There will be poor always...

There is an interesting, short article in City Journal here by Steven Malanga, discussing poverty and the presidential campaign's addressing of it. He explains his interest:

Reading Obama’s speech prompted me to look at his larger economic policy proposals, especially those aimed at combating poverty. Clearly, he believes that our economy is failing many Americans, and to help the impoverished, he proposes everything from tax credits for the working poor to a higher minimum wage. In fairness, on these issues, he’s not much different than his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Yet both candidates are largely missing the point. While they insist that strengthening labor unions or protecting homeowners from foreclosures will alleviate the hardships of the poor, the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census remind us that the breakdown of the traditional two-parent, married family is a far greater contributor to poverty in America than many of the supposed shortcomings of our economy. It’s hard to imagine that America will make much more headway on reducing persistent poverty until it halts this long-term trend.

In the course of his compelling argument he reaches this conclusion:

Given that a significant body of research now shows that children raised in two-parent, married families do better in school, are less likely to wind up in jail, and are less likely to end up on welfare, the startling racial divide in marriage tells us that a new generation of children, especially blacks, are growing up destined to struggle academically, in the job market, and in forming their own families. And policy prescriptions like a higher minimum wage or tax credits are unlikely to help many of these kids. What they mostly need is another parent—usually a father.

In the course of the article, Mr. Malanga refers to another interesting article from the same journal back in 2006, entitled "Marriage and Caste". In it, author Kay Hymowitz states:

As family experts find themselves surrendering to their own research and arguing more and more that marriage is central to the overall well-being of children, they often caution that it is not a cure-all. “Is Marriage a Panacea?” is the illustrative title of a 2003 article in the scholarly journal Social Problems, and you know the answer to the question without reading a page. No, shrinking the Marriage Gap may not be a magic potion for ending poverty or inequality or any other social problem. But it’s hard to see how our two Americas can become one without more low-income men and women making their way to the altar.

Marriage may not be a panacea. But it is a sine qua non.

All this made me think of the Theodore Dalrymple (aka Anthony Daniels) book I recently finished, Life at the Bottom, and reminded me of my recent Marxist deliberations. What a difference our presuppositions make in the way we perceive and attack a problem. And it reminds me that the answers to difficult problems are often simple ones that are difficult to apply...like following God's commands regarding marriage and allowing consequences to be born by those who choose not to do so.