Black Leaders Say Personal Responsibility Key to Economic Opportunity

Bill Cosby, Walter Williams, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter

This is from my article published by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

What do Bill Cosby, Walter Williams, and Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter have in common?

They are all black men who grew up in Philadelphia. Williams and Cosby are a year apart in age. Both grew up in the Richard Allen housing projects in Philly and were raised by their mothers. Cosby attended Temple University in Philadelphia, where Williams later taught as an economics professor. As a former student of Williams, I remember him mentioning the funny kid his mom told him to stay away from. My husband (also a Williams student) and I wondered whether he was referring to Cosby—we never knew for sure.

Another similarity these very accomplished men have in common is their belief that intact families reduce dependency on government services.

Bill Cosby spends a significant amount of time talking to groups of black men, whether it be at a prison graduation ceremony for men receiving their GEDs or in a Detroit church closed to the media so that lawbreakers feel comfortable enough to attend. His message is harsh but the same wherever he goes: black men and women need to be responsible parents. In one of his most famous speeches, at a 2004 NAACP awards ceremony commemorating the 50th anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, he said: “No longer is a person embarrassed because they’re pregnant without a husband. No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the … child.”

In their book Come on, People: On the Path from Victims to Victors, Cosby and co-author Alvin Poussaint recall that blacks have always owned and operated any number of restaurants, laundries, hotels, theaters, grocery stores, clothing stores, life insurance companies, banks, funeral homes, and more. “Such successes provided jobs and strength to black economic well-being.”

Similarly, in his autobiography, Walter Williams described the thriving business community next to his housing project where the proprietors were both Jewish and black. A thriving business community meant jobs for any young person willing and able to work. Williams delivered hats, pressed hats, made hats, and picked fruit in New Jersey and sold it in Philly. He worked as a busboy and a dishwasher, delivered mail during Christmas, worked in a mail-order department, and delivered newspapers.

Cosby has a similar long list of jobs he worked during his teen years. Their early years clearly influenced their consistent and persistent call for personal responsibility as the solution to many of society’s ills.

Philadelphia’s current mayor, Michael Nutter, is a University of Pennsylvania Wharton School of Business graduate whose message resonates in, and results are lauded in, both majority white and majority black districts. He is in his second term as mayor, with his first election garnering the largest percentage of white votes ever cast for an African-American mayor in Philadelphia. Four years later he won in landslides in both the primary and the general election. His winning message: parents can’t be outsourcing their responsibilities to the government if the city is to thrive.

In the summer of 2011, flash mobs of mostly black teenagers would gather suddenly and riot through popular tourist neighborhoods, assaulting pedestrians and robbing stores and people. Nutter took to the pulpit of Mount Carmel Baptist Church on August 7, 2011, and preached to teens and their absentee parents: “This nonsense must stop. If you want to act like a butthead, your butt is going to get locked up. And if you want to act like an idiot, move.” He lambasted absentee fathers, implying they were responsible for the crimes their children committed. “You’ve damaged your own race,” he declared.

He continued: “And if you’re not providing the guidance and you’re not sending any money, you’re just a sperm donor. You’re just a sperm donor. You’re what the girls call out in the street: ‘That’s my baby-daddy. That’s my baby-daddy.’ That’s not good enough.” He said he would speak plainly and he did: “That’s part of the problem in the black community. And many other communities, but a particular problem in the black communities: we have too many men making too many babies that they don’t want to take care of and then we end up dealing with your children. We’re not running a big babysitting service. We’re running a big government and a great city. Take care of your children. All of them. All of them.”

Cosby and Nutter have identified a pervasive problem leading to the decline of communities all over America: out-of-wedlock motherhood (absentee fathers). From a public policy perspective, there is a link between those poor women enrolled in Medicaid and increases in single motherhood. Medicaid provides states 90 percent reimbursement for contraception (birth control is a mandatory part of state Medicaid programs). Nobel Prize-winning economist George Ackerlof of the University of California, Berkeley, finds a causal relationship between widespread contraception and out-of-wedlock childbirth, suggesting a relationship between government funding of contraception and unmarried mothers. As economist Jennifer Roback Morse (PDF) rightly questions: “With the ability to prevent and terminate pregnancy increasing, why would low-cost or free contraception lead to more children being born to unmarried women?”

Morse then answers her question. “This occurs precisely because so many women actually want babies, more so than the estimates of so-called ‘unintended’ pregnancies and birth suggest. These women want their babies; they don’t want to have abortions. Not very long ago, these women would have had the support of the entire society in pressuring the father to marry them. But since having a baby is a ‘woman’s choice,’ that pressure is greatly attenuated. Consequently, the overall birth rate has declined, the proportion of women that are married has declined, and the proportion of babies born outside of wedlock has increased.”

A quick glance at SoonerCare (Oklahoma Medicaid) data shows that as of May 2013, of the 293,416 adults enrolled, 205,334 (or 70 percent) are women and 88,082 (or 30 percent) are men. Further, children represent nearly 65 percent of all enrollees. Although there are many factors that could help explain these enrollment data, one of them is assuredly single motherhood. These data surely warrant closer examination in a future OCPA study.

Furthermore, as my OCPA colleague Jonathan Small has pointed out, Oklahoma Health Care Authority data tell us that an astonishing 64 percent of births in Oklahoma are covered by the Medicaid program. That is not a misprint.

As a black man himself, Mayor Nutter can more credibly deliver the harsh message that might be needed for Philadelphia’s majority black population (43 percent black, 37 percent white, and 12 percent Hispanic) and not be accused of racism. Likewise, Cosby and Williams are extremely credible voices, having been raised by their mothers in the housing projects of Philadelphia. Although these men have many similarities and credibility, when it comes to public policy suggestions for Philadelphia’s population, they do not identify with the same political party. Walter Williams is an avowed libertarian, Bill Cosby doesn’t easily identify with either major party, and Michael Nutter is a Democrat. However, they are all conservatives to the extent that they all believe that the keys to social stability and economic opportunity are personal responsibility and intact families.

States Should Push Back Against IRS “State of Celebration” Ruling

SCOTUS - DOMA  20990

This is from my article published by the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently struck down a part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) that made it illegal for the federal government to treat marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman — legally referred to as Part 3 of DOMA. The Court’s ruling, however, left firmly in place Part 2 of DOMA which says that the states are the final arbiter of how marriage is treated. The ruling did not implement so-called same-sex marriage (SSM) in 35 states where it is banned by statute or constitutional provision.

Despite the narrow ruling from the Supreme Court, President Obama is determined to undermine these 35 states through the use of federal executive power. President Obama bluntly stated that “It’s my personal belief — but I’m speaking now as a president as opposed to as a lawyer — that if you’ve married in Massachusetts and you move someplace else, you’re still married, and that under federal law you should be able to obtain the benefits of any lawfully married couple.”

On August 29 the IRS issued guidance for SSM (pdf), saying couples could file their federal tax return based on their “state of celebration” (the state where they were married) as opposed to their “state of residency.” Therefore, if a same-sex couple was married in a state that legally recognized SSM, then the federal government will forever recognize them as “married filing jointly” for tax purposes even if they move to a state that does not recognize SSM.

Some analysts agree with President Obama and the IRS, saying “state of celebration” makes for better tax policy than “state of residency.” They warn against decoupling a state’s tax code from the federal tax code, saying doing so would impose huge compliance burdens and economic inefficiencies in the process.

But there are several problems with that argument. First, decoupling from bad federal tax law is not a sin. If higher compliance costs result, it is not the fault of the states but rather the fault of the IRS.

Second, though some would argue that decoupling sends the message that a state is more concerned with its local preferences than with long-term economic growth, in fact quite the opposite is true. States that are protecting natural marriage as between one man and one woman are the ones maximizing long-term economic growth.

Professor W. Bradford Wilcox, who leads the University of Virginia’s National Marriage Project, summarized a 2011 study on the impact of marriage on the economy this way: “The core message … is that the wealth of nations depends in no small part on the health of the family.” Wilcox further says the study suggests that marriage and fertility trends “play an under-appreciated and important role in fostering long-term economic growth, the viability of the welfare state, the size and quality of the workforce, and the health of large sectors of the modern economy.”

Third, decoupling from the federal tax code is not an all-or-nothing proposition. States choose to conform — or not to conform — to various federal tax provisions all the time. The reason for doing so could be as superficial as the (+ or -) budgetary impact of conforming, or there could be legitimate disputes over what constitutes sound tax policy. If a state chooses to keep “state of residency” as the basis for tax filings, it will hardly impact all state taxpayers.

Only same-sex couples would face the prospect of filing two federal tax forms and two state tax forms — the same situation that had existed prior to the Supreme Court ruling. Put simply, under the provisions of Section 2 in DOMA, the IRS must take its cue on SSM from state law, meaning following “state of residency.” Therefore, the IRS cannot unilaterally allow same-sex couples the ability to file a single federal tax form as “married filing jointly” in states that do not recognize SSM — they must still file separate federal tax forms as “single” filers.

In the end, there is a very good policy reason for states to decouple from “state of celebration” and keep the current “state of residency” requirement. That reason is to push back against federal overreach which threatens to negate policies protecting natural marriage that were overwhelmingly supported by voters of these states — including Oklahoma, where in 2004 a full 76 percent of voters stated quite simply and directly that “Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.”

If Oklahoma policymakers passively adopt the IRS “state of celebration” ruling by conforming to the federal tax code, they will be in direct conflict with the will of the people, the Oklahoma Constitution, and the engine for economic growth. That is bad tax policy.

If You’re Truly Believe in Liberty, Should You Send Your Children to Public School ?

Scott on Frog_Colorado

The educational establishment is one of the major drivers behind the frequency with which government comes and asks for more of our earnings and the increasing number of laws and regulations which erode our freedoms.

We all know that increases in educational performance cannot be attributed to just increases in educational spending.  The data shows that we’ve reached the point of decreasing returns in the U.S. when it comes to education such that for every additional dollar spent on education, we are seeing decreases in performance in many geographic areas.  We all know where the good schools are–in the affluent neighborhoods where other factors in addition to money make a difference in students’ lives (like intact families, college-educated parents, etc.).

No one likes to say no to the “old” or to “children.”  So, our first problem is voters feel warm and fuzzy about voting for spending increases for the so-called” educational benefit of our children despite even plummeting performance.

Second–aside from educators–who always claim that they’ve squeezed every penny out of the budget this year–parents wiht children in the schools can’t say no to more school spending (literally, that was the quote in my local newspaper from our superintendent when asked about his $600k increase in the budget).

A parent is a voter.  No parent with children in the school wants to vote against a nicer school, more teachers, etc . A for-profit company would not keep dumping money into an entity that performs so poorly.  So, my question is, why do U.S. conservatives keep propping up a failing educational system ?

If we truly want to preserve our liberty and not keep giving government more and more of our tax dollars and our freedom, shouldn’t we pull our children out of this failing system ?  What are conservatives afraid of ?  Is the reliance on the public school at all cost the necessary evil to perpetuate the two-income family (mom and dad working outside the home).  I’m sure this will anger many but it seems logical to me.