WurfWhile

I’m responding to an Idaho legislative task force charged with “study[ing] the magnitude of the decline of the family since 1950; the effects the decline has had on state social policies; the reasons for the decline, and ways to strengthen the family.” Certainly the socially conservative task force has its biases (believing couples should stay together by eliminating “no fault” divorce - and that women should stay home with the kids) - but the real eye grabber for me was a claim “that the state could save $200 million from the drop in crime that would result if there were fewer divorces.” That’s some serious cash in a state with only about 880,000 ‘most likely prospective parents of minors’ (i.e. parental ages between 18 and 65) - with the actual number of Idaho parents around 118,000 (pdf). In fact, that’s about $1,700 per parent. Combined with other positive effects if you could have a parent at home being able to help hold things together (I wouldn’t discriminate based on gender), I’d imagine you could more than double the savings - say $3,500 per parent. Why not just give parents the money (it’s not like it wouldn’t still cost money to raise kids)? There would probably be fewer people even considering divorce because the extra money would help alleviate financial pressures - a two parent family’s $7,000 payment is 17% of the state’s median income of $40,500. It might even have a positive effect for business by providing modest-income people with more disposable income to spend on basics.

Idaho should draw up the legislation right now to give parents the money - many could use it (Idaho isn’t a wealthy state with a poverty rate of about 11.5%). It could be part of a campaign to encourage parents to stay home more by making raising kids more affordable - a bit closer to the way things were in the 1950s….