The Black Family

A rescue plan for the black family

Far from addressing the marriage problem, the federal government exacerbated it.

BY PAUL PETERSON  NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Monday, January 19, 2015, 4:15 AM


As we celebrate the anniversary of Martin Luther King's birth, we should ask why so many of the problems against which he struggled — segregation, poverty, persistent racial gaps in education and income — remain so much a part of American life.

Few remember that Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan warned of this possibility. His report “The Negro Family: A Case for National Action,” released 50 years ago, lamented the rising tide of single parenthood in the black community.

In its introduction, Moynihan warned that black families would not see improved fortunes for generations “unless a new and special effort is made.”

Unfortunately, the federal government, far from addressing the marriage problem, exacerbated it. The percentage of African-American children living in single-parent families climbed from less than 30% in 1965 to 50% in 2013. The percentage of white and Hispanic children in single-parent households has also risen sharply.

Growth in single parenthood has many causes including female entry into the labor force, changing social norms and male unemployment. But a close look at when the problem intensified — and when it attenuated — suggests that the main culprit may well be the government.

The steepest upward jump in single parenthood took place in the late 1960s and early 70s. And since the mid-1990s, the percentage of children living in single-parent families has stabilized — especially within the African-American community, where the percentage has in fact declined somewhat from its 1990 high.

Why? Prior to 1965, the welfare state for families with children was largely limited to a meager, restrictive program distributed by state and local governments.

That changed with the arrival of the Great Society. A host of novel programs, and revisions in older ones, provided a range of new resources and services.

Courts ordered a liberalization of state regulations governing aid to dependent children. A new Medicaid program covered most medical costs. Basic sustenance for the disabled was institutionalized through Supplemental Security Insurance and Social Security reforms.

A generous, broadly defined food stamp program replaced a more restrictive distribution of commodities.

Designs of some programs actively discouraged marriage. Welfare assistance went to mothers — so long as no male was in the household. Once a family income crossed a specific threshold, access to most resources disappeared.

These incentives encouraged childbirth even when the prospects of marriage were minimal. In many urban neighborhoods, pregnancies were seen by future mothers as opportunities to begin life anew.

Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan 

While some economists and policy analysts of the day welcomed government’s readiness to help families, others feared the “poverty trap.” It was said that in 1975 a household head would have to earn $20,000 a year to have more resources than what could be obtained from Great Society programs.

As a proposed solution, economist Milton Friedman proposed the Negative Income tax (NIT). Instead of welfare benefits, he urged government payments to supplement the earnings of those who worked. Those payments would slowly phase out as earned income increased.

An idea closely resembling it, the Earned Income Tax Credit, was created. Although at first it was too small to have much effect, by 1994 maximum annual benefits for two-child families neared $4,000.

By 2005, economists concluded that, at a cost of $34 billion annually, it had lifted “more children out of poverty than any other government program.”

The EITC worked in tandem with Clinton-era welfare reforms, which required single parents to enter a training program or the workforce if aid were to continue.

In sum, the steep rise in single-parent families coincides with the creation of the modern welfare state. Later changes in welfare policy finally reduced the size of the poverty trap, though they have certainly not eliminated the marriage penalty.

Going forward, we do not need to eliminate Great Society programs, but we do need to finish redesigning them. The EITC needs to be remodeled so that its incentives positively impact married families, not just single parents. Furthermore, tax credits could be given for welfare benefits lost upon marriage.

We also need to create new job opportunities for young workers with limited job skills. To give employers incentives to hire young, less-skilled employees, minimum wage and other restrictive labor laws need to be modified.

And we need to facilitate student choice and access to a broad range of high schools, vocational programs, training programs and other institutions that support young people during the key years of transition from school to work.

King’s struggle is still with us, and the Moynihan report remains as pertinent today as when it was written 50 years ago.