Bush marriage plan headed for approval
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Laura Meckler
July 17, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's proposal to nudge women on welfare toward the altar is headed for approval in Congress despite opposition from both the political left and right, as Democrats choose other battles to fight in the welfare debate.
From the start, the plan sparked outrage from libertarians who complain government has no place in people's intimate lives and from feminists who worry women will be coerced into bad matches. Both say scarce dollars should be spent elsewhere.
Despite the concerns, Republicans are largely in favor of the plan and Democrats are largely resigned to it.
The debate has been ongoing over the last year and a half as Congress works to renew its landmark 1996 welfare overhaul. The renewal gives lawmakers and the White House an opportunity to make changes in the program, and Bush has made promoting marriage one of the centerpieces of his plan.
The House has already passed its welfare legislation, which includes the marriage initiative. The Senate Finance Committee plans to consider the matter next week. An initial proposal from Chairman Charles Grassley included the marriage money, and he said Thursday that Democrats have not pushed him to remove it.
In a letter to Grassley last week, 41 Democrats laid out their priorities in the welfare debate, including more money for child care, reasonable work requirements and benefits for legal immigrants. They didn't mention the marriage initiative.
Under the Bush marriage proposal, the government would spend $300 million per year on programs promoting marriage. That includes $200 million in federal dollars, and $100 million states would have to spend in matching funds.
The administration is vague about what the money would go for, but says it would help couples that are already interested in marriage, perhaps through financial incentives or by offering counseling.
Supporters say children are better off when they are raised together by a mother and father, and poor families are better off with two wage earners.
"The fact of the matter is, marriage is a very important tool for economic survival," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. "When you have two people in a family it makes it easier." Grassley said promoting marriage is "just a no-brainer."
Opponents say it's no such thing.
Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute says there's no evidence these programs will work and argues there are too few "marriageable men" out there anyway.
"It's not like there's a doctor or an accountant down the street waiting to marry an unwed teenage mother," Tanner said Thursday before a news conference with feminists and others to denounce the initiative.
Women's groups worry that women will wind up coerced into bad, possibly abusive relationships. "The government has no business being involved in personal issues like marriage," said Lisalyn Jacobs of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Democratic aides say some Democratic senators are sensitive to these concerns but have not made the issue a priority, focusing instead on trying to get more money for child care and other concerns. At the same time, some moderates are comfortable with the program, willing to experiment and see if pro-marriage programs work.
Sen. Max Baucus, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, opposes the initiative along libertarian grounds, reflecting his Montana roots, but he's one of the few who has spoken out against it.
Last year, when Democrats ran the Senate, Baucus crafted a bill that included money for experiments promoting marriage but also allowed it to be used for teen pregnancy prevention and other programs, a change the Bush administration denounced.
Both Tanner and Jacobs acknowledge that there are few in Congress ready to take up their cause, fearful that opposing the marriage initiative will be seen as being anti-marriage.
"Who can be against marriage?" Tanner said. "Especially if you're going to face re-election in a year and a half, you don't want to be on the record against marriage."
-------------------------------------------
Shame on Bush and shame on Democrats for doing nothing. Are these the same people who are opposed to gay marriage? As it seems, they have certainly done a good job of making straight marriage a joke, so I certainly wouldn't trust their judgment regardless.
Here goes $300 million down the toilet!
Melon
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Laura Meckler
July 17, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's proposal to nudge women on welfare toward the altar is headed for approval in Congress despite opposition from both the political left and right, as Democrats choose other battles to fight in the welfare debate.
From the start, the plan sparked outrage from libertarians who complain government has no place in people's intimate lives and from feminists who worry women will be coerced into bad matches. Both say scarce dollars should be spent elsewhere.
Despite the concerns, Republicans are largely in favor of the plan and Democrats are largely resigned to it.
The debate has been ongoing over the last year and a half as Congress works to renew its landmark 1996 welfare overhaul. The renewal gives lawmakers and the White House an opportunity to make changes in the program, and Bush has made promoting marriage one of the centerpieces of his plan.
The House has already passed its welfare legislation, which includes the marriage initiative. The Senate Finance Committee plans to consider the matter next week. An initial proposal from Chairman Charles Grassley included the marriage money, and he said Thursday that Democrats have not pushed him to remove it.
In a letter to Grassley last week, 41 Democrats laid out their priorities in the welfare debate, including more money for child care, reasonable work requirements and benefits for legal immigrants. They didn't mention the marriage initiative.
Under the Bush marriage proposal, the government would spend $300 million per year on programs promoting marriage. That includes $200 million in federal dollars, and $100 million states would have to spend in matching funds.
The administration is vague about what the money would go for, but says it would help couples that are already interested in marriage, perhaps through financial incentives or by offering counseling.
Supporters say children are better off when they are raised together by a mother and father, and poor families are better off with two wage earners.
"The fact of the matter is, marriage is a very important tool for economic survival," said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. "When you have two people in a family it makes it easier." Grassley said promoting marriage is "just a no-brainer."
Opponents say it's no such thing.
Michael Tanner of the libertarian Cato Institute says there's no evidence these programs will work and argues there are too few "marriageable men" out there anyway.
"It's not like there's a doctor or an accountant down the street waiting to marry an unwed teenage mother," Tanner said Thursday before a news conference with feminists and others to denounce the initiative.
Women's groups worry that women will wind up coerced into bad, possibly abusive relationships. "The government has no business being involved in personal issues like marriage," said Lisalyn Jacobs of the NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund.
Democratic aides say some Democratic senators are sensitive to these concerns but have not made the issue a priority, focusing instead on trying to get more money for child care and other concerns. At the same time, some moderates are comfortable with the program, willing to experiment and see if pro-marriage programs work.
Sen. Max Baucus, the top Democrat on the Finance Committee, opposes the initiative along libertarian grounds, reflecting his Montana roots, but he's one of the few who has spoken out against it.
Last year, when Democrats ran the Senate, Baucus crafted a bill that included money for experiments promoting marriage but also allowed it to be used for teen pregnancy prevention and other programs, a change the Bush administration denounced.
Both Tanner and Jacobs acknowledge that there are few in Congress ready to take up their cause, fearful that opposing the marriage initiative will be seen as being anti-marriage.
"Who can be against marriage?" Tanner said. "Especially if you're going to face re-election in a year and a half, you don't want to be on the record against marriage."
-------------------------------------------
Shame on Bush and shame on Democrats for doing nothing. Are these the same people who are opposed to gay marriage? As it seems, they have certainly done a good job of making straight marriage a joke, so I certainly wouldn't trust their judgment regardless.
Here goes $300 million down the toilet!
Melon
