I shouldn't be surprised, but when I read the latest proposal being floated by the White House, I hoped that perhaps a new day of pranks and jokes had been started – as if April Fool's wasn't enough.
George W. Bush wants to spend $1.5 billion (yes, with a "b") to promote "healthy marriages." He plans to announce this in the State of the Union.
And that's no laughing matter.
On top of the nearly half of your income that you provide to federal, state, and local governments, Bush wants another twenty bucks a year out of you to invest in this "preventative" measure.
The Family Research Council, a group of well- meaning but naïve people who apparently believe that politicians possess special skills at teaching virtue, hailed the decision. Their president Tony Perkins was quoted as saying, "For every $1,000.00 we spend on public programs addressing family breakdown, we only spend one dollar trying to prevent that breakdown in the first place. The President's initiative puts the emphasis in the right place – prevention."
Amazingly, Perkins isn't kidding either.
So consider this an investment my friends. While government grows, and grows, and grows, and deficits expand, and debts swell, we should consider this a potential savings plan. After all, if we could prevent divorce, we wouldn't have to spend so much money on welfare now, would we?
If they seriously believe that, and apparently Mr. Perkins and his associates do, I have some investments I'd like to show them, starting with a certain bridge.
Government always spends more. In fact, welfare reform, which has allegedly shrunk the welfare rolls, has not resulted in budget cuts. On the contrary, this area of government has continued to require more money.
Politicians are One-horse Harry's – they only know how to spend more and more of your money. There's no investment here.
But that wouldn't matter to Perkins and the Family Research crowd. They are communitarians. Communitarians believe that the power of the State can be used to inculcate values and build moral structure.
No, I didn't say "communist," and I'm not calling them a name that they haven't embraced themselves. A previous offering by this crowd was the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, designed to redirect government welfare money to Christian organizations. It was supported by self-professed communitarians such as William Bennett, John DiIulio, Jr., and Marvin O'Lasky.
But it's no accident that some of you might've thought that I just called them "communist." Both groups believe we can do good using government force.
It's an odd contradiction. If I compel you to behave morally, say at gunpoint, that's not really a moral choice, is it? It's not even really a choice.
And government is force. It means that you confiscate hard-earned money to give to other people. If people don't "voluntarily" turn over their money, you harass them, strip their wages and bank accounts, and finally take their stuff – maybe even arrest them. The professed ends may be well-intentioned, but the means are flawed – terribly flawed. And I doubt the Family Research Council would want to be known as a group that believes the ends justifies the means.
Furthermore, virtue cannot be instilled by force. The message of Christ, which I'm sure Mr. Perkins professes adhesion to, is one of love and its intended target is the human heart. It is freely offered, freely accepted. The State is not so fair.
What kinds of marriages are likely to be produced with federal intervention?
It's hard to imagine how an agency overseen by the likes of philandering and divorced politicians, devoid of any values that might appear to be religious, is going to have any success.
Given the government's past track record on social welfare, it would be fair to expect this investment to cost us an increase in divorce rates! Such do-good programs consistently fail in the same manner.
Politicians can't fix marriage. Boy do I wish this was an April Fool's joke. Sadly, it's not