the first person plus $4,020 for each additional person.
To be sure there very well may be concrete benefits to creating more two family households, but it’s just not clear how the federal government could go about doing it. Indeed the latest push to promote marriage as a tool of social policy seems long on rhetoric and short on specifics. For example, Rubio has purposed bigger earned income tax credits for low-income marriage couples financed by cuts to single workers. Fairness issues aside, this seems a pretty roundabout way of trying to get people to say “I do.” I’m not married, so this is a little outside of my wheelhouse, but I seriously doubt EITC rates factor into most folks’ decision to get hitched.
Maybe our country would be better if more couples got married, but it’s not clear what the federal government can do to remedy this problem. Indeed the standard conservative philosophical point, that government can’t automatically solve all our problems, is probably useful here.
Photo by J. Scott Applewhite/AP
Even if we believe that “household economies of scale” reduce poverty, offering more resources to children if parents live together, that’s not a result of “marriage”. It’s a result of cohabiting. There’s no efficiency gains in being married – in economic terms, it’s just a piece of paper. There *is* efficiency gains in living together.
Even as a married guy, upon hearing “financed by cuts to single workers” makes me want to punch Rubio in the face for the fifth time. Amazing how someone can appear so reasonable and intelligent and yet be neither. I guess what it boils down to is the logical fallacy of belief. The Ayn Rand brand of extreme faith in pure capitalism was a wonderful notion in its infancy, but long before Rand’s birth in Russia, the USA was already suffering under the yoke of unfettered capitalism, leading to rampant poverty, unsafe working conditions, unsafe consumer goods, environmental disaster, and… Read more »
Sorry, that was a tangential rant. Anyhoo, about the marriage thing: I do think we need to structure welfare in a way that financially encourages relatively compatible couples to stick it out for the sake of the kids, and/or to encourage fathers to work and have the means to contribute and participate in their children’s lives. But I doubt focusing on a religious institution (marriage) would accomplish very much. And taking away from poor, single people is patently unfair, especially when the majority of people would love a stable family if they were lucky enough to have one. Encouraging marriage… Read more »
Of course politicians want people to get married so they will produce more taxpayers, or soldiers for future wars. Even using surrogates or artificial insemination, gay couples won’t have nearly as many kids which is the real reason these “family types” oppose gay marriage. Government has NO business in marriage, and it never did.
I actually like Rubio quite a bit and often find myself agreeing with the GOP on economic issues, but I sure wish they would turn a new direction in social issues. I understand how promoting marriage can reduce poverty on some level but, as noted, how is government going to control that? They should stick with the concept of government backing out of our lives, not manipulating them… especially on topics such as marriage. And, while they are at it, they can accept and promote that such benefits of marriage can occur in ALL types of marriages. Perhaps stopping their… Read more »
Well, there’s the segment of the population they’re actively working to prevent from marrying. I reckon they could start there.
The devil is in the details.
To protect marriage, would the ‘Publicans raise or reduce alimony?
Could this also be a way to appeal to women voters?
I wouldn’t put it past them.
I am fearful of such ideas. Marriage should never be a tool. It should be about comitment and not convinience.