$100 billion dollar man—missing topic in federal spending dialog

by Kay B. Day

The National Fatherhood Initiative released a report disclosing federal spending supporting father-absent homes is approximately $99.8 billion. Rarely does a politician bring this figure up when spending is being discussed.During his campaign for the White House and since taking office, President Barack Obama has raised the topic of fatherhood. As public chatter increases about record-setting deficits resulting from federal spending, no one is really talking about what one organization calls the “One Hundred Billion Dollar Man.” Yet this “man” is a major stimulus for federal spending. The National Fatherhood Initiative released a report about the annual public costs of father absence—the direct cost inspired the title of the report: “The federal government spends $99.8 billion dollars every year on programs - such as child support enforcement and anti-poverty efforts - that support father-absent homes.”

Trending towards single parent families continues to rise. The report also found that between 1960 and 2006, the number of children living in single-mother families went from 8 percent to 23.3 percent. There is a sharp cultural divide advocacy groups refuse to acknowledge. Today, half of all children, and 80 percent of African-American children, can expect to spend at least part of their childhood living apart from their fathers.

There’s a message in these figures for women. In 2003, 39.3 percent of single-mother families lived in poverty, but only 8.8 percent of father present families lived in poverty. Some, but not all, of the poverty of single-mother families is a result of father absence. Women who choose to have a child without benefit of marriage confront the likelihood they will be reliant on government for assistance with shelter, food and healthcare. Single parenthood is glorified by the entertainment industry, with high profile celebrities having multiple children without the legally binding contract of marriage. But celebrities have the funds to deal with the costs. Your average teen mother doesn’t.

The $100 billion figure isn’t a true total of the cost. The NFI suggests additional costs:

•Federal benefits programs that benefit whole communities, or that benefit individuals regardless of income.
•Indirect costs related to the poor outcomes of children of single-mother families, such as greater use of mental and physical health services, and a higher rate of involvement in the juvenile justice system.
•Long-term costs in reduced tax income due to the lower earnings of children of single-parent families, and long-term costs due to the higher incarceration of children of single-parent families.

Once the Bush tax changes expire, the marriage penalty will return. There's irony in a government penalizing married couples.

Father absence is a direct cause of government entitlement spending. No one is calling this a catastrophe. We should be. The government is a lousy excuse for a parent.

 ['$100 billion dollar man--missing topic in federal spending dialog'
   by Kay B. Day. The US Report. Aug. 27, 2009.]

Comments

[ImmewlyPype]

Hi Folks

Just thought I'd post to say hi. I've been a lurker on here for a while and as a natural introvert, I thought it was time to "man-up" and make myself known.

Anyway, hopefully I can add some value on here and don't get flamed too badly ;-)

Thanks
Cannon Fodder :-)