DriveThru – Get What You Need

A WSJ article rightly linked college education to marital stability, but a concluding comment poorly diagnosed the correlation.

Economist Betsey Stevenson told the WSJ that college-educated couples may be less likely to divorce than couples without a college education because they “were less likely to see marriage as a source of financial stability” but instead as “a source of personal fulfillment.”

This statement isn’t supported by recent historical and sociological research.  American ideas of romance are so tied up with marriage that it seems less likely today than previous to 1950 that any modern couple marries inspired by economic stability.  And scholars have linked the goal of personal fulfillment to marital fragility.

Marriage scholar David Popenoe wrote the following in the 2007 “State of Our Unions” report:

Marriage is now based almost entirely on close friendship and romantic love, mostly stripped of the economic dependencies, legal and religious restriction, and extended family pressures that have held marriages together for most of human history.

Sociology professor and author Andrew J. Cherlin also commented on the fragility of of marriages based on personal fulfillment in the Washington Post:

“Marriage today, like the rest of our lives, is about personal satisfaction,” said Andrew J. Cherlin, a sociology and public policy professor at Johns Hopkins University, noting that there are mixed consequences for the changing views of marriage.

“It allows us to grow and change throughout our lives, and most Americans value that,” Cherlin said. “On the other hand, our relationships are much more fragile, because we think we should leave them if they become unsatisfying.”

What is more likely is that when the tough times come–and they always do–education and more financial resources give the college-educated couple more tools at their disposal to ride out the storm.

Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell took to the Senate floor yesterday to rebut President Obama’s State of the Union comments about the Citizens United decision (that supposedly opened the floodgates to foreign money pouring into our federal elections). You should read McConnell’s press release for particulars, but his point is that federal law, and the Federal Election Commission regulations concerning foreign corporations were left unchanged by the CU decision and are pretty unambiguous.

McConnell cites a provision of the election statute, Title 2 of U.S.C. Section 441e, which he paraphrases:

Foreign nationals, specifically defined to include foreign corporations, are prohibited from, quote, ‘directly or indirectly’ making ‘a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State or local election.’

The FEC regulation which was also not affected by the decision, says:

‘A foreign national shall not direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision making process of any person, such as a corporation, labor organization, political committee, or political organization with regard to such person’s Federal or non-Federal election-related activities, such as decisions concerning the making of contributions, donations, expenditures, or disbursements in connection with elections for any Federal, State, or local office or decisions concerning the administration of a political committee.’

McConnell also makes the point, that with regard to state elections, 26 states allow corporations and unions to speak, without any discernable adverse impacts being reported.

It seems kind of obvious to me that Apple, Inc. (or any big public corporation) would avoid (like the plague) taking sides in an election where, by doing so, they stand to alienate half of their customers.  But industry groups, consumer groups, advocacy organizations and the like represent groups of people (people who are voters, let’s not forget) on all points along the political spectrum who should be entitled to have their voice heard in the 60 days prior to an election. McCain-Feingold’s restrictions on such speech during the 60 day “window” prior to a federal election don’t make much sense, let alone survive the First Amendment’s plain language.

Yesterday, The Denver Post brought to my attention yet another piece of legislation pending in the U.S.  House that gay activists could use as a political tool to force their will upon schools nationwide:

It’s called the Student Nondiscrimination Act, and it was proposed this week by U.S. Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colorado).

That sounds nice, doesn’t it? I mean, who would be against preventing discrimination?  But this bill is more sinister than it sounds.  

If passed, it would use federal mandates to micromanage local school policy all the way down to the elementary level. It would do this by mandating that every public school in the nation enforce special protections for pro-gay categories like “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.”

Why is that a problem?

 First of all, it would open our schools up to a new wave of expensive lawsuits, at a time when they are already burdened by unprecedented litigation.

The proposed legislation calls for noncompliers to not only be liable for providing “compensatory damages” and in danger of losing grants, but also to be written up in a report that is filed with a U.S. House committee. The term draconian might be an understatement in this case.

And it’s unclear exactly how “discrimination” will be defined, which is concerning–especially in light of recent cases involving attempts to censor Christian student groups for having values deemed to conflict with pro-gay “nondiscrimination” policies.

Secondly, the bill would give gay activists the leverage they need to force their agenda—against parents’ will—into public schools, again, all the way down to the kindergarten level. And you don’t have to take my word for it. Just consider recent history.

If this legislation doesn’t make it through, supporters have a backup waiting in the wings that’s equally threatening to local control. It’s called the Safe Schools Improvement Act.

Both bills are heavily supported by the largest gay-activist groups in the nation, including the Human Rights Campaign and GLSEN (the organization created by “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings.)

As I explained to the The Denver Post, bullying is a serious problem that should be addressed (at the local level), but you can do so without sexualizing and politicizing the entire school environment. The emphasis should be on the wrong actions of the bullies, not on their “perceived” motivations.

48 million viewers tuned in last night to watch President Obama’s State of the Union address.  State of the Union speeches aren’t really designed, anymore, to lay out a specific plan of action for the country.  Sure, presidents speak vaguely of things they’ll try to do to create jobs, help the economy, and reduce tax burdens on families–but we all know better than to listen to what a president says.  It’s what he does or has done, that matters.  (And Obama’s first year was quite disappointing for families).

But there is one thing that you can always be sure of with the State of the Union — the decorum. The pomp and circumstance. The tradition and order of it all.  It’s very presidential and…classy.

But last night, class wasn’t always in session.

As my colleagues Bruce and Jenny pointed out, the lack of decorum displayed by Obama when he publicly chastised the highest court in the land for its recent decision in Citizens United (read here and here) was enough to make many Americans cringe.

The visual was quite stunning: a quiet, dignified Supreme Court, sitting in silence (minus Alito’s comment), while a crowd of angry Democrats was seated around them like piranhas, jeering as they were led on by the leader of the free world.

No matter what party you’re from, or even if you never pay attention to politics, you knew intuitively that what Obama did in front of the Supreme Court was wrong.

Of course, there are those who say that Justice Alito should never have responded to the president’s attack.  One guy on Twitter said he was angry at Alito’s “disrespectful” move, and that it was “the president’s night” to do as he wished.  I’ll take double standard, party of one, please.

Whatever your thoughts on the president’s speech, his politics, or his plans for America’s future, the fact remains that he should have given the Supreme Court, at the very least, the same respect they showed him by showing up to the State of the Union.

Didn’t the president say that he wanted to “overcom[e] the numbing weight of our politics”?

Last night would have been a good start.

During the State of the Union address, and in the days leading up to it, President Obama has promised to throw even more taxpayer dollars into the public education system (including funding for things like more “Race to the Top” grants, reworking the No Child Left Behind law, childcare expansion, etc., etc.)

This is on top of the already unprecedented $100 billion he previously promised.

Problem is, despite unprecedented levels of taxpayer funding for public education in recent decades, there isn’t much to show for it. Americans spend a total of nearly $600 billion on public schools every year. Yet student scores on national tests have not shown significant improvement, and we continue to have a serious graduation-rate crisis, with some schools not even graduating half of their students.

It’s time to start asking, where is the return for our investment? The same can be said for President Obama’s pledges to increase childcare funding.  Again, we can look at the federal government’s biggest childcare funding project (to the tune of $7 billion a year)—Head Start. Just the other day there was yet another study showing that most preschoolers in Head Start lose whatever gains they make in the program by the time they reach first grade.

Rather than continue to make more feel-good pledges, it would be nice if our President would follow through on his previous pledge to “use only one test” when determining education policy—and that is “whether it works.”

Empowering parents to make the best choices for their kids clearly works. Take the Opportunity Scholarships, for instance, a D.C. program that allowed thousands of impoverished kids to escape failing schools and go to better-performing schools, including private ones. The principal investigator, who conducted a study for the Department of Education’s own Institute of Education Sciences, said the program “has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the federal government’s official education research arm so far.”

So why is President Obama allowing the program to die despite the best kind of evidence it works?

 This week, Senator Joe Lieberman, (I-CT), and House Republican Leader John Boehner, (R-OH), sent a letter to the President, pleading with him to reauthorize it. “We should not sacrifice these students to politics,” they said.

Let’s hope the President listens to those pleas. Because it’s time to stop increasing the nanny state and start empowering families instead of fostering their dependence on the federal government.

A couple of comments to go with Bruce’s post about the President’s criticism of the Supreme Court below.

I thought that Obama was fairly gutsy to touch on so many political hot potatoes (even if/when I disagreed), but his direct criticism of the SC was rude and low–beneath the dignity of his office and the occasion.

Obviously, those in the three branches of government can criticize one another, but the State of the Union venue doesn’t usually allow for an in-kind response.  The President had the floor and could have responded when ol’ Joe Wilson’s ”You lie!” outburst interrupted the President’s last speech in this venue.  In contrast, the President’s premeditated remarks directed at five individual justices misused the bully pulpit for inappropriate chastisement of his branch co-equals.

From the transcript of the State of the Union speech last night:

“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.  They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

As the members of the Supreme Court sat with their usual stony faces, the Democrats surrounding them stood to their feet in loud applause and cheering (or was it jeering?). Chuck Schumer was so excited I thought he was going to launch a spit-wad at the Chief Justice’s head. Justice Alito appeared to shake his head ever-so-slightly and mouth something like “not true” or “you’re wrong.”  Check out the video of the whole incident here.

The first problem with the President’s statement is that it is not true, as I tried to suggest earlier. However, the larger issue I have with the President’s statement and the Dems’ reaction was how unseemly it was, given the status of the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government and the decorum that has always been observed at these state events with regard to the Court. There are innumerable ways to express disagreement with a court decision and the desire to address it through legislation without the dressing-down Obama chose to give. With the reaction of the Democrats ringing in his ears, I don’t blame Alito for his overt reaction. All in all, I thought the entire moment (and others in the speech I don’t need to go into here) degraded the office of President.

Ed Whelan gives his take on last night’s Supreme Court moment here.

True to form, Sen. Russ Feingold (D- WI) finds fault with Alito, not Obama.

…except for closing arguments (to be set after Judge Walker has finished digesting the evidence), a decision (probably in a few months), an appeal to the 9th Circuit (a decision in a couple years), and a probable trip to the Supreme Court. It could take several years to complete the process. It behooves both sides in this clash of values over marriage neither to take too much solace from a win in the lower courts, nor despair over a defeat. The issues are destined for the Supreme Court, and no one can confidently predict what the final outcome will be, because the outcome there may depend largely what the makeup of the Supreme Court is by the time the case gets there. I personally am convinced that the constitutional case for traditional marriage is rock-solid, but I’m realistic enough to understand that Justice Ginsburg (and her three liberal friends on the Court) and I agree eye to eye on almost no social issues. As usual, Justice Kennedy is the expected wild card.

Prof. Dale Carpenter, a law professor and pundit who favors legalized same-sex marriage, expresses doubts over same-sex marriage’s chances given the current makeup of the Supreme Court even among its liberal members:

“Like many others, I was dubious from the beginning about this bet. I don’t see how you get to a 5-4 majority on the current Court to strike down Prop 8. The hope has been that Justice Kennedy would join the Court’s liberal wing in such a decision. I’m not completely convinced that even this liberal wing — Justices Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg, and Sotomayor — will take on the marriage laws of 45 states. Whatever else one thinks of their constitutional philosophies, the Court’s liberals are not nearly as adventurous or as aggressive as their liberal forebears.”

Maggie Gallagher over at The Corner thinks Olson and Boies chose the wrong strategy to win Kennedy’s vote..

One in three teen mothers (34%) do not graduate from high school, according to Child Trends new fact sheet, Diploma Attainment Among Teen Mothers, while only 6 percent teen females who did not become pregnant never finished high school.

Consider this. What guarantees a teen will not become pregnant? Abstinence.

Abstinence, then, is also a sure-fire behavior for increasing teen women’s chances of graduating and reaching educational milestones. Moreover, the lead author of the Child Trends study notes that higher educational attainment can not only reduce teen pregnancy, it can also break inter-generational cycles of teen pregnancies.

So we must ask, do we want to provide our daughters and granddaughters the best possible chance of fulfilling their brightest and most beneficial potential? Helping teen girls to remain abstinent from sex – not merely “safer” when having sex – is a policy with guaranteed returns!

Other related Child Trends Research Briefs:

• Ten Reasons to Still Keep the Focus on Teen Childbearing
• Estimated Percentage of Females Who Will Become Teen Mothers: Differences Across States

To summarize the newest same-sex parenting study: The conclusion of the study is as conclusive as previous studies, which is to say, inconclusive. Read the USA Today article here.

The goal of sociologists, Biblarz and Stacey, in this most recent study seemed to be discrediting at least 20 years of research finding that a mother and father contribute uniquely to their child.  I take that back.  There are two distinctive gendered qualities mentioned.  Lactation (mothers) and tendency to physically abuse (fathers).

But more about the sexist (against men) statements later.

In fact, Biblarz and Stacey end their study by forwarding at least two rather irresponsible conclusions.  First is the superiority of lesbians couples as parents—in spite of the very high breakup rate noted in their research.  Second—the very unsubtle allusion to the more adults (regardless of biological relationship) involved in raising a child, the better.

It’s difficult to take any of the findings seriously, when the researchers neglect the broadest base of social science conclusions to date:  children thrive when raised by their married mom and dad.

Read a letter to the editor sent to USA Today from Focus on the Family’s Glenn Stanton.

Read more of Glenn’s response to the study here.