Should Uncle Sam be a Matchmaker?

Uncle Sam Should not be a Match-Maker
Student's Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Name and Number
Professor's Name
Date
Uncle Sam Should not be a Match-Maker
Conservatives believe that promoting marriage is the key to overcoming poverty. The issue is that no one understands how to accomplish it. It's easy to forget, but part of the goal of Clinton-era structural adjustment was to create more secure, two-parent households so that the state (Uncle Sam) would never have to assist as many single parents. After it was passed in 1996, states started experimenting with marriage programs and initiatives for low-income families using public cash. The attempts were primarily modest in scale. However, they received a massive boost in 2002, when the American government-financed the Building Strong Families program, an enormous trial in eight cities designed to see if the state could assist in the development of good relationships.This paper seeks to underscore that Uncle Sam should not be a match-maker. The paper does this by incorporating behavioral, cultural, social, and personality issues.
The use of public monies to promote marriage has aroused fierce discussion. Advocates say that enlightening people about the long-term marriage benefits, pushing them to marry, and offering engagement resources will help to alleviate poverty and social volatility (Buttitta & Witham, 2018). Marriage advocacy, as per detractors, overreaches government limits, risks diverting TANF monies to non-welfare initiatives, and shifts focus away from a more critical issue—early childbirth (Inniss, 1997). Opponents also wonder if poor women will gain economically and if policy-induced marriages promote domestic abuse among fiscally pressured families.
Marriage encouragement may still be a wise option, but more investigation is necessary. "Most early-stage government policy endeavours fail," said Bradford Wilcox, director of the University of Virginia's National Marriage Project(Buttitta & Witham, 2018). He made the analogy to pre-K initiatives, which liberals have supported wholeheartedly but with varied outcomes. He explained that determining good strategy frameworks takes time. No one considers that marrying individuals off is a panacea; it is clear (Clarkson, 2017). Employment and marriage are two crucial components in solving America's poverty issue.
Maybe Uncle Sam should concentrate its efforts on deterring marriage rather than encouraging it. Some assistance programs, such as the Medicaid and earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), are organized so that husbands and wives are mistakenly penalized, a situation that conservative think tanks like the Heritage Foundation have often lamented(Clarkson, 2017). However, except one consider that tax credits are the top hindrance to long-term relationships in this USA, it appears improbable that those adjustments would persuade more Americans to start a family.
Another option is to redirect government assistance away from single parents and toward husbands and wives. That appears to be Rubio's intention when he argues the government should replace the EITC with outright wage subsidies for low-paid jobs(Clarkson, 2017). The EITC becomes less beneficial as a family's revenue climbs, creating a marriage penalty, but two earnings are often greater than one with wage subsidies. As noted by analyst Jared Bernstein, the difficulty is that the measure could penalize single parents while also raising child poverty. That gets us to the primary point: reducing poverty by increasing marriage is a worthwhile experiment(Inniss, 1997). Unfortunately, it is not much of a strategy.
No one can deny that a long, successful marriage helps both the grownups and the minor children. However, several statements about the societal advantages of marriage confuse selection bias with causality effects(East, 2017). They conflate the financial, societal, and emotional elements that try to push or draw individuals into various family forms with the belief that those family formations create these attributes. Married individuals are, in general, better, stronger, more monetarily self-sufficient, and less likely to commit crimes than unmarried persons(Clarkson, 2017). People who are healthier, happier, more financially independent, and less susceptible to criminality are likely to marry during the first instance.
The same can be said for the other way around. Individuals who have serious issues are less likely to be married. Men who have become fathers without first marrying, for instance, were twice as likely as married fathers to have a health or mental issue that affected their efforts to identify or hold a job, and many times more likely to misuse illicit substances, according to the Fragile Families Study(Buttitta & Witham, 2018). Likewise, over two-thirds of the poor, primarily single moms Linda Burton and her study team surveyed had already suffered family abuse or sexual assault, which have also been proven to impact folk's ability to operate as spouses and parents.
When a pair marries and can make their relationship work, their early benefits are multiplied. However, getting engaged does not ensure a happy life. Individuals unhappy in their marriage are more likely to suffer from depression than those who remain single(East, 2017). Engaging an aggressive or judgmental partner can be harmful to one's health, raising blood pressure, weakening immunological functioning, and even exacerbating the cases of chronic conditions like arthritis.
It is indeed possible that having only one grownup in the house continue providing revenue and ...