The Government and the Family

    The unfortunate news is that big government-business aggressively pursue policies that discourage family formation, hamper families that do exist and encourage those who are making poor choices to obtain assistance from a distant and uncaring government.  These are not policies intentionally aimed at harming families and many actually think they are helping the struggling "poor families".   Some facts indicate that the policies of federal aid to families do fail to preserve the family and in a bizarre outcome the data has for 50 years consistently shown that the government aid is associated with the weakening and eradication of family ties.  The results stand in stark factual contrast to the stated intentions.
    The FACTS are a stunning.  Over 50 years ago the 1965 confidential "Moynihan Report" labeled "For Official Use Only" was given to President Johnson.  The report detailed the FACTS about how government programs assisting the poor were associated with the break up of families (and all the associated problems).  Even though that report was assembled based on valid information by a prominent member of the democratic party it was  rejected on grounds that it was "racist" in depicting that the impact was particularly evident on "negro families".  Since that time it has been well established that government assistance, like a poison pill, has been associated with degraded families of every race and creed.  The reports and predictions in that report (of accelerating decline of the family with more such assistance) have come true.   Similar findings have been repeatedly replicated in followup studies through the years.  
     The conclusion of the report's democratic author was that full employment could maintain or even reverse the decline of the family and suggested that employment (a new goal of the government)  would be better than "transfer payments" in bringing justice and equity.   This goal was ignored and never implemented as a policy.  Instead 50 years of increasing persistent welfare spending we have three times the rate of single family homes as we did in 1965 (with the associated problems of violence and crime).  The goal of full employment was NEVER pursued BUT government efforts to "help" the family have been relentlessly pursued by using multiple forms of welfare assistance.  The response of 1965 was  "more money to help the family" and increasing amounts of money was provided for the next 50 years.  Meanwhile the suggested support policy for the family, which was "full employment" (rather than "handouts"), has nurtured the highest labor non-participation rates in history.
      A tale repeatedly for over 2000 years is called the "prodigal son" (Luke 15:11-32).  In that story a son takes the wealth he would have inherited from his father and lives a life that squanders the entire sum.  Finding himself in a job he did not like, being paid less than he wanted and knowing that life was better at home (where his family continued to live prudently) the son decided to return home and REFORM his life.  The son thought he would even be willing to WORK for his father as a servant.  Today the government would step in and make sure that the son did not have to go home and allow him to continue a life with an imprudence.  The son blaming others for his plight, would continue a life unreformed and the government would step in to provide him with cell phone, rent assistance and/or EBT cash.  There would be no return to the family and no reform of his life.  Unfortunately there is still a personal outcome not addressed by the son accepting the poison pill rather than reform.
     What suppresses full employment and could therefore hurt the family? The single overwhelmingly largest employer in the nation is small businesses.  Small businesses are growing (as a portion of the entire labor pool) in spite of oppression according to Government Labor Statistics).  Large businesses are busy taking capital overseas to protect it from seizure in the US.  Small businesses have no choice but to remain.   Government is experienced by owners of small businesses as imposing heavy, complicated tax structures with a tax enforcement agency that can arbitrarily seize property (without civil recourse or neutral review).  The oppression of small companies can also be experienced with OSHA and EPA government agencies who own small businesses and can be due to political affiliation that is "out of office".  The "Affordable Care Act", as an for example,  places monetary and regulatory burdens on the small companies and start ups while huge companies (like Walmart - a huge donor to political races) get waivers.  Meanwhile large companies protect capital from seizure by keeping much of the capital out of the country (something the small company based in the US can not due) including large political donors like GE and APPLE.
     Eventually the goose that lays the golden eggs will be trapped, choked and consumed.  The idea that people can work, own and run their own business can be extinguished by regulation, taxes, policy and force of law. 
     
     What if we have a dysfunctional government run by a big government party NEEDS a dependent class to be elected?  That dysfunctional government would be tempted to create policies (if you had faith in big government-business) that weaken the family while claiming to care about the family.  The government could unintentionally destroy opportunities for employment that supports families.  Political parties could harm families with support for individuals who need much more than material assistance.  It may be that big government do not need or want strong families.  It is possible that government, in seeking dependency and legitimacy, seeks increased dependency.