Ramaswamy botches marriage debate
Conn Carroll
Video Embed
If you blinked, you missed it. For about five seconds on Wednesday night, the biggest problem in American society today, the decline of marriage, was mentioned once … kind of … but not really.
In response to a question about eliminating the Department of Education, Vivek Ramaswamy first pushed the crazy idea that U.S. citizens should have to pass a citizenship test before being allowed to vote, and then he pivoted to the state of the family.
DAVID WEISS HAS NO CREDIBILITY AS SPECIAL COUNSEL
“And the fact of the matter is, look, there is a part of education policy that also rests with the family,” Ramaswamy said. “I didn’t grow up in money. But you know the word privilege gets used a lot. Well, you know what? I did have the ultimate privilege of two parents in the house with a focus on educational achievement, and I want every kid to enjoy that.”
“So, part of the problem is we also have a federal government that pays single women more not to have a man in the house than to have a man in the house contributing to an epidemic of fatherlessness,” Ramaswamy continued. “And I think that goes hand-in-glove with the education crisis as well because we have to remember education starts with the family.”
Where to begin?
To be generous, in a very real sense, the federal government does pay single women “more not to have a man in the house than to have a man in the house.” This is true … kinda.
Name any means-tested federal assistance program. SNAP, Medicaid, EITC, Section 8 Housing, even Obamacare private insurance subsidies. All of these programs have benefit cliffs where if a household’s income goes over a certain amount, benefits are either decreased or eliminated entirely.
When two people get married, the income of a household almost always goes up, meaning many working-class families who receive benefits from means-tested programs are punished if they get married.
The exact marriage penalty varies widely on which programs families participate in, how much they make, and how many children they have. But as this study shows, it is not uncommon for a family of four earning just $44,000 a year to face a yearly $10,500 penalty if they get married.
If you want to know why the percentage of households that include a married couple has fallen from 80% in 1960 to 45% today, these marriage penalties, which did not exist until the 1970s, are the leading cause why.
But before we congratulate Ramaswamy for raising this very important issue, notice what word he never uses. It’s kind of a key one.
Marriage.
To be exact, the federal government is in no way paying single women not to have men in the home. What the federal government is doing is paying women not to get married. And that’s a big difference.
The modern welfare state doesn’t care if you are shacking up with the father of all your children, the father of some of your children, or just the current guy you are sleeping with. Ever since King v. Smith in 1968, the government isn’t allowed to care if there is a man in your house.
What the government can and does check is your household income, which, if you are married, includes your spouse’s earnings. And the way our safety net is designed right now, millions of working-class families are being punished for tying the knot.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
More importantly, there is a big difference between cohabitation and marriage. As fragile as marriages are today, cohabitation is even more fragile. Half of children born to cohabiting parents see their parents’ relationship end by their third birthday, compared to just 10% of married parents. Fast forward to age 12, and two-thirds of cohabiting parents have separated compared to just 25% of married parents.
So, contra Ramaswamy, it is not just important for there to be a father in the home when a child is born. We want a married father in the home because marriage is the best institution known to man that insures a father will be there to provide and protect for the mother and child.