Althouse: "[Y]ou have to have a government that both encourages marriage and also supplies wage subsidies to men to make them marriageable."

January 10, 2012

"[Y]ou have to have a government that both encourages marriage and also supplies wage subsidies to men to make them marriageable."

"If you believe in the centrality of family..."

What?!

55 comments:

rhhardin said...: NYT conservatives are not the bright ones.; 1/10/12, 10:34 AM
Anonymous said...: Bizarre muddled thinking; 1/10/12, 10:35 AM
Scott M said...: The link goes to a very short blurb about Bill Daley resigning.; 1/10/12, 10:37 AM
edutcher said...: Hey, I'm married.

Where's my subsidy ('cause I could use it - The Blonde wants to go to the Caribbean again next year)?

WV "ginglubc" Not sure, but it sounds like something that Dan Savage would come up with.; 1/10/12, 10:41 AM
Calypso Facto said...: Hate to link the NYT, but think you meant this Brooks piece?; 1/10/12, 10:42 AM
pdug said...: So you just have to do it in a sneaky way:

job subsidies to 'construction', or math-heavy fields.; 1/10/12, 10:44 AM
rcommal said...: Link problem ... .

----

But in any case, ****huh????****; 1/10/12, 10:49 AM
Tank said...: rh beat me to it, but really, this is what the NY Times thinks is conservative thinking. It's also why conservatives have written off this guy.; 1/10/12, 10:50 AM
David said...: Wrong link.; 1/10/12, 10:55 AM
Calypso Facto said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/10/12, 10:55 AM
Calypso Facto said...: As to the Brooks' assertion, I think Pogo covered it yesterday: In the minds of these Big Gov't statists, it's amazing any of us can get out of bed without harming ourselves.

Subsidizing the employment of favored constituents to increase their marriage prospects? The Progressives (and apparently Mr. Brooks) have always fantasized about the power to eugenically improve the population through control of marriage...; 1/10/12, 10:58 AM
Levi Starks said...: Where does it all end?
Eventually we'll be reading about the sad plight of the few remaining "unsubsidized" citizens in our country. We will look at them in awe, and wonder how it's even possible for someone to survive by their own wits and the labor of their own hands.; 1/10/12, 11:06 AM
YoungHegelian said...: "...I’m also put off by his Manichaean political rhetoric."

I find it amusing when a secular Jew (Brooks) calls a pretty much by-the-numbers Roman Catholic (Santorum) a heretic.

Maybe Santorum could return the favor and call Brooks a crypto-Spinozist or something.; 1/10/12, 11:06 AM
rcommal said...: Maybe Santorum could return the favor and call Brooks a crypto-Spinozist or something.

LOL; 1/10/12, 11:11 AM
bagoh20 said...: Where does the money for the subsidy come from, taxing housewives? Maybe A Home Shopping Network tax, or a Dr. Phil tax.; 1/10/12, 11:22 AM
Anonymous said...: This is not exactly rocket science. It's merely describing the status quo prior to 1965 or so, that was overthrown by feminism.

The government subsidizes marriageable men when the tax code gives preferential treatment to married couples over single filers, and single-income over dual-income households. Society's interest in stable families (and its interest having at least one income-earner in each) used to be given more weight than strict parity of compensation between married employee A and single employee B.

Catholic doctrine still advocates a 'living wage' or 'just wage' (i.e., a wage capable of supporting a household) as necessary for societal justice, and does not exempt capitalist economies from this requirement. Obviously companies cannot be expected to pay more than the work is worth or pay for unneeded work, but morally they may not structure their business so as to preclude full-time workers (without an intrinsic business reason -- e.g. a restaurant intrinsically only needs to be open at dining hours) simply because part-timers or temporary workers will accept less pay.; 1/10/12, 11:23 AM
Scott M said...: Link still appears to go to Bill Daley, so I haven't read the article, but is this directed to specific demographic of men? In other words, do we have a group of men who a) belong to a group in which the family is falling apart and, b) are facing high unemployment if the government doesn't step in and subsidize their work?; 1/10/12, 11:25 AM
Peter said...: ‘craig’ said, “The government subsidizes marriageable men when the tax code gives preferential treatment to married couples over single filers, and single-income over dual-income households”

Yet when you put the two together, dual-income married couples still pay a tax penalty for being married. Perhaps government is just … confused?; 1/10/12, 11:26 AM
YoungHegelian said...: @bagoh20

Maybe A Home Shopping Network tax, or a Dr. Phil tax.

Or, maybe, just maybe, yes, an Oprah tax!

I hear tell that the power to tax is the power to destroy, and we can all hope against hope that it proves true in this case.; 1/10/12, 11:27 AM
crosspatch said...: Current welfare basically weds a poor female to the government. If she remains unmarried and collects a check from the government, she has a reliable source of income that she can count on. If she marries, her government money may be cut off or greatly reduced with no guarantee that the man she marries is going to use his money for the benefit of the family. He might blow it on booze, drugs, gambling, motorcycle parts, whatever.

So in this respect, government actually discourages marriage among the working poor and encourages women to remain unmarried. Having a stable income that she can count on for her children is often more important than any cultural pressure to marry. She might figure it is in her best interest for the sake of her children to remain unmarried, possibly living with a man, and keep the peace of mind of having a set income every month.

In short, government has in many cases replaced the husband.; 1/10/12, 11:28 AM
bagoh20 said...: Jesus never hired anyone - he got people to work for free, and his later followers running the Catholic church have been selling something they don't possess. I don't use them for moral business advice.; 1/10/12, 11:31 AM
Scott M said...: So in this respect, government actually discourages marriage among the working poor and encourages women to remain unmarried. Having a stable income that she can count on for her children is often more important than any cultural pressure to marry. She might figure it is in her best interest for the sake of her children to remain unmarried, possibly living with a man, and keep the peace of mind of having a set income every month.

Talking to many of the older residents of Meacham Park and East St Louis, this, more than just about anything else, started the death spiral of the family in those neighborhoods. Family Services would conduct surprise visits late at night to make sure the woman, who was on government assistance, didn't have a man in the home. Many knee-slappers about diving out windows abound.; 1/10/12, 11:34 AM
Carol_Herman said...: There was a time that a working wife was the reason a woman got chosen in the first place.

Also, given that my mom was born in 1905, she explained to me that back in her time, women didn't marry for love! They married because a man brought home a paycheck.

Of course, lots of milkmen got to give away free milk in exchange for favors.

That, too, is not discussed openly. But believe what you want.

How come, should you ask, does love fair so poorly?

Well, it's usually not something that hits you with a blinding light. It can start with small favors and small kindnesses. As people adjust to what they can attract.

Did the movie business change things?

Maybe, not so much. Because there were always those teenagers who ran away from home to "go with the circus."

What existed back then that you don't have now? LARGE FAMILIES!

This was before social security. Old people counted on their children to take care of them in their old ages.

Love?

Set up any equation you want. But first, you have to start with opportunity. (And, then obligations.); 1/10/12, 12:08 PM
Carol_Herman said...: One reason I know that Jewish women are strong, is that many of them lived in poor, poor homes. (Not just in America. But this was true in Europe, as well.)

The men couldn't get hired.

Instead, the men stayed home and studied.

Today, in Israel, this is true with the Haredim. Who are hard-wired to make lots of kids. And, it's their wives who go to work. And, the men who are the "stay-at-home" moms.

Tradition?

Necessity?

Robbing a woman of the ability to read and to write, was once also commonplace. Boys went to school.

And, again, I only know this from my own Jewish roots. There was a love of books like nobody's business.

A cousin of mine who taught high-school in Montebello. Which is mostly Hispanic. Had to deal with the way the neighborhood treated kids who liked to read! (They'd be attacked to and from school!)

So, my cousin, when she saw a candidate who could actually make it to literacy ... would defy the school system ... and give these kids an extra textbook. (So they could study at home, too.)

ALL societies that HATE kids who read, and who make fun of them, is doomed.

Then add that genetically speaking ... girls who mature are ten ... and get pregnant at 12 ... Are heading into very hard lives.

There's nothing you can do about this! Best advice? Steer clear of these neighborhoods. (Or? Like my cousin. Know how bad their attitudes are ... and work with a few kids.) When they graduate college ... they all come back and say "thanks."

Can you change the attitude, where books are dismissed wholesale, one kid at a time?; 1/10/12, 12:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Peter said, "...dual-income married couples still pay a tax penalty for being married."

The dual-income penalty is in the fact that, for married filers, the second income is added to the first for the purpose of determining tax bracket.

For single-income married couples without children, the taxes come out roughly the same as for two single filers. But as others have noted, the marriage penalty for single-income households is in the fact that single mothers can receive massive government subsidies simply by remaining unmarried. They also then get to file as 'head of household' with its higher deductions and exemptions.; 1/10/12, 12:21 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Hegalian and Bag,

I think you're onto something. We really do need to find a way to have the viewers pay for the externalities of Dr. Phil and Oprah.; 1/10/12, 12:29 PM
Gene said...: Crosspatch: In short, government has in many cases replaced the husband.

Here in LA they call it "married to the county."; 1/10/12, 12:48 PM
Bryan C said...: "We will look at them in awe, and wonder how it's even possible for someone to survive by their own wits and the labor of their own hands."

And then we'll throw them in prison. Because of externalities.

w/v: gratal. Hansal's sister.; 1/10/12, 12:53 PM
bagoh20 said...: I just had an idea for a diet television network. You're watching Dr. Phil, stuffing your face with chips and Bon Bons as usual, but periodically instead of a commercial for diet pills or exercise machines, it runs one of those Japanese cartoons that makes you nauseous, causing you to hurl maybe 4 times per show. You can eat as much and whatever you want while watching Dr. Phil.

You buy more sponsor's food, you watch more Dr. Phil, you munch out AND you lose weight. Everybody wins!

We get some extra bucks by selling Dr. Phil buckets, and mouthwash. Ka-Ching!; 1/10/12, 1:02 PM
NotWhoIUsedtoBe said...: Or you make men marriageable by removing welfare subsidies for women.

Poor men were priced out.; 1/10/12, 1:14 PM
prairie wind said...: In short, government has in many cases replaced the husband.

In short, law enforcement has removed many husbands from the home because of the war on drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences destroy families. Put one parent in prison and the other is left with a single paycheck (if she's lucky) and the addition of child care expenses. No wonder women go on welfare.

Welfare people are no different from the rest of us. They deal with their experience the best they can. Give them a decent shot at keeping the family together and we'd see something much different from what we see now.; 1/10/12, 1:28 PM
ken in tx said...: My wife and I pay a tax penalty for being married, and I don't even work any more. I have a pension and investment income that counts against us. BTW, social security IS means tested. More of it is taxed if you have other income.; 1/10/12, 1:37 PM
Known Unknown said...: I was working the comments backwards, and almost read a Carol_Herman!

Whew. Disaster averted.; 1/10/12, 2:24 PM
prairie wind said...: In a very long thread, I like Carol's comments. Gives me a chance to scroll down super fast. Saves time catching up.; 1/10/12, 2:32 PM
Methadras said...: Link broken.; 1/10/12, 3:05 PM
MarkD said...: You mean the marriage penalty is going to be reversed? I didn't think so.; 1/10/12, 3:23 PM
X said...: What?!

it's the bearded Spock version of what we have now, a government that both discourages marriage and also supplies wage subsidies to women to make them unmarriageable.""; 1/10/12, 3:31 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: In short, law enforcement has removed many husbands from the home because of the war on drugs. Mandatory minimum sentences destroy families

Even shorter. Don't do drugs and you won't end up in prison or jail.

Husbands are removed from the home because they are committing crimes.

Whether recreational use of a drug or alcohol should be a crime, is a completely different issue.

Don't break the law.; 1/10/12, 4:55 PM
Tom said...: What happened to the link? It takes me to the WSJ article on Daley.; 1/10/12, 4:58 PM
bagoh20 said...: I don't think the marriage penalty is wrong. When you marry you become one legal, financial entity, with a higher income, thus higher tax. Other wise you could both claim the same deductions separately, even though you share their cost. This is another reason the government should not be involved in, or even know that you are married. Just go up on the mountain and tell your God, and keep it quiet.; 1/10/12, 4:59 PM
bagoh20 said...: DBQ, I hope you never break the speed limit, because that's even more dangerous. Imagine if they broke your family up for it, which would make more sense if you speed with them in the car. The speed limit is 55 mph - just say no.; 1/10/12, 5:05 PM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: DBQ, I hope you never break the speed limit, because that's even more dangerous.

Hey. You're talking to someone who has broken many laws in the past and still breaks the law when I feel like it. I've been in places and with people and with 'substances' that would have put me into Federal time. I have friends and family who DID do serious time.

The consequences of breaking the law is what it is. Or....in other words...you takes your chances.

When you have a family, have children and other people in your life besides your own selfish self, you have to weigh the consequences. You either change your wicked ways or end up paying the piper. It is up to you.

To blame law enforcement for breaking up families is just specious. The person who broke the law, took the chance and knew what the consequences are: is the one to blame.

Sometimes you just have to fucking grow up.; 1/10/12, 5:17 PM
The Elder said...: Of course men require wage subsidies. We are scum. Women all know that. Why else would you marry us if not for the money?

Equal pay for equal work? No way. Men need to be subsidized!; 1/10/12, 5:54 PM
n.n said...: No, you have to have a government that enables the conditions which promote the general welfare and protects the rights of citizens without regard for artificial and unproductive classification schemes.

We need to do domestic resource recovery and development in order to develop our economy, so that people will have the opportunity for self-determination. The alternative, redistributive or retributive change, does, by design, sabotage character development and ensures a perpetual infantile state of existence. It also, by its nature, promotes progressive corruption of individuals and society, as it is coerced redistribution of the product of people's labor. Involuntary exploitation cannot be progressive and hope to preserve individual dignity.

The Constitution, coupled with the Declaration of Independence, are authentically good guides for societal development and preservation of individual dignity.

As for marriage: "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity". We cannot preserve our individual dignity without fulfilling our biological imperative; and we cannot preserve the character of our society and nation without our posterity.; 1/10/12, 6:42 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: To blame law enforcement for breaking up families is just specious. The person who broke the law, took the chance and knew what the consequences are: is the one to blame.

Sometimes you just have to fucking grow up.

I would never blame the cops for dumb-ass drug policy, but I can sure blame Congress. On the other hand, as you say, the laws are what they are, and while you work to change them (or not, as the case may be) it's not that difficult to stay out of jail.; 1/10/12, 7:13 PM
Bob Loblaw said...: The government subsidizes marriageable men when the tax code gives preferential treatment to married couples over single filers...

Tax breaks are not the same thing as subsidy. If he's really talking about subsidy that would imply guys who don't make enough money to pay taxes get some kind of stipend from the government to make them marriageable. Is this Saudi Arabia, where we have enough non-tax income that the men so inclined can sit around and drink tea all afternoon instead of working? I'm all for it as long as I don't have to wear a shemagh.; 1/10/12, 7:27 PM
bagoh20 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 1/10/12, 7:57 PM
bagoh20 said...: There is nothing grown up about letting the nanny government destroy families for no good reason. Being grown up is fighting such injustice, including refusing to follow unjust laws. Would you tell those refusing to follow Jim Crow to "Just grow up, boy. Know yer place."

Face it, fear and fear alone of your own government causes you to run from the fight. The fact that they are willing to destroy families for such reasons should anger a family person more, rather than make them run in fear as they claim maturity for the reason they following The Man's instructions to the letter.

Was it grown up to let the Germans bomb Pearl Harbor?

Attica!; 1/10/12, 7:59 PM
mariner said...: Why bother with wage subsidies for men -- women would just get them along with the houses, the cars and the kids.; 1/10/12, 9:09 PM
prairie wind said...: The consequences of breaking the law is what it is. Or....in other words...you takes your chances.

Sure, except that your chances are rigged. Mandatory minimum sentences means the court has no way to decide your case. No way to discriminate among offenses or among offenders.

The war on drugs has done nothing to end illegal drug use. It has driven the recreational drug industry underground and--surprise!!--into the control of criminals. Oh, and--coincidentally, of course--the size of the prison industry and number of law enforcement agencies have ballooned. That's a lot of people with a stake in the continuing war on drugs.; 1/11/12, 7:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Link is wrong, but in context he's *critiquing* this mindset - which he says is the logical outcome of Santorum's in that

"Santorum doesn’t yet see that once you start thinking about how to foster an economic system that would nurture our virtues, you wind up with an agenda far more drastic and transformational."; 1/11/12, 11:58 AM
crosspatch said...: "law enforcement has removed many husbands from the home because of the war on drugs."

That's a pretty popular meme in many parts of the country but you have to understand that it is the direct result of the power of the prison guard unions who in many places, such as California, wield a lot of political clout.

I find it interesting that police have such a hard time finding the actual dealers but any 15 year old kid in high school has no problem finding them at all.

But I guess if they jail the users, the dealers won't have much business success.

Your argument fails, though, when you actually look at the demographic. In order to believe your hypothesis on why the women aren't married, one would have to believe that all the single men who are good providers are locked up and only a few poor providers are left out on the streets. I would suggest that is not the case as we see many single available men. We see them living with women but not getting married. This is in many cases because the woman will lose her benefits if she marries.

The notion that it is due to locking up the men on drug charges doesn't pass muster. You still have women LIVING with men, they just aren't MARRYING them.; 1/11/12, 12:33 PM
crosspatch said...: I'll give you an example from a few years ago. I knew a woman who lived a few miles from me in a rural area where I lived at the time. She was unmarried, had an infant child, and was not working. She was on government benefits. She also provided daycare for three other women's children "under the table" and had a live-in boyfriend who worked in the construction industry who had three cars (well, two cars and a truck). They were living pretty well for a young couple in their mid-20's.; 1/11/12, 12:37 PM
rcommal said...: That's a pretty popular meme in many parts of the country but you have to understand that it is the direct result of the power of the prison guard unions who in many places, such as California, wield a lot of political clout.

I find it interesting that police have such a hard time finding the actual dealers but any 15 year old kid in high school has no problem finding them at all.

!!!; 1/12/12, 12:51 AM
rcommal said...: Everything has a constituency that cannot be denied; it's just that some constituencies can be more denied [denied more?] than others.; 1/12/12, 12:56 AM