Bush's Proposes $1.5B to fund Heterosexual Counseling

[Metacom]

In today's (14-Jan-04) NY Times, there was an article about a plan by the Bush administration to spend $1.5B on counseling for heterosexual couples that want to get married. Among the justifications offered by the administration is the assertion that children raised inside of marriages make more money and are physically healthier.

How can a conservative justify this? This seems like exactly the kind of social program that constantly seems to be bashed by the very people advocating it: it's blatant social manipulation coupled with valuable hand-outs payed for with the taxpayer money. The only thing differentiating it from similar programs is that it will only benefit heterosexual couples. The cynical liberal in me wants to write it off as a blatantly anti-gay bill aimed solely at garnering the religious vote at the expense of most conservative ideals--I'd be interested in hearing a counter justification for it.

[KidCharlemagne]

I'd much rather put that 1.5bil into counseling for those who are having a child.

[Metacom]

Doh! I re-worded the title and didn't lop the "'s" off of "Bush's". Could a mod make me look less illiterate, please?

[Rashak Mani]

Blatant "handout" to the diaper industry ?

Curiosly I can't find articles about it since I don't subscribe to the NYTimes...

Does it reek of convervatism and anti-gay ? Yep... should he be fair and spend a few million counseling gays too ? Maybe to make them give up their "condition". I will try to read more about it before laughing some more and commenting on it.

[Knorf]

Why the hell is the government getting involved in marriage counseling?

Would the conservatives be as happy about this if it had been proposed by a president who was democrat?

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by Rashak Mani

Blatant "handout" to the diaper industry ?

No, it's a handout to the couples who receive the counseling. It's a valuable service that people typically have to pay for.

Curiosly I can't find articles about it since I don't subscribe to the NYTimes...

The subscription to the web site is free and not very invasive. They're good about not spamming the email address you supply (if you give them a valid one).

[cmkeller]

I'm a bit dubious of any attempt by the government to get involved in social engineering.

On the other hand, I can see this as being of a type with "midnight basketball" programs, in the "ounce of prevention" sort of thinking.

Bottom line?...How about we try it and see if it does anything? The problems of children in broken marriages won't go away by themselves.

[RickJay]

The "ounce of prevention" theory is sound, cmkeller. The problem is that of $1.5 billion spent on such a program by the federal government, maybe eighty bucks will be spent wisely.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by cmkeller

On the other hand, I can see this as being of a type with "midnight basketball" programs, in the "ounce of prevention" sort of thinking.

Bottom line?...How about we try it and see if it does anything? The problems of children in broken marriages won't go away by themselves.

In many states, gay couples can and do adopt--why should should such couples be denied free counseling under this program? I'm not saying you think they should be--the question isn't necessarily directed at you...

[MrTuffPaws]

Bottom line?...How about we try it and see if it does anything? The problems of children in broken marriages won't go away by themselves.

Uh, what problems? As my self produced from a horrid marriage of my parents, a broken home is wishful thinking for some.

This is nothing other than pandering to the religious right IMO. I can just here the counselors now, “Don’t get divorced. Think of the kids. It will make baby Jesus cry.....”

[Revtim]

Originally Posted by Metacom

How can a conservative justify this? This seems like exactly the kind of social program that constantly seems to be bashed by the very people advocating it: it's blatant social manipulation coupled with valuable hand-outs payed for with the taxpayer money. The only thing differentiating it from similar programs is that it will only benefit heterosexual couples. The cynical liberal in me wants to write it off as a blatantly anti-gay bill aimed solely at garnering the religious vote at the expense of most conservative ideals--I'd be interested in hearing a counter justification for it.

I agree with your cynical assessment.

"Me like traditional marriage!" is an easier and simpler concept to sell than the "less gov't invovlement" concept.

[John Mace]

What a bunch of tripe this is. Even if I supported something like this, it should be set up and run by the States, not by the Feds.

[Guinastasia]

So wait-is this manditory for people planning on getting married?

[cmkeller]

Metacom:

In many states, gay couples can and do adopt--why should should such couples be denied free counseling under this program?

According to the article, the Defense of Marriage Act precludes the executive branch from doing that. I suppose that there might be lawyers who'll disagree with that interpretation, but that's the line that the administration is peddling regarding your question.

Mr Tuff Paws:

Uh, what problems? As my self produced from a horrid marriage of my parents, a broken home is wishful thinking for some.

Really? While I don't know the exact circumstances of your parents' marriage, I'd venture to say that if said problems could have been fixed or ameliorated by counseling, you would have preferred that to their getting divorced. The initiative is aiming to improve bad marriages, not to convince them to stay together without any change.

But even if your circumstances are not such, still...the article mentions studies that have shown that in general children are better off in intact families than in broken ones.

John Mace:

What a bunch of tripe this is. Even if I supported something like this, it should be set up and run by the States, not by the Feds.

The article seems to indicate that it will involve support (in the form of grants and consultants) of state programs rather than an actual federal program.

Chaim Mattis Keller

[istara]

Is there extensive evidence that such counselling significantly reduces problems such as marital break up, domestic abuse, etc etc?

[mrblue92]

Perhaps Britney's marriage can be saved after all!

[Duck Duck Goose]

Guin: No, it wouldn't be mandatory. It's much more general--and vague--than, "line up everyone who's planning on getting married and force them to submit to premarital counseling". From the article:

Under the president's proposal, federal money could be used for specified activities, including advertising campaigns to publicize the value of marriage, instruction in marriage skills and mentoring programs that use married couples as role models.

Federal officials said they favor premarital education programs that focus on high school students, young adults interested in marriage, engaged couples and unmarried couples at the "magic moment" of a child's birth.

Considerations of sexuality, gender, and "morals" aside, I think it's just flatout a waste of the taxpayer's money. I mean, geez, I can think of a lot better ways to spend $1.5 billion of federal money, ways that would benefit everyone in these here United States, not just the very tiny subset of a subset of a subset, "all those (a) heterosexual people who (b) were thinking of gettting married and (c) were interested in premarital counseling".

The Star-Telegram is copying the story, BTW, no registration required.

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/7706871.htm

Posted on Wed, Jan. 14, 2004

Bush plan would encourage marriage
By Robert Pear;David D. Kirkpatrick
The New York Times

WASHINGTON - Administration officials say they are planning an extensive election-year initiative to promote marriage, especially among low-income couples, and they are weighing whether President Bush should promote the plan in his State of the Union speech next week.

For months, administration officials have been working with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

< snip >

"This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base," a presidential adviser said.

I hope everybody noticed that last line there--I'm gonna go way out on a limb and predict that after next November, we won't hear anything more about this particular pet project.

[Knorf]

I am in complete agreement with Duck Duck Goose.

I wish Americans were far more critical of such transparently insincere politicking than they are.

[Metacom]

Originally Posted by istara

Is there extensive evidence that such counselling significantly reduces problems such as marital break up, domestic abuse, etc etc?

To me, the effectiveness of the program isn't the issue: What matters most is the exclusion of homosexuals from it. If you think this program will be efficacious, as the Bush administration ostensibly does, then why specifically exclude the children of homosexuals from it? As cmkeller pointed out, the administration claims that the Defense of Marriage Act is what the administration is using to justify the exclusion; however, the legislation could easily have avoided the issue by avoiding the word "marriage."

So, if the administration believes in the legislation, then they care more about delegitimizing homosexual relationships then they do about the well-being of children.

Ironically, I actually hope that they don't belive in the program, because political pandering frightens me less then the alternative explanation.

[aahala]

The cost of the proposed program could reasonably provide 150,000 kids one year at most community colleges, about 72 hours of our Iraqi expense or 2 rolls of duck tape for every human in the US to prevent a terrorist attack.

[furt]

This is why I like crusty old farts like Bob Dole, who have been around forever and know first-hand how government involvement often makes things worse, are aware of their limitations.

Politics is no doubt a consideration in this, but the other part is that Bush has completely fallen in love with the power of the office. His line about "when people are hurting, government has to move" is one of the most arrogant and obnoxious things I've heard from any chief executive ever, and it is absolutely different in tone from what he said as a candidate. But now that he's in office he sees all the things he can do on paper and in theory, and he's spending like a crack junkie who hits the lottery.

This is why we desperately need a sane opposition party. A centrist candidate like Lieberman or maybe Edwards could absolutely hammer W about the deficit.

[jayjay]

If you go to Paradise Valley, Arizona, and stand outside the walls of Christ Church of the Ascension Memorial Garden, you can hear the urn that holds Barry Goldwater's ashes spinning at triple-time as his beloved Republican Party discards the smaller-government beliefs that carried it through the 20th Century. If I agreed with the Republicans on nothing else, I agreed that there needed to be more responsibility in government spending. This new GOP just enjoys lowering taxes without reducing spending. Surprise! The deficit went up! I'm so proud that the Boomers are pawning their debt off on Generation 2K. Way to take responsibility!

[Leaper]

Actually, I'm kind of relieved. When I read that subject line, I was sure Bush was proposing funding counseling to turn homosexuals into heterosexuals.

Sure, I was thinking, "geez, not even Bush would be that blatant, especially in an election year," but one never knows with politicans of any stripe...

[Rashak Mani]

I think they should seek to ease the economic burden upon people with kids and that might help marriages just as much. Many divorces and bad family lives come from economic pressures on the parents. Crime would go down too... but we all call this social security.

Social Security I understand is a dirty word in America... the lack of it fills the prisons... but it doesn keep America competitive.