In a move intended to please the conservatives who have pouted since the U.S. and Massachusetts Supreme Courts softened government stances on gay unions, President Bush has unveiled a plan to spend $1.5 billion on promoting traditional marriage. With luck, Democrats will pout even more and stop the government from wasting taxpayer dollars on Bush's pandering to the far right.
As officials have explained it, the marriage campaign will teach unspecified marriage skills to high school students, engaged couples, young adults interested in marriage and unmarried couples at the moment of a child's birth
when the parents are thought to have the greatest commitment to one another. Only heterosexual couples could take part. The money will be used to teach couples better communication skills and spearhead advertising campaigns promoting the values of marriage.
With the federal deficit increasing by the second, lawmakers must consider the relative importance of a marriage promotion program. Though $1.5 billion looks small in the context of trillions of dollars in yearly expenditures, it's still a lot of money. It could be better put to use in other arenas, such as Homeland Security or education - or it could be used to fix Jefferson Hill. Bush's proposal is so shamelessly political it's almost difficult to argue against it in its own terms, except to say it betrays a hopelessly outdated view of marriage and
surprisingly condescending view of the government's role in personal matters.
In lieu of spending an exorbitant amount of money on advertising, Bush should consider making getting married or divorced more difficult, perhaps requiring pre-marital counseling or a waiting period to prevent Britney Spears-esque blink-and-it's-over marriages. He also should consider that marriage isn't always the best solution. There are many divorced couples, especially couples with children, who have much healthier and stable home lives than if they had stayed married. We also must wonder whether it is really the government's responsibility to encourage or interfere with a couple's decision to a lifelong commitment to one another. Perhaps next the president will suggest a federal dating administration, to pair people it thinks are best compatible.
Ohio schools need funding
Politicians routinely appeal to voters' concern for the young - think of The Simpsons' Helen Lovejoy pleading, Please won't somebody think of the children! - which was only one of then-Gov. Bush's motivations in campaigning behind the No Child Left Behind Act. But beyond education as an evergreen election-year issue, No Child Left Behind is a legitimately progressive way to ensure that states' widely disparate education systems produce the best students they can. The act ensures that the best-qualified teachers are in American classrooms and that schools are recognized or reprimanded for how well they perform. But for Ohio, as with many other states, the problem is not with a deficit of good ideas but rather insufficient funds.
A state-sponsored study in yesterday's Columbus Dispatch estimated that Congressional mandates to make Ohio meet federal school standards could cost the state some $1.4 billion. In a classic legislative bait-and-switch, Washington has issued stringent guidelines and standards for state educators to meet but only provided about $44 million in additional aid to pay for them. Now, the General Assembly and local administrators must determine a way to meet federal standards - which require that every child read and solve math problems at grade level within 10 years - without the money to pay for it.
Granted, educators probably never will be satisfied with their programs' funding, but the disparity between Ohio's estimated costs and the amount of new Congressional aid yawns entirely too wide. The difference is theoretically easy to shore up - Congress can allocate more money to ensure every state, not just Ohio, can afford to comply with No Child Left Behind. In practice, however, it could be far more difficult for lawmakers to agree just how much they should give to states, especially in an era of new space programs, marriage defense acts and the burgeoning cost of the war on terror. Ultimately, it's a question of priorities: If Washington wants to set tough standards to make children's education better, it should put its money where its mouth is.
17
Archives
