<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Reconstruction &#8211; The Center for Marriage Policy</title>
	<atom:link href="https://marriagepolicy.org/center/reconstruction/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://marriagepolicy.org</link>
	<description>Supply-side socioeconomic policy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2014 05:13:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=5.7.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Your Choice: Marriage or Bankrupt Big Government?</title>
		<link>https://marriagepolicy.org/2012/01/marriage-or-bankrupt-big-government/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[cfmpAdmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Jan 2012 03:46:11 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Reconstruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Slide Show]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supply-side socioeconomics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[balanced budgets]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deficit spending]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marriage policy]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marriagepolicy.org/?p=257</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Marriage-absence drives our greatest economic and social problems. The only feasible way to balance budgets in ways everyone will benefit from is to reshape federal and state laws that senselessly weaken or buy out marriage.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Marriage-absence and uncontrollable deficit spending are inseparable problems bankrupting the United States.  An accounting of the marriage-deficit demonstrates that recent major national problems, including health care coverage, home foreclosures, social entitlement spending, crime interdiction costs, and the disappearing middle class are all consequences of marriage-absence.</p>
<p>Marriage-absence is a problem caused by decades of breezy liberal “change” agenda for which Conservatives have never had sound socioeconomic policy or legislation.  Liberals attempt to enact ideas into law to give the appearance of solving social problems.  Our culture of honoring marriage has suffered decades of incremental losses for lack of a better policy.  Today’s seemingly unrelated budget battles are the end-stage consequence of years of using “no” as our only social policy, and assuming marriage would survive despite societal erosion and new anti-family policies.</p>
<p>We must now ask ourselves an important question: Why do Republicans usually lose on social issues?</p>
<p><strong>The Limitations of Reaganomics</strong></p>
<p>Reagan knew that <em>“welfare&#8217;s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.”</em> This directly implies more is needed than budget cuts to deal with massive welfare expansion.  Reagan and his descendants were unable to translate this vision into effective policy.  For this reason, conservative social policy has been a risky exercise in economic crisis management often exacerbating the root causes.</p>
<p>One of Reagan’s biggest regrets, as expressed in his memoirs, was signing the first “no-fault” divorce law into effect as Governor of California.  Passage of no-fault divorce laws by all other states were followed by explosions of divorce, illegitimacy, and uncontrollable social spending, empowering Democrat administrations while Republicans nervously stood aside.</p>
<p>Historically, Republicans fail when it comes to delivering both a strong economy and a balanced budget. Republicans have done well on the economic side, but have had difficulty articulating the right way to accomplish strong social policy.  Democrats have demonstrated incompetence on economic issues, but rely on social problems &#8212; powered by class and gender warfare organizers &#8212; to escalate welfare spending.</p>
<p>The lack of monetaristic social policy, combined with Milton Friedman’s liberal views on social issues, precluded the invention of technically-sound conservative social policy.  The liberal followers of Keynes hence enjoyed sole control of social policy, and America is nearly bankrupt.</p>
<p>During the Reagan, H.W. Bush, and G.W. Bush years, the debt-to-GDP ratio skyrocketed by 62.7%.  This is partially attributable to a combination of lower tax rates and increased defense spending &#8212; but is predominantly the result of out-of-control “War on Poverty” spending.</p>
<p>The 1996 welfare reforms, primarily focused on cutting budgets, aggressively attacked the consequences of marriage-absence instead of addressing problems at the source.   Social expenditures were privatized as aggressive “child support” recoupment programs, and more single mothers were forced to work full time.  This did not lift unmarried mothers out of poverty or resolve their problems.  Many mothers ended up doing double-duty as mothers and full-time workers, while legions of un-parented children failed in school, went to prison, and gave birth to the next unfortunate generation to be raised without married parents.</p>
<p>Recasting “welfare” as a “child support collections problem” also transformed welfare into an inbred policy structure effectively taking from the poor to help the poor &#8212; pitting poor women against poor men.  This proved to aggravate the unmarried underclass &#8212; still believing it was getting welfare &#8212; only to find it taken back four or five years later by the Title IV-D collections system.  The resulting disparity between rich and poor provided powerful ammunition for the “social justice” movement to organize large urban areas during the run-up to the 2008 elections.</p>
<p>A “family values” cultural clash emerged – hallmarked by the policy-free “family values” debate and punctuated by Gingrich’s strident call for more orphanages.  In their efforts to appear politically correct many Republicans became squeamish about social issues.   Between 1998 and 2008, Democrats wrenched social issues away from the Republican Party and positioned themselves as the only ones who care about the hardships of single mothers, retirees, and the ever-expanding cotillion of interests being brought under the “welfare” model.</p>
<p>Budget-cutting is a necessary tool but is not a substitute for well-crafted policy that ends social problems and precludes subsequent spending needs. Cutting builds a backlog of social problems inuring to the benefit of opportunistic politicians and bleeding-heart media.</p>
<p>By 2008, the burgeoning underclass and community organizers leveraged enough energy to provide the rocket fuel for the Democrat’s “free health care” welfare-state landslide.  Once again, Republicans forfeited political power by having weak and incoherent social policy.</p>
<p>Obama entered territory far beyond that charted by Lyndon Johnson and his predecessors by launching a wild social spending spree, doubling the size of the welfare state, on the Democrat scorecard, in full defiance of the values of most Americans.  While social issues elected President Obama in a strong victory, it was his social spending that also purchased Republican victories in 2010.</p>
<p>Republicans celebrated as they regained control of the House in 2010.  The credit for most of the gains belongs primarily to energetic Tea Partiers and Constitutionalists – who focused on cutting budgets and limiting government &#8212; not the Republican Party itself.  The lack of enticing, visionary reconstruction agenda prevented a Republican takeover in the Senate, despite a magnificent political opportunity not unlike the Zeitgeist that drove the Republican landslide in 1994.</p>
<p>Haley Barbour offered a sobering bookmark: “Republicans now [only] own one-half of one-third of government“.  The 2010 elections were a step in the right direction, but not the sweep anticipated after two tumultuous years of bankrupt quangocratic rule that sent the nation into a state of horrified uproar. With little more than budget reforms in the toolbox, Republicans are walking a political tightrope that could become a third rail. We won a skirmish, but are a long way from winning the war in 2012.</p>
<p>With a nation drowning in spending driven primarily by marriage-absence we must change our game.  <em>Winning the future still hinges on Republicans’ ability to seize the upper hand on social policy.</em></p>
<p><strong>The economic necessity of marriage</strong></p>
<p>Conservatives are more outspoken about the importance of marriage than ever before.  At CPAC, Representative Allen West said <em>“We cannot continue in an America where we are making more and more people wedded to government either by subsistence check or by unemployment check… we must hold sacred the privilege of marriage between a man and a woman … because we cannot allow the destruction of the American family.”</em></p>
<p>Referring to overlapping problems of marriage-absence and education, Governor Mitch Daniels said, <em>“we must never yield to the self-fulfilling despair that these problems are immutable or insurmountable.”</em> Mitt Romney knows that <em>“Liberal welfare policies condemn generations to dependency and poverty.”</em> Most notably, Mike Huckabee expressed a vitally-important point on Stephen Colbert recently when he said, <em>“social issues are economic issues”</em>.</p>
<p>The Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and many other organizations have emphatically recommended a return to marriage decades.</p>
<p>Conservatives uniformly realize that rebuilding marriage, to serve its necessary civilizational role, is an important goal.  Most do not yet understand that rebuilding marriage is also a mandatory cornerstone of <strong>economic</strong> reconstruction. Without a visionary policy Republicans will never have the ability to reverse the troubling trend of marriage-absence, and America will sink ever-deeper into financial insolvency.</p>
<p>Marriage-absence is the greatest economic problem we face and is the primary driver of uncontrollable spending and deficits at both state and federal levels.  Economic and social conservatives need a unified agenda.  William F. Buckley’s conservative political revolution will be reborn when social conservatives deliver productive socioeconomic policy capable of balancing the budget.</p>
<p><strong>Establishing prevailing conservative socioeconomic policy</strong></p>
<p>The <a href="../../">Center for Marriage Policy</a> is launching the science of <strong>Marriage Values socioeconomic policy</strong>.  Our policy establishes a pillar of “monetaristic socioeconomics” to complement settled conservative economic policy.  “Marriage Values” policy naturally builds marriage, actively deflates social problems driving deficit spending, naturally balances federal and state budgets, reduces poverty, and uplifts the poor.</p>
<p>The principles of the two pillars are very similar.  One builds business, economy, and tax revenues.  The other builds marriage and structural socioeconomic strength while deflating large amounts of unproductive government spending.  Together, jobs and marriage are the two necessary safety nets assuring the best outcomes, even when the job market contracts.</p>
<p>Marriage is social currency, which if invested in, builds nations.  When our social currency contracts, like the money supply shrunk just before the Great Depression, the economic and social consequences are profound.  Today’s problems are compounded because about half of individuals lack the social safety net of marriage in a tough job market.</p>
<p>Marriage is an irreplaceable structural necessity because each family has two incomes, four hands, and two brains to support the household, raise children, and save for retirement, in a healthy form of mutual socioeconomic interdependency.   This fundamental truth is often ignored by trendy social re-engineers who coincidentally believe that government can somehow replace both the social and economic benefits of marriage.</p>
<p>Going forward, we must establish an enduring stewardship of our most valuable national socioeconomic currency &#8212; marriage.</p>
<p>Marriage Values policy will transform government from marriage-destructive to marriage-positive activities.  Government must stop financially coercing or baiting citizens into pursuit of bad choices that often destroy their futures.  We will lead Americans from the intergenerational trap of welfare, poverty, and crime to happier, richer, more stable married lives – where temporary employment difficulties are mitigated by the fact that married families have two income sources and only one roof to support.</p>
<p>Our “<a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=165185">10 Marriage Values Policies</a>” are founded on scientific knowledge that will deliver improved marriage rates, reduced poverty, illegitimacy and cohabitation rates; and deliver substantial improvements in criminal, health care, retirement, and educational metrics.  Spending decreases will be substantial, answering the most serious state and federal budgetary shortfalls, <em>while we grow the tax base</em>.</p>
<p>The body of reliable studies proves that marriage is the foundation for low poverty rates.  Married individuals and their children are the happiest, are most likely to succeed in work and school, and retire on roughly three times the assets of unmarried individuals.</p>
<p>We cannot end the myriad problems associated with marriage-absence by ignoring or complaining about them, forcing marriage, or solely slicing budgets.  We will succeed by giving Americans better choices leading to personal independence and happier lives, at little or no cost to government.</p>
<p>Marriage Values policy marks a sea-change in approach to “social issues”.  Socioeconomic policy will be empirically defined and measured in non-confrontational scientific contexts.  In the past, social issues have been staged as religious or cultural collisions with class or gender activists – with policy essentially driven by street culture.  This approach may make for exciting headlines, but leaves a lot of people with hurt feelings, ruins political careers, and prevents development of well-crafted policy founded on peer-reviewed science.</p>
<p>Marriage Values policy avoids the third rails of feminism, racism, multiculturalism, and religious debate.  Anti-marriage and anti-American special interest groups cannot effectively challenge science and civil instinct that will deliver what most Americans want and need.</p>
<p>High employment and marriage rates structurally benefit all Americans, and are necessary pillars for any successful society.  This truth speaks to atheists, libertarians, constitutionalists, conservatives, mainstream feminists, women, children, and especially the poor most severely impacted by marriage-absence.  Jobs and marriage are everyone’s issues.  The scientific evidence supporting the benefits of marriage to individuals cannot be deconstructed by progressives no matter how hard they try.</p>
<p><strong>Marriage is the leading women’s issue </strong></p>
<p>All arrows point to the fact that past social policy has tremendously harmed most women caught up in the welfare state.  Mothers who are divorced or never married the fathers of their children suffer many disadvantages.  We must reach out to show poor women the road map to a better life.</p>
<p>Despite years of intergenerational non-marriage, the core belief in marriage remains very strong according to reliable studies.  The human dynamic of Marriage Values policy begins with tapping the unparalleled economic and social benefits of marriage to individuals, and leading them out of the welfare-poverty trap.  Coordinated changes to welfare and family law have the potential to gently transition large numbers of women from welfare to marriage.</p>
<p>Current practices take women who would be winners and turn them into losers by baiting them out of marriage with trinkets and baubles. Winners will pick themselves, avoid troublesome government solutions, and the majority will succeed out of self-interest.  Our policy works by giving Americans better choices – the ones individuals wanted in the first place – pre-empting existing programs and in many cases relegating them to handle much smaller numbers of temporary crises.</p>
<p><strong>Ending America’s silent civil war</strong></p>
<p>Our approach ends the fifty-year battle between the Great Society and Daniel Patrick Moynihan &#8212; on a positive note &#8212; with everyone emerging a winner. Marriage Values policy is the only road map addressing the root causes of America’s greatest economic and social problems within a single, inseparable policy framework.</p>
<p>America is near insolvency due to socialist expansions of the welfare state by Democrats.  Anti-American activists sense the tipping point is near, and hope to push America over the edge into collapse by organizing class-based civil war on our economic institutions. We must not let Marxists end the American Experiment when we now have the tools to eviscerate their insidious rich vs. poor revolution.</p>
<p>The Republican Party desperately needs the unifying strategic model of Marriage Values policy to achieve landslide victories in Congress and the Presidency in 2012, and to reconstruct America to be the self-determined and self-governing prosperous Republic it was designed to be.  All Americans must heed the Patriot call to win America’s second civil war – a Donnybrook lost by decades of values attacks from the rear – and which will be won by frontal assault with non-contentious sound socioeconomic policy.</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">___________________________________________</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000849687890">David R. Usher</a> is President of the <a href="../../">Center for Marriage Policy</a></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Icet">Allen Icet</a> is the former State Representative for Missouri’s 84<sup>th</sup> District,</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Chairman of <a href="http://www.moclubforgrowth.com/">The Missouri Club for Growth</a>, and Vice President of the Center for Marriage Policy</p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.cynthiadavis.net/">Cynthia Davis</a> is the former State Representative for Missouri’s 19th District and Executive Director of the Center for Marriage Policy</p>
<p style="text-align: center;">© 2011</p>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Phyllis Schlafly&#8217;s Radio Show from the Founding of the Center for Marriage Policy</title>
		<link>https://marriagepolicy.org/2011/10/phyllis-schlaflys-radio-show-from-the-founding-of-the-center-for-marriage-policy/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[cfmpAdmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Oct 2011 22:54:27 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[MarriageUpdates]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reconstruction]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marriagepolicy.org/?p=545</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Listen to Phyllis Schlafly's radio show broadcast from the Founding of the Center for Marriage Policy.  David R. Usher, Cynthia Davis, Allen Icet, Janice Shaw Crouse, Joe Cordell, and other pro-marriage leaders speak about the economic necessity of reversing the trend of marriage-absence.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[Listen to Phyllis Schlafly's radio show broadcast from the Founding of the Center for Marriage Policy.  David R. Usher, Cynthia Davis, Allen Icet, Janice Shaw Crouse, Joe Cordell, and other pro-marriage leaders speak about the economic necessity of reversing the trend of marriage-absence.]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>Marriage: The Replacement For Welfare</title>
		<link>https://marriagepolicy.org/2011/09/marriage-the-replacement-for-welfare/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[cfmpAdmin]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Sep 2011 05:03:50 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Reconstruction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supply-side socioeconomics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[health care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[poverty]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://marriagepolicy.org/?p=384</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[A necessary component of America's forthcoming reconstruction is the replacement of welfare and national health care with marriage.  Marriage is revenue-positive and builds naturally-sustainable communities.  Marriage is a positive issue for voters. A very significant portion of federal and state deficit spending problems structurally arise because the ratio of married families to single-head-of-household families is precipitously low.]]></description>
										<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-family: Palatino,Times New Roman,Georgia,Times,serif;">By David R. Usher</span><br />
<span> © 2011 </span></p>
<div>
<p>For the past 15 years, liberals have abused the consequences of marriage-absence as political wildcards to justify legislation entitling even more of it.</p>
<p>The term &#8220;marriage-absence&#8221; refers to adults of marriageable age living outside the institution of heterosexual marriage.</p>
<p>In the vast majority of cases, living in a state of marriage-absence drives our most costly and urgent social and economic problems, including the majority of poverty for women and children, lack of health care coverage, intergenerational illegitimacy, child educational and mental health issues, substance abuse, domestic violence and much of our crime problem. The budget burden is growing explosively. Economic conservatives must note that tremendous costs of marriage-absence imposed on business and taxpayers has historically precluded sustainable zero-deficit spending since the 1960s.</p>
<p>Living outside the institution of marriage is often thought to be a lifestyle choice. However, this simplistic view ignores the vast array of federal and state policies baiting individual to prefer non-marriage, to the ultimate detriment of themselves, their children, society and taxpayers. The problem of intergenerational marriage-absence will not abate, and the success of the American Experiment is already in great danger. It is now necessary to address the policies entitling harmful lifestyle choices, replacing them with policies that encourage positive lifestyle choices.</p>
<p>Conservatives fail to grasp the necessity of positively applying these problems as motivators to effect marriage-positive change for the benefit of everyone.</p>
<p>Welfare reform was unsuccessful because <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=88737">the important goals of improving marriage rates and reducing out-of-wedlock births were not addressed</a>. Single mothers must work full time and children must be raised by day-care centers and schools – driving the day-care and schools-as-parent crises. Welfare reform turned fathers into status criminals facing jail if they cannot provide a mandated welfare payment often in excess of real earning capacity.</p>
<p>Since welfare reform was enacted in 1996, out-of-wedlock births skyrocketed and marriage rates continue to slide. Robert Rector pointed to the missing policy link in 2007: <a href="http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjE3NTA4Yjc0NjQxMDA4ZjhlZjczMWM0YWNlM2JhOTg=">&#8220;If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three quarters of the nation&#8217;s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.&#8221;</a></p>
<p>The recently enacted SCHIP program is national health care in the name of marriage-absent children. It is just another entitlement luring more bad marital and reproductive decisions that invariably come full circle to hurt most women.</p>
<p>The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was hastily re-authorized with full bipartisan support in late 2007. Unfortunately, VAWA is a primary destroyer of marriage, immigration law and due process standards. Only a sworn statement is required to instantly seize marriages, assets, green cards and a breathtaking array of free benefits. VAWA has historically provided no salient results and has harmed marriage because it <a href="http://www.dadsnow.org/studies/doj1.pdf">fails to positively address the primary driver of spousal violence – substance abuse – a preventable and very treatable addictive disorder</a>.</p>
<p>Democrats have briskly accelerated execution of the National Organization for Women&#8217;s <a href="http://www.now.org/issues/">gender juggernaut</a> since the elections. President Obama anointed eponymous lesbian Kim Gandy as social policy guru by creating the White House Council on Women and Girls. Gandy ecstatically bragged, <a href="http://www.now.org/press/03-09/03-11.html">&#8220;We got the entire Cabinet.&#8221;</a> She forgot to mention the rest of Congress and America, too.</p>
<p>Liberals know that Republicans always go along with feminist social legislation if it is unrelated to abortion or gay marriage. Liberals now see a fantastic opportunity to sneak volumes of legislation through Congress while Republican attention is focused on tumultuous economic and war issues.</p>
<p>In the coming months, we will witness a torrent of gender-based federal legislation designed to further destroy heterosexual marriage and force everyone with cash to subsidize it.</p>
<p>For example, the National Organization for Women wants legislation ensuring that America&#8217;s economic vicissitudes impact only men (<a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d28c79d6-2d11-11de-8710-00144feabdc0,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fd28c79d6-2d11-11de-8710-00144feabdc0.html&amp;_i_referer=">who have already sustained nearly 80 percent of job losses in the current recession</a>). The <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-739">Security and Financial Empowerment Act (H.R. 739)</a> would make it difficult or risky for businesses to dismiss women who <em>claim</em> to be victims of domestic violence, and leave businesses on the hook for unemployment benefits if a woman claims she cannot work due to alleged abuse. The existence of evidence of abuse or trauma is not required.</p>
<p>President Obama wants to expand marriage-absence by creating <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=7423808&amp;page=2">&#8220;baby colleges.&#8221;</a> This is a dangerous merger of the nanny state with education. It would form a leviathan encouraging unmarried mothers to become workaholics while their parental roles are further weakened. More children will be raised at the whim of the state (like Maoist China once did), while more essentially parentless children will end up in foster care.</p>
<p>Additionally, we will soon see legislation to enact I-VAWA (which would directly entitle U.N. feminists to destroy marriage around the world), reverse the Defense of Marriage Act, criminalize those who oppose gay marriage, ratify <a href="http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/CEDAW/index.shtml">CEDAW</a> (placing our laws, customs and educational materials under control of U.N. feminists) and enact the &#8220;Freedom of Choice Act,&#8221; repealing all state controls on abortion.</p>
<p><strong>Realizing achievable conservative answers</strong></p>
<p>Republicans were overrun by <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236">Herbert Marcuse&#8217;s new-left war on marriage-based capitalism</a> because the RNC lacks policy positively addressing the desperate problems of women living in marriage-absence. The RNC still does not understand it will continue losing elections until carefully crafted marriage-positive policies attractive to women (and men) are brought forth.</p>
<p>Marriage-absence is the greatest social and economic problem we face. The vast majority of poverty, crime, child problems, the &#8220;need&#8221; for abortion and deficits would disappear if we develop policies that stimulate women to choose marriage, reward marital responsibility, provide simple elective programs helping spouses rise above or recover from common problems such as substance abuse, and smoothly transition men and women from the claws of the welfare shredder to marriage.</p>
<p>Marriage is the only institution guaranteeing women economic support and the necessary assistance of an invested husband. Conservatives who wish to win must build their races on &#8220;marriage values&#8221; – restoring the right of women to enjoy these benefits – while short-circuiting programs encouraging or enticing women to throw their rights out at a weak moment.</p>
<p>Marriage predicts the best outcomes for women and children. The conservative agenda must promise women better futures than merely surviving as perennial wards of Washington – living in unsustainable communities full of disaffected men.</p>
<p>Ronald Reagan set an end-goal we have not yet pursued when he said, &#8220;Welfare&#8217;s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.&#8221; Marriage is unquestionably the replacement for welfare. Trickle-down socioeconomic policies will build strong marriages as successfully as trickle-down economics builds the economy. Concurrent application of trickle-down social and economic polices confidently predicts an era of consistent zero deficits, a stronger and more competitive workforce, and substantial budget left over for the war on terror and rebuilding the economy.</p>
<p>My college classmate John Podesta established the Center for American Progress not as a think tank, but an &#8220;<a href="http://www.al.com/us-politics/index.ssf/2008/11/podesta_nonprofit_to_take_cent.html">action tank</a>&#8221; designed to formulate, market, organize and enact liberal policies. Without a <a href="http://www.thenextright.com/category/blog-tags/center-for-american-progress">similarly aggressive conservative organization bearing brilliant marriage-values policy</a>, reformers will never muster the votes necessary to retake Congress and the White House. I urge all candidates to pursue &#8220;marriage values&#8221; as soon as possible.<br />
Read more: <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=96776#ixzz1NWemqvsd">Marriage: The replacement for welfare</a> <a href="http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=96776#ixzz1NWemqvsd">http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&amp;pageId=96776#ixzz1NWemqvsd</a></p>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
					
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
