Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Should mothers who have children out of wedlock be denied welfare?

Posted by on Dec. 9, 2012 at 10:59 PM
  • 140 Replies

Pro  
Michael D. Tanner
Senior Fellow, Cato Institute. Written for CQ Researcher, October 2011

Since Lyndon Johnson declared a War on Poverty in 1965, the federal government has spent roughly $18 trillion fighting poverty, almost $700 billion this year alone, on some 107 separate programs. Yet, the poverty rate stands at 15.1 percent. While this number may be partially inflated because of the poor economy, it is important to realize that, despite trillions in spending, we have never gotten the poverty rate below 11 percent. Clearly we are doing some things wrong.

One is perpetuating government programs that create an incentive for behavior that is likely to lead to poverty. In particular, our welfare programs continue to provide benefits to women who give birth out of wedlock.

The concern over this trend is not about personal morality. Having a child out of wedlock often means a lifetime of poverty. Children living with single mothers are almost six times more likely to be poor than those living with two parents. More than 20 percent of welfare recipients start on welfare because they have an out-of-wedlock birth. They also tend to stay on welfare longer than other recipients.

The trend is even worse among unwed teenage mothers. Half go on welfare within one year of the birth of their first child; 75 percent are on welfare within five years of the child's birth. Women who started on welfare because of an out-of-wedlock birth average more than nine years on welfare and make up roughly 40 percent of all recipients who are on welfare for 10 years or longer.

While there are many factors behind the rise in out-of-wedlock births, the availability of welfare is one. Of the more than 20 major studies of the issue, more than three-quarters show a significant link between benefit levels and out-of-wedlock childbearing.

Obviously no one gets pregnant to get welfare. But by softening the immediate as opposed to the long-term economic consequences of out-of-wedlock births, welfare has removed a major incentive to avoid them. As Charles Murray, a political scientist at the American Enterprise Institute, put it, “The evil of the modern welfare state is not that it bribes women to have babies — wanting to have babies is natural — but that it enables women to bear children without the natural social restraints.”

A good start to a welfare policy that might actually reduce poverty would be to set a date — say nine months from today — after which an out-of-wedlock birth would no longer make one eligible for welfare.

Con  
Ladonna A. Pavetti
Vice President for Family Income-Support Policy, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Written for CQ Researcher, October 2011

The case for rejecting a policy that would deny cash assistance to mothers who have children out of wedlock was compelling in 1996, when Congress created Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) — the current welfare law — and it's even more compelling now.

For starters, such a policy would deny support to children who bear no responsibility for their parents’ actions. With growing evidence that poverty among young children reduces their chances of success throughout their lives, we should do everything we can to make sure that all children have the support they need to become productive adults.

A recent article by University of California, Irvine, education professor Greg J. Duncan and University of Wisconsin, Madison, professor of social work Katherine Magnuson provides all the evidence we need. Duncan is one of the most respected academic researchers on the consequences of childhood poverty, and he has always been particularly cautious in drawing policy conclusions from academic research. Two key points from the article stand out:

  • Income matters for young, low-income children's learning;

  • Poverty in early childhood may reduce earnings much later in life.

The authors recommend that states avoid TANF policy changes that threaten the well-being of young children. Indeed, we should be seeking more ways to remediate deep and persistent poverty in early childhood — not fewer.

Besides, although TANF provides an important safety net for single-parent families, it is not the main source of support for families with out-of-wedlock children. So, denying them these benefits will play no role in changing societal behavior. In the late 1990s, when the economy was strong, record numbers of single parents entered the labor force, reaching a high of 83 percent by 2000. Even in the current economy, 74 percent of them still work. In contrast, only 27 families for every 100 in poverty receive TANF benefits. And, TANF benefits are meager: In the median state in 2011, a family of three received $429 per month; in 14 states, such a family received less than $300.

In 1968, the Supreme Court ruled that children born to unmarried parents could not be punished for their parents’ actions. The question we should be answering is: How can we make investments in our children that guarantee bright and productive futures for all of them? The answers matter not only for our children, but for all of us.

by on Dec. 9, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
futureshock
by Ruby Member on Dec. 9, 2012 at 10:59 PM

source

http://photo.pds.org:5012/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2011102806

AlekD
by Gold Member on Dec. 9, 2012 at 11:02 PM
4 moms liked this
No. If they need the money to provide for their children it is our responsibility to help lest America become a nation of starving children.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
Mommy_of_Riley
by Jes on Dec. 9, 2012 at 11:08 PM
No.

Sometimes people just need help.
Posted on CafeMom Mobile
colins_mom
by Silver Member on Dec. 9, 2012 at 11:13 PM
2 moms liked this

especially in a day and age when many people don't see the point in marriage at all unless they are religious (at least around where I live).

why punish the child for the sins of the parent (not calling it a sin, just using the old adage)

Quoting AlekD:

No. If they need the money to provide for their children it is our responsibility to help lest America become a nation of starving children.


Claire-Huxtable
by on Dec. 9, 2012 at 11:16 PM

I think not allowing additional stuff if you have another while on welfare is a good idea.   Maybe if she had to pay for the doctor visit or those school lunches, she might do different stuff.

Veni.Vidi.Vici.
by on Dec. 9, 2012 at 11:20 PM

The gov't should start by cleaning up other kinds of PA if they feel that implementing this can be a 'good thing'.

my answer is no

tooptimistic
by Kelly on Dec. 9, 2012 at 11:21 PM

nope.

Tara922c
by on Dec. 9, 2012 at 11:22 PM
3 moms liked this
No. Denying welfare or PA to women who had children out of wedlock does nothing but hurt the child. People are not going to stop having sex because they wont be able to collect welfare. People had kids they couldn't afford long before welfare was established.

Wouldn't it be discrimination to deny an unwed single mother welfare, but provide welfare for the married couple that were poor when they got pregnant?
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
krysstizzle
by on Dec. 9, 2012 at 11:25 PM
2 moms liked this

The Cato Institute? Blech.

Arroree
by Ruby Member on Dec. 9, 2012 at 11:27 PM
2 moms liked this

And how exactly do you suggest she pay for those things when she has no money to pay for food?? This idea makes no sense at all.

Quoting Claire-Huxtable:

I think not allowing additional stuff if you have another while on welfare is a good idea.   Maybe if she had to pay for the doctor visit or those school lunches, she might do different stuff.



Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)