KOTA has a story today about the poverty level in South Dakota.
According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, South Dakota's overall poverty rate in 2005 rose to 13.6 percent. That was the highest level since 1997.
The statewide poverty rate in 2004 was 12.9 percent. The 2005 figures show that just over 100,000 people in the state lived below the poverty level in 2005.
In 1997, the poverty rate was 14 percent. And in 1989, 14.8 percent of South Dakotans were at or below the poverty level.
Interestingly, 2006 statistics were available on the Census Bureau website, so I'm not sure why KOTA went with 2005 statistics. Maybe because there was no change at all between 2005 and 2006, so a headline that said "SD's 2006 poverty level no change from 2005" wouldn't have quite the same impact?
Take a look at these statistic and see if you find something interesting (click on the images to make them larger, if necessary)
2005
2006
Did you notice the difference between "Married Couple Families" and "Families with female householder, no husband present"? There is quite a difference in both years, but look at the widest, which is 2005: you have a full 30-point spread in poverty between intact, traditional families and single-female households. That's more than 7.5 times the rate for intact, traditional families.
Now I know there are some situations where this is beyond the woman's control, such as widowhood, abuse situations and such, but look at the primary factor in poverty: intact marriages and families.
Typically, when poverty statistics are touted by the media, it's a prelude to calls for more government handouts. But decades of the "New Deal," the "Great Society" and unrestrained welfare (should have) taught us that throwing money at a social problem solves nothing and usually makes things worse.
What we've been doing is like giving a cancer patient some aspirin and sending him home. We've been trying to alleviate some of the pain without trying to cure the problem that's eating him alive. What sense does that make?
What if, instead of throwing away more of the taxpayers dollars, the government actually tried to work on the root problem itself? What if government tightened up the no-fault divorce laws that started loosening the bonds of marriage several decades ago, so that a commitment meant a commitment and not just "until I get tired of you" or "until it gets difficult"? There will always be a need for some divorces for unfaithfulness, abuse and such--especially when warning signs are ignored before marriage--but how much family disintegration would be avoided by getting rid of the no-fault divorce?
How many would be saved from poverty if we encouraged strong moral values and saving sex until marriage? How much could be avoided if parents taught it and enforced it in their children, schools encouraged it, and churches reinforced it?
And what might happen if some of the PSAs we see on TV and hear on the radio actually started touting the health and economic benefits of marriage and intact families (and the academic benefits to the children who don't have to live in a chaotic home)?
Too many times an unnecessary divorce or unwed pregnancy leaves one person doing the work and producing the resources that God intended for two people to do. If reducing single-parent families could even cut the poverty rate in half, wouldn't it be worth it to promote marriage and sexual responsibility?
The remaining unavoidable poverty can easily be handled by the private sector (churches and charities). The government needs to get out of the business of weakening the family and marriage...and charity. There is no Biblical or Constitutional role for it there, and this is an illustration of why.
2 comments:
haha. Ok, your right in the fact that throwing money at people doesn't do anything. But neither does letting the people fend for themselves. In fact, if you really want to solve the problem of poverty, then you have to get rid of capitalism. Naturally, the rich will want to keep their money and even make more money. So that leaves a certain population in poverty always.
If you don't want to get rid of capitalism, then it's better to give people money than let them starve.
Get rid of capitalism, huh bassfrek1987? That worked real well in the former Soviet Union, didn't it? Like it's also working so well in Cuba and North Korea, too?
If you like Marxism so well, why don't you go live in one of these paradises?
Post a Comment