The current administration is promoting the complete replacement of a husband and father with daddy state subsidies to single mother homes. For those of us advocating for the Father/Men’s/Parents Rights this attack on the family is no surprise for we have seen the steady destruction of individual and parental rights under the guise of “protecting” women and children and fighting the “war on poverty”. Indeed, one can put the 1960’s federal government war on poverty and subsequent programs on a chart showing increased “family” programs and it corresponds with the increases of single parent homes. Following the trend, this next round of government programs should get us near to no nuclear families by 2040.
As part of its Build Back Better plan the current administration promotes the fairy tale “The Life of Linda” (https://www.whitehouse.gov/build-back-better/) showing a single mother, Linda, and her son Leo from his birth to her end on earth subsidized by funds from the daddy state. Missing from this once upon a time is the husband/father and any male influence in their lives as the story paints a fantasy world of happiness for her and her son from her pregnancy to her need for elder care, overseen by Leo, or course. It is obvious government propaganda on a par with Stalin’s completely made up Pavlik Morozov (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pavlik_Morozov) which duped a generation into support of a communist police state in the Soviet Union.
Presented in 7 panels in comic fashion we are introduced to Linda who’s pregnant and working in a factory. In panel 2 Linda is seen grocery shopping with her toddler son Leo, subsidized with $300 a month for essentials. #3 Leo is happy in day care, subsidized by the government capped at 7% of her income. #4 a happy Leo enterers a “high quality” Pre-K program for “free” at 3 years old. Next we fast forward to Leo graduating high school and entering community college subsidized by extended Pell Grants. Panel 6 has Leo getting a good paying, union job. And lastly we find an old Linda, arm in arm with Leo as she spends her last years taken care of by government which is paying for her elder care.
The true story of the life of Linda is more like this. Linda meets Lenny and they date. Linda wants a child but not a husband so Linda lies about her reproductive status. Once pregnant Linda breaks it off with Lenny without his knowing of the pregnancy. At birth Lenny learns he has a son and files for paternity and DNA shows him to be the father, using all of his savings to pay for an attorney. It is then that Lenny gets hit with a child support order and is assessed at 17% of his $60,000 income is to be paid to the Child Support Unit. He also learns that the child support is after taxes so he is assessed 22% federal and 5% state income tax. This has reduced Lenny to $710 a week.
Both Lenny and Linda have health insurance through work but it is Lenny who is ordered to maintain a family plan to cover Leo which is $85 a week for the family plan as opposed to $20 a week for the single plan. After Social Security, union dues, and other mandatory deductions Lenny’s is reduced to $600 a week take home pay. Lenny also has to file as single for tax purposes while Linda gets to file as head of household thus reducing her income for tax purposes. As Lenny’s income is higher than Linda’s he has to pay 60% of all out of pocket expenses such as child care and co-pays and Linda pays 40%.
Linda’s after tax weekly take home after mandatory deductions is $675 a week as her tax is reduced by her head of household, standard deductions, and child tax credits. On top of this she gets $196 a week tax free in child support giving her $871 a week in income. Lenny has filed for visitation and he is allowed to visit every other weekend and every Wednesday for 4 hours. To maintain his visitation Lenny needs a two bedroom apartment so his son Leo has a bedroom of his own on the 4 days a month he is sleeping over with his dad. Even though Lenny’s mother is available for child care and wants to spend time with her grandson, Linda chooses to put him in day care at $270 a week, and Lenny has to pay $180 of that but Linda’s child care is capped at $1880 (7% of her income), a cap which doesn’t apply to Lenny. Together with co-pays for doctors and such, Lenny’s weekly income drops to $510, 2/3 of which is used to pay rent on a 2 bedroom apartment (about $1800 a month).
Linda gets a new boyfriend and he owns his own house and she stays with him rent free. Unfortunately the rent or other financial benefits she receives from him don’t affect what Lenny has to pay her in child support nor does it count against the government benefits and tax breaks she receives. The house is two counties removed and Lenny has to spend extra time and money traveling farther to pick up Leo. At 3 Leo is placed into pre-K and Lenny doesn’t like the facility they chose as what they teach are counter to his beliefs. He finds out there is nothing he can do about it as he is a “non custodial” parent.
Leo was smart and good in math but with limited father involvement he started to use alcohol and drugs. When Lenny tried to intervene Leo just pulled away and would skip his visitation time with his father. Lenny thought with supervision Leo could work hard and earn grades to get him into a 4 year college and earn an engineering degree. But Linda didn’t want to pay the 40% she would be assessed to send him to college and encouraged him to go to the free community college which Leo did. So instead of earning $150,000 a year as an engineers Leo earned $60,000 a year as a technician.
Working until she was 62, in retirement Linda could only afford a one bedroom apartment on her retirement and social security, the boyfriend long gone from her life. She has a nice photo of her and Leo from the last time he visited 2 month’s ago, luckily she gets elder care in her home. It’s not the quality care one gets from a caring relative, but it’s enough to keep her out of the nursing home. Leo has 2 children with 2 different women, both of whom moved away from where he works. He is assessed 17% for each kid, 34% of his gross pay before taxes. Both his “baby-momma’s” are on welfare so what he pays in child support goes back into federal coffers to offset the costs paid to the mothers. He lives in a one bedroom apartment in the bad part of town as that’s all he can afford. He still drinks and uses drugs to escape his reality. He’s “to busy” to visit his mother working extra to try to keep ahead of the bills, besides, she has people who from the government who take care of her. Linda has a photo of each kid as a baby and she hasn’t seen either in over 2 years. She sits alone, counting the days.
Lenny paid his child support for 18 years and became estranged when Leo pulled away as he started the partying, drug lifestyle. Lenny warned him about gold diggers looking to get pregnant by him as he had a good job. Leo didn’t listen and blames his problems on his father “for not being there,” even though it wasn’t the fathers choice. Lenny had lived on so little for so long when he finally didn’t have to pay through the nose he started saving and investing. He built up a nice little nest egg, including long term care insurance so he wouldn’t be stuck in a state nursing home when he’s very old and feeble. He sees both his grand kids when he wants as he can afford to travel to them and free babysitting for the weekend and a gift certificate to the spa to mama is enough to get him a weekend. His last girlfriend gave him the marry me or I leave speech. He has a new girlfriend.
Unfortunately the real world outcomes for boys of single mothers is far from the happy idealist scenario presented by the government. By choosing a state subsidized single mother lifestyle the Linda’s of the world are setting themselves and their sons up for negative consequences from increased domestic and child abuse to possible gang participation, drug and alcohol use, and poverty. While negative or positive outcomes are not guaranteed, the statistics are clear that a child raised in a 2 biological parent household have a much greater chance at a successful and happy life. Single mother homes are the bulk of families living in poverty and no person ever got out of poverty by living off of government programs. Some may seem to do better financially up front with government subsidies, but the back end financial and social costs for all are steep.