Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, November 23, 2007
Janice Shaw Crouse :: Townhall.com Columnist
1968 Policies and Election 2008
by Janice Shaw Crouse
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


Suddenly, there is great interest in the 1960s. Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois) explained in a Fox News interview that Senator Hillary Clinton (D-New York) couldn’t bring the country together because she was still fighting the battles of the 60s. This week’s Newsweek cover story features the year 1968 as the year that made us who we are. Tom Brokaw has a book coming out about the voices of the 60s. Obviously, the “Boomers” aren’t going to leave the scene quietly.

Lots of folks have lots to say about the people and the events of the “Age of Aquarius” — the student occupation of administration buildings on campuses across the nation, the violent demonstrations against the war in Vietnam, the bloody race riots and tragic assassinations. The focus, though, is primarily on the people and the events of that turbulent period of American history. Granted, the people and the events were unprecedented, and the era was the very definition of cultural breakdown, but the gory accounts generally don’t include the federal policies that were instituted during that era that continue to contribute to our national woes.

Two 1960s policy “innovations” were especially destructive. The Flemming Rule (1960) was named for Arthur Flemming, then head of the Department of Health and Human Services, who issued an administrative ruling that states could not deny eligibility for income assistance through the AFDC program on the grounds that a home was “unsuitable” because the woman’s children were illegitimate. In 1968, the Supreme Court’s “Man-in-the-House” rule struck down the practice of states declaring a home unsuitable (i.e., an immoral environment) if there was a man in the house not married to the mother. Thus, out-of-wedlock births and cohabitation were legitimized. In very short order, the number on welfare tripled and child poverty climbed dramatically. Unbelievably, President Bill Clinton awarded Arthur Flemming his second Presidential Medal of Freedom for his contributions to American society.

Innovation, though, does not constitute progress unless the benefits are greater than its costs — unless the intended consequences are larger than the unintended consequences. In our national history of trial and error, boom or bust, there are numerous economic and social policies that have ignored the realities of human nature with its propensities, flaws and limitations. James Madison, the father of the American Constitution, was mindful of the propensity of human nature to abuse power, and he deliberately designed a government with carefully drawn boundaries; the separation of powers between the branches of government provides essential checks and balances.

Liberals tend to ignore the need to constrain evil behavior; they see bad environmental influences as the source of evil, rather than acknowledging the existence of evil that needs to be constrained.

So what were the results of the Flemming Rule and the “Man-in-the-House” rule? These two rulings were significant features of the “War on Poverty.” Yet, the number of children living in poverty at the outset of the War on Poverty was only 13.8 percent; subsequently it climbed to a high of 22 percent before finally beginning to decline after the Welfare Reform of 1996 was enacted over the furious protests of liberals. The number of unmarried couples living together in the United States is 10 times larger today than in 1970. Many of these couples have children, despite the instability of these relationships, whose rate of the dissolution is many times higher than that of married couples. Female-headed households with related children in the United States have increased a whopping 250 percent since 1970. This is important for many reasons, not the least of which is the fact that the poverty rate of children living in mother-only families is five times that of children living in married couple families.

Since Welfare Reform in 1996, the welfare caseload has declined 66 percent, and the poverty rate of children in mother-only families has dropped dramatically. Policy counts! Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Janice Shaw Crouse is a former speechwriter for George H. W. Bush and now political commentator for the Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Janice Shaw Crouse's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Conservative Cassandra
Gosh, I read all these posts and the article too. Is CC the only one holding a full hand? Would seem so. I hope the rest of you don't vote: you seem prone to espouse (and accept?) goofy notions, and will probably sell our collective cow to the next (Dem) charlitan peddling beans.

One problem with your chosen fate is your very collective intent to drag me into the mire you fail to see.

I don't much care for that prospect.

Bucko,
The CMHC attempted to shift the care of patients away from expensive state-run inpatient facilities to community outpatient centers. At the time it was believed that the patients fared better, and it would cost less. These ideas comport well with conservative philosophy, don't they?
If you would like to spread blame around for "letting" anyone out, look to the Landesman-Petris-Short Act that Reagan signed into law in California in 1972. This was the seminal piece of legislation that disallowed forced institutionalization of the mentally ill in California, and many states modeled similar legislation after it.
Reagan let them out, not Kennedy.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.