Archive for the ‘poverty’ Category
Why TANF must give economic aid & help all relationships
Two heartrending news articles crossed my desk this morning. Both highlight the reasons that TANF (the main federal anti-poverty program) should focus on economic assistance. They also point to the importance of healthy relationships for all people, regardless of marital status. If any federal money is going to pay for relationship education, it really must be available to people in every type of relationship.
Women’s e-News details how the recession contributed to an increase in domestic violence.
The New York Times details how evictions have a disparate impact on unmarried African-American women.
President Obama’s budget proposal offers a one-year extension and expansion of marriage programs. Few details are available yet, but we’re inclined to agree with our colleague Wendy Mink, who writes
far from a one-shot deal, this is a shot-in-the-arm to proponents of privatizing poverty reduction through patriarchal family norms. Significantly, despite economic hard times, the budget request does not include increases in cash grants to struggling families, a suspension of time limits on eligibility for assistance, an end to sanctions, or a change in rules so that more families in need of assistance can actually get it. We need to insist on changes to the structure of TANF, not the structure of families.
If you haven’t signed our TANF petition yet, now is the time!
Marital status, race and ethnicity
Really glad to see the impact of marital status discrimination addressed in Race Talk. With 70% of African-American adults unmarried (compared to 45% of Whites and 49% of Latinos in the US), every law or economic policy that uses marital status has a disparate impact on the Black community. AtMP agrees wholeheartedly that
it’s time to rethink those norms and accommodate a changing society that no longer consists of a married majority. It’s unfair to reward the life choices of some and not others when all are valid realities that should be treated as such.
Exploring “marriage penalties” in health reform
Though it didn’t get much major media attention, several small and so-called conservative outlets have been complaining that the health reform bills moving (or not) through Congress are unfair to married people. AtMP tracks news about “marriage penalties” for two reasons: first, we oppose and look for ways to solve all forms of marital status discrimination, even when married people are disadvantaged; second, we’ve found that most discussions of “marriage penalties” are actually smokescreens for even bigger marriage bonuses – policies that reward people for marrying and disadvantage unmarried people.
The latest news on health reform follows the latter trend. In a nutshell: the bill creates a subsidy for people who have to buy their own insurance; in some cases that subsidy would be lower for a married couple than for two identical unmarried people because the eligibility threshold for a married couple is less than twice that for a single person.
Before getting into the details, take a moment to savor the Heritage Foundation’s position on whether this is just:
Proponents of the Senate health care bill might argue that these marriage penalties would reach their full effect only in situations where neither partner had employer-provided health insurance. It is true that married couples with employer coverage would face less bias; however, this defense of the bill remains weak because discrimination against marriage remains discrimination even if it does not fully affect all married couples. Such discrimination is unacceptable even in a single instance.
If only they had written “marital status discrimination is unacceptable even in a single instance!” But no, discrimination that puts married couples above unmarried couples, families and individuals is just fine to them.
Heritage hints at one aspect of the smokescreen effect: married people with employer-based insurance often get to put their spouse on their health plan at a much lower cost than if the spouse had to buy her/his own coverage.
Further aspects of the smokescreen are revealed in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Mythbuster analysis, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund’s Wonkroom analysis. Both link the subsidy calculation to the way the federal government calculates eligibility for subsidies generally: married couples are assumed to share all of their income and expenses, unmarried people are assumed not to share any at all. At AtMP, we believe this use of marital status often results in unequal treatment of people who are in equivalent situations – some married people don’t share, many unmarried people do, and few people share 100%.
In addition to this ‘equivalency’ problem, using marital status to determine subsidy eligibility can also create a justice problem. Subsidies are directed to people with low and moderate incomes. The amount of money a couple might save by sharing resources is often much less than the amount they stand to lose in subsidies if they expose their relationship by getting legally married. That’s why we hear from so many people with disabilities who can’t get married because marrying would make them ineligible for affordable health insurance. When will Heritage take up their cause?
It probably doesn’t make sense to treat all people in relationships as if they were isolated individuals. Instead, we’d like to see a new way of determining which people have combined their income and expenses to create an economic unit that should be subsidized or taxed at a different rate than an individual. We’re collecting suggestions on how to do that – please post yours as a comment!
Conversations with a chief marriage promoter
A few days ago as I was heading into the office, my Blackberry picked up an email posting to AtMP-Talk, our interactive listserve. AtMP-TALK has been hosting important, enlightening and sometimes silly conversations among over 500 members for over a decade, but it had been pretty quiet in recent months. This posting caught my eye not only because it broke the silence, but also because of the writer’s name: Chris Gersten. “Gee, that sounds familiar” I thought as I walked up the stairs and unlocked the office door, then “nah, it couldn’t be him!” When my PC warmed up, I confirmed that yes, Chris Gersten is the chairman of the Fatherhood & Marriage Leadership Insititute, and yes, he has been lurking on our listserve since mid-September (not coincidentally, around the same time I last blogged about FAMLI). I posted his brief bio to the list and wondered what would happen next.
Chris’s initial message made several general statements about the value of marriage and government-funded marriage programs, including
[M]arriage is the critical building block for every civilization since the dawn of time. It is the institution that all the social science research tells us is best for children to be raised in. It is also very difficult for people in marriages to maintain strong relationships over the years. There is nothing wrong with society and government understanding that it is in the interest of the broader society for married couples to get help.
Of course, Chris works to secure not only government understanding, but big funding for marriage programs. AtMP opposes this use of funds, and invites the public to sign our petition.
Member responses came in quickly. Almost all were thoughtful, detailed, respectful and passionate about cherishing diversity, protecting children and supporting relationships. I’m really proud that AtMP has such wise members! Here is a brief sample of what AtMP members said:
FAMILIES are the critical building block. People need to be “built” in stable families in order to become adults who function well regardless of the living situation they choose. Adults who live alone aren’t destroying society. But children can’t be single; they need families.
What the social science research tells us is that children do best with a consistent, reliable family and adequate physical and emotional care. Married parents look good in research because the majority of consistent two-adult households are married ones. However, studies of other family types such as stable same-sex couples show that the important variable is not marriage but stability–having the same adults in the family throughout childhood. There are many advantages to having more than one
adult (particularly with more than one child) but single parents who intentionally became parents while single tend to do very well.- ‘Becca
Several people echoed and expanded on the importance of family stability and relationship education.
I was going to ask about the nature of the help for married couples that is being funded, and why it wouldn’t be helpful for unmarried couples as well. You’ve explained that marriage education programs are really relationship education for all. Why not just call it that? Isn’t that a worthy goal?
- Kelly
Chris, if you replaced the word “marriage” with “loving, intimate, relationship” I might agree with a lot of what you say. However, marriage as a social/cultural/legal status has little to do with whether a relationship is loving or intimate! Programs should be aimed at improving love, communication, and intimacy in all relationships. Then the children would really benefit.
- Rene
Others raised questions and theories about the evolution of marriage and its connection to poverty.
Jobs for women pay less and are less likely to provide health insurance. Day care is expensive, and women’s wages simply aren’t high enough. Marriage has been a building block of civilizations because women have been relegated out of society outside the home. … We should be working to raise people up out of poverty, and marriage will *not* create that change. Improving work environments for women, creating opportunity in impoverished neighborhoods, and putting a stop to the shaming of single parents and their children will greatly help improve outcomes for children of single parents.
- Carolyn
Marriage was created as a mechanism by which to manage property. Our idea of “love marriage” is a recent invention. Marriage has historically been a partnership formed by families (most marriages were arranged in all cultures for centuries) for financial reasons.
- Jillian
Chris replied to most member responses, mentioning (but not formally citing) studies, percentages, experts and pastors, and stating “these are not just opinions. They are facts.” Our studious members were ready.
You know what, Chris? MARRIAGE CAUSES DIVORCE. There is a 100% correlation, and the causation is clear: Every divorced couple was married before divorce! Speaking more seriously … as best I can recall from my reading, child poverty and infant mortality have *decreased* significantly since 1960 (although there have been upticks recently, they’re not back up to pre-1960 levels), low birth weight is still a problem but hasn’t changed much, and child abuse is hard to measure reliably because of drastic changes in reporting standards.
- ‘Becca
Several members referred to Dr. Bella DePaulo’s careful analysis of marriage studies, and at least one contacted her offline to ask her to weigh in, which she did:
Thanks to those of you who recommended my book and my blog. Since Chris has specifically
challenged my work (obviously, without reading it), I’ll say a bit more.Chapter 9 of my book, SINGLED OUT, is about the children of single parents. There, I explain why Chris’s claims do not pass muster and how those studies are so widely misinterpreted. (Because Chris seems to value appeals to authority over a close reading of the original research, I’ll mention that my PhD is from Harvard, I have more than 100 academic publications to my name, and I’ve taught graduate courses in research methods for decades.) My chapter directly addresses some of the claims Chris makes, such as the one about the alleged drug abuse among the children of single parents. I explain, in detail, how particular kinds of studies are misrepresented; so if you make the same methodological mistake each time (such as confusing correlation with causality, as Rachel pointed out), it doesn’t matter if you have 50 studies or 50,000 studies – if they are flawed, they can’t be used to support your point.
I stay on top of studies that have appeared after Singled Out was published. Many of my critiques can be found in a recent collection, SINGLE WITH ATTITUDE. I’ve also posted some critiques at my Living Single blog at Psychology Today. Here are a few specifically relevant to the points about the children of single parents:
1. Children of Single Mothers: How Do They Really Fare?
2. It Takes a Single Person to Create a Village
3. TIME’s Misleading Cover Story on Marriage- Bella DePaulo
Members were uniformly unimpressed by Chris’s responses, and after about 48 hours the email storm collapsed in a heap of fatigue and curiosity, with members asking “Why is a former Bush Administration official on this listserve?” and “Are you just bored and looking for someone to harangue?”
Tiresome as it may be, we can expect many more conversations like this in 2010, because federal funding for marriage programs is up for renewal this year. If you agree that anti-poverty funds should be dedicated to reducing poverty, and relationship education should help everyone regardless of marital status, then please sign our petition!
Response to proponent of government-funded marriage promotion
Recently we were tickled to discover that the Fatherhood and Marriage Leadership Institute is using the existence of our new Get Marriage Out of TANF Coalition as a threat to mobilize pro-marriage-promotion forces to defend their federal funding.
On seeing FAMLI’s dire warning, the director of a marriage counseling program sent AtMP this friendly inquiry:
Wow! You must really believe that you are promoting a good cause.[1] One of my areas of disagreement would be that funding TANF efforts takes away from poverty projects.[2]
Married couples often have a higher family income. Isn’t that in itself proof that poverty is diminished through promotion of healthy marriage?[3]
Why do the two programs have to be mutually exclusive? Your choices are your choices. My choices are mine. If you want to promote your cause, why down play mine?[4]
Here’s a fleshed-out version of the brief response I sent him:
1. Yes, we really do believe our cause is a good one. AtMP’s cause is fairness and equality for all unmarried people, societal support for all healthy relationships, and the end of marital status discrimination, singlism and couplism. Admittedly, a very big vision! There are an infinite number of ways we could work towards our vision; we pick just a handful to work on at a time, and protesting welfare-funded marriage promotion is just one of many issues we have tackled over the years. One reason this issue captures our attention is that many of AtMP’s staff and board members over the years have personal histories and values that center on social justice and anti-poverty work. So it is particularly galling to see anti-poverty funds redirected to marriage promotion.
2. In fact, the federal TANF budget (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) was not increased to fund marriage programs; rather, marriage programs took a slice out of the pie that would otherwise fund more directly targeted anti-poverty programs. Similarly, the FAMLI-led campaign to get each state to allocate 1% of state-controlled TANF funds to marriage programs does not increase the state’s TANF budget to 101% of its former size; rather, it decreases state-funded anti-poverty programs to 99% of their former size. Furthermore, federally funded marriage programs are explicitly not anti-poverty programs: they need not serve low-income people, and their effect on participants’ economic well-being barely made it into the evaluation criteria. (For detail on that, see Let Them Eat Wedding Rings pages 4 and 14.)
[3] The correlation of marriage with family income does not prove that marriage diminishes poverty! If that’s not obvious, read this. In fact, researchers recognize the importance of the selection effect: people with higher incomes, more education and maybe even more ambition are more likely to choose marriage and to choose to marry similarly situated people. The academic debate is about whether marrying has any significant impact on income beyond the selection effect. Even a glowingly pro-marriage-promotion literature review found that marriage increased men’s incomes by well under 10%.
[4] “Your choices are your choices. My choices are mine.” This could not be better said! That’s why so many Americans are dismayed that their tax dollars are being spent to tell people that one choice (marriage) is better than another.
Better ways to fix what’s left of the income tax marriage penalty
Last week Forbes magazine ran a commentary by two Notre Dame professors about the income tax penalty faced by low-income couples who marry.
The Bush tax cuts attempted to make tax rates “marriage-neutral”; for most middle-class taxpayers, there is now, in fact, little if any difference between filing as a married couple or as unmarried singles. … [But a] single parent earning $21,000 with two children would receive an earned income credit and child tax credit of $5,460. Say that same parent is living with, but not married to, another single parent with two children who earns the same amount. Their combined income is $42,000. Unmarried and filing their taxes separately, they would receive a total of $10,920 in earned income credits and child tax credits. If they were to marry and file jointly (listing four dependent children), they would receive only $3,400 in earned income credits and child credits. So it would cost them $7,520 to be married. To make the situation worse, this “penalty” will occur every year, adding up over time to a huge amount.
AtMP believes that taxing people based on their marital status is wrong, and that it’s especially wrong to tax lower-income people more heavily than higher-income for the exact same behavior (in this case, marrying). Naturally, we’re less concerned than those professors about rising rates of cohabitation. More importantly, we’ve heard more creative solutions than the two options they propose:
If you “remove” the marriage penalty by lowering the credits for single taxpayers, you invoke the wrath of those who would say you’re “raising” taxes (by reducing their credits) on people who can least afford it. On the other hand, if you raise the credits for married taxpayers to the point where getting married offers the same tax result as being single, you’ve got a budgetary issue–where is the money to compensate for these additional credits going to come from?
In fact, we printed another professor’s more creative solutions in our newsletter last year!
Given the many forms of modern families, two policy alternatives are clearly preferable…. First, policymakers should expand the definition of family for tax purposes to include unmarried opposite- and same-sex couples, single parents, cohabiting unmarried family members, and perhaps even platonic roommates demonstrating economic interdependence. These families share the same kind of expenses, responsibilities, and liabilities as married families. There is no reason for the tax system to treat them differently. Under an expanded definition of the family unit, “marriage” penalties would become “family” penalties, and doubling tax brackets for families would benefit all multi-person households.
Second, we could abandon the family as a unit of taxation altogether and move to a system of individual filing. This approach would effectively eliminate all marriage tax penalties. As importantly—and unlike preserving the family as a unit of taxation—individual filing would eliminate the secondary-earner bias in the tax system that currently taxes the first dollar earned of the lesser-earning spouse (disproportionately women) at the higher rates associated with the last dollar earned of the primary-earning spouse.
Either approach—expanding our concept of “family” under the family tax unit or adopting as the norm the individual unit—would more effectively address the concerns of the modern American family in its various forms.
Gifts for Unmarried & Single Americans Week
Last week we discovered that it’s not easy to send an e-card for USA Week. How about sending a gift? Today I received a sweet gift from Ellen Kaye in the form of a fresh list of unmarried songs to add to our collection.
Today I also added a gift to my wish list: the new book Changing Poverty, Changing Policies, featuring an essay by Cancian and Reed which finds that
the economic benefit of marriage isn’t what it used to be … because single women, even those with kids, have an easier time supporting themselves outside of marriage than they used to. [And ] that replicating marriage wouldn’t necessarily generate more per-person wealth.
Thanks to Jessica the intern for finding the Time Magazine article about this new book. I look forward to incorporating more of its findings into our campaign to get marriage programs out of the federal anti-poverty budget.
Recession’s impact on unmarriage
The news that one-third of workers under age 35 live with their parents really caught my eye, because one of the big factors in people’s likelihood to marry is whether they feel economically independent. It is probably fair to predict that the longer people feel economically unstable, the later they’ll put off marriage, and the larger the unmarried population will grow.
Though much of the article is about union organizing, it is full of economic and cultural insights that make it worth reading in its entirety. For example:
In the age group 25 through 34 years old, traditionally a prime age range for getting married and starting a family, just 81 of 100 men were employed.
News like this makes it especially infuriating that the federal government and many states spend over $150 million per year on marriage programs instead of helping low-income people get and keep jobs.
Of course, some people do make marital decisions regardless of their economic situation, as the article nicely captures:
After getting married, my wife and I decided to move in with my parents to pay off our bills. We could afford to live on our own but we’d never be able to get out of debt. We have school loans to pay off, too. We’d like to have children, but we just can’t manage the expense of it right now…so we’re putting it off till we’re in a better place. My [work] position is on the edge, and I feel like if my company were to cut back, my position would be one of the first to go.
I’ve also seen articles about the recession causing couples to delay divorce. But my instinct says that people increasingly delaying marriage will have bigger demographic impact.
Unmarried, uninsured, out of luck?
Hunter, our demographic research intern, has put together some important, disturbing and highly motivating statistics.
Unmarried people are concentrated in economically disadvantaged categories. For example, unmarried Americans are disproportionately
- African-American: 69.1% of blacks adults are unmarried; 19.8% of all unmarried Americans are black.
- Women: 56.4% of unmarried adults are female.
- Young: 33.7% of unmarried adults are 18-29 years old.
- Poor or low-income: 14.7% of unmarried people aged 16 years or older live below the poverty level; 38.6% of unmarried households earn under $30K.
- LGBT: 100% of people in same-sex partnerships are currently counted as unmarried (though it looks like the Census will start crediting same-sex marriages soon!); of course, many bisexuals and transgendered people are married to different-sex partners, as are some people who identify as lesbian or gay.
Not coincidentally, the demographic groups that are most likely to be unmarried are also the same groups that get less health care, get sick more and don’t get well as much as other Americans. Making health insurance more affordable for unmarried people, and taking other measures to increase their access to care, could decrease disparities and increase health equity.
Unmarried workers disproportionately lack health insurance: 40.5% of the workforce is unmarried, yet unmarried people constitute 59.7% of all workers without coverage and only 36.4% of workers with coverage. The impact of marital status is even more pronounced among part-time workers, who more frequently lack coverage: 67.1% of uninsured part-time workers are unmarried. Unmarried people are also the majority (56.4%) of the unemployed uninsured. In all, 59.8% of uninsured Americans are unmarried.
Obviously, these stats do not mean that all unmarried people are out of luck, and clearly getting married would not solve everyone’s problems. But they should make you wonder, why aren’t health care reformers promising equal costs and access to all Americans regardless of marital status?
Do something about it! Download our free one-page fact sheet or tri-fold brochure “Why You Should Care about Barriers to Coverage for Unmarried People” and get it into the hands of the health reform advocate you admire most – be it your doctor, your state health coalition, your Congressperson, or the President. And let us know what they say!
