• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Meet Mitt Romney, American…….Do Not Expect any Whining, Dishonesty, Duplicity, Deviousness, Deceit or Marxism


Click below for today’s Mitt Meet with the people discussing the campaign:

Romney To Obama: “Words Are Cheap”


Video from realclearpolitics video.

The Dishonest Obama, the cold, friendless fish, IS NOT A LIKEABLE PERSON OR PRESIDENT


And now a few words from the Lefties at the New Yorker how Bama is going to win for another incompetent term guaranteeing  America sinks into financial chaos;

Obama’s Stumble: And Now for the Good News

Posted by       at the New Yorker

“About a month ago, I argued that it was time for President Obama’s supporters to get worried: his reëlection campaign was facing some big challenges. Since then, questioning Obama’s prospects has turned into a group sport, and so, naturally, I’m trying to look on the upside. After Rick Santorum dropped out of the race, in April, Romney had a good two months: nobody could dispute that. But he’s no Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton—the last two challengers to defeat an incumbent. If the Obama campaign can settle on a consistent message, and if it gets a bit of luck with the economy, Romney should be eminently beatable.

Let’s start with the bad news: Karl Rove is smirking. A few weeks ago, in an op-ed piece in the Wall Street Journal, he outlined a “3-2-1” strategy that could see Romney to two hundred and seventy votes in the Electoral College. In addition to holding on to all the states that John McCain carried in 2008, the challenger needs to win back three traditional G.O.P. states: Indiana, North Carolina, and Virginia. Then he needs to win two big states that are always tossups: Florida and Ohio. Finally, he needs to nab one other Obama-leaning state—such as Iowa, New Hampshire, or Nevada. Pointing to Obama’s low approval ratings and a general tightening of the race in the opinion polls, Rove wrote, “The odds now narrowly favor a Romney win.”

At the time, that seemed like G.O.P. bravado. But last night, the Republican Svengali figure was on Fox News gloating over the fact that Obama’s lead has now narrowed even in states he would expect to win, such as Oregon and Wisconsin. Romney’s “looking good in Colorado; Iowa’s up for grabs; the latest poll in Michigan is one point,” Rove said. “There are lots of places this race could go.”

That’s true enough, but reducing the race to a “3-2-1” sound bite makes Romney’s task appear misleadingly easy. Take the “3” part. It looks like Indiana will revert to the G.O.P. column. However, even after Obama’s shift on gay marriage, which was widely expected to hurt him in the South, he is still leading in Virginia by three or four percentage points, according to recent polls. Romney has a narrow lead in North Carolina, which I’ve suspected all along that he’d end up winning, but it’s too close to call. Then there’s Ohio, where Obama is still just ahead, and Florida, which appears to be tied. For the Rove strategy to succeed, Romney has to run the tables in these four states.

That’s possible. At this stage, though, it seems unlikely. Ultimately, everything depends on what happens at the national level: swing states almost always follow the overall trend. And the national polling data still offers some encouragement for Obama. Despite the poor jobs figures, which, together with Santorum dropping out, are what gave new life to the Romney campaign, Obama’s approval rating has held remarkably steady during the past couple of months. At the end of March, when the economy still seemed to be on the up, the Real Clear Politics poll average, which combines all the major surveys, put the President’s approval rating at 47.3 per cent and his disapproval rating at 47.6 per cent. Today, Obama’s approval rating is 48.3, and the disapproval rating is 47.8. Allowing for a bit of statistical noise, there hasn’t been any change in either figure since March.

Although there are no hard-and-fast rules, history suggests that an approval rating in the high forties puts an incumbent President in no-man’s land. It’s not high enough to assure his reëlection or low enough to assure his defeat. In May of their reëlection years, Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush, the last two Presidents to be defeated, had approval ratings of forty-one per cent and forty per cent in the Gallup poll. Obama’s approval rating in the same poll last month averaged forty-seven per cent—the same figure George W. Bush had at this stage in May, 2004, shortly before he easily defeated John Kerry. (In recent days, his approval rating in the Gallup tracker ticked up to fifty per cent. Today it is forty-nine per cent.) That’s the good news for Obama. However, in May, 1976, Gerald Ford also had an approval rating of forty-seven per cent in the Gallup poll, and he ended up losing to Jimmy Carter.

The message I take from these numbers is that Obama is still handily placed. Despite the efforts of the Republican attack machine to depict him as some sort of anti-American radical, most voters seems to like him personally. He scores highly for character, for understanding the concerns of ordinary Americans, and for representing their values. Lower gas prices are helping his cause, and so are the killings of senior Al Qaeda targets, Osama bin Laden included, which he will doubtless invoke again on Thursday, when he visits Ground Zero.

Deprived of their standard argument that the Democratic candidate is a wuss when it comes to national security, the Romney campaign and its allied Super PACs are seeking to portray Obama as an incompetent economic manager. This depiction clearly has some traction. Obama didn’t help himself the other day by speaking loosely about job creation in the private sector, which recently has been far from “fine.” But while the Romney campaign is successfully exploiting concerns about Obama’s stewardship of the economy, it is far from making the sale for its own candidate.

Romney is still Romney—a compromise candidate with a lot of baggage whom few Americans have great enthusiasm for. While his approval ratings have risen since March, they are still below Obama’s in most polls. Even on the economy, which is his trump card, he has yet to establish a consistent lead over the President. For example, the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll asked people whom they trusted more to do a better job handling the economy: forty-seven per cent said Romney and forty-six per cent said Obama. Asked whom they trusted more to create jobs, forty-seven per cent of respondents said Obama and forty-four per cent said Romney.

In short, the economic argument remains to be won. If Obama could somehow neutralize Romney’s strength in this arena, his advantages in other areas—the gender gap, the G.O.P.’s alienation of many Hispanics, his appeal to independents—could see him scrape through despite a weak economy. And if the economy were to pick up in the coming months, he would be virtually home free.

For this strategy to work, though, the Obama campaign needs to step up its game and settle on a clear and consistent message. Simply attacking Romney’s record at Bain Capital and as governor of Massachusetts isn’t enough. The key to success is to wage a campaign not just against Mitt, who is something of a cipher, but against the entire Republican Party, which is widely (and correctly) seen as an extremist organization. How to do this will be the subject of my next post.”

Comment:   Cassidy ‘reports’ in his New Yorker essay:     “Romney is still Romney—a compromise candidate with a lot of baggage whom few Americans have great enthusiasm for.”

One thing is true.   Romney still will be Romney.    Compared to racist, Marxist, petulant, friendless, angry and revengeful, duplicitous, devious, devisive,  deceitful, dishonest and antiAmerican Barack Hussein Obama, I wonder what Romney  baggage Mr. Cassidy might be counting on…..his Mormonism?

Romney is winsome, likeable, friendly,  and unlike Hussein-Obama, doesn’t seem to know how to carry a grudge.   He clearly and honestly loves his country.    He gets along with others, and even works with his political opponents to work out compromises, a rather obvious occurence an traditional American governor must overcome in Marxist Massachusetts.

Governor Romney even believes in free enterprise and in the democratic process…..both an anethema to the black part of Barack Hussein Obama, the color he chose to gain advancements and  entitlements  in the Liberal American University  System of Racist Duplicity.


A More Accurate Look at the Cost of Public Pensions

The Real Cost of Public Pensions

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

The generosity of public-sector pension benefits has come under increased scrutiny in recent years as state and local governments search for ways to close their budget deficits.  Lawmakers are eager to understand how public-sector pensions compare to their counterparts in the private sector, thus determining if cuts are warranted, says Jason Richwine, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The problem, however, is that assigning a cost to public-pension compensation is difficult, involving complex analysis of accounting methods and investment behavior.

  • Their cost cannot simply be measured by how much governments spend on them annually because governments often pay less than their advisers tell them to (in effect writing IOUs).
  • Additionally, actuaries struggle to estimate what eventual expenses will be, as these are determined by a worker’s number of years worked, average salary and longevity of life.
  • Also, government payments into pension plans are determined in part by their selected discount rate — the level of performance that they attribute to their investment portfolio that will eventually pay for a worker’s plan.
  • These discount rates are often set inappropriately high, thereby encouraging governments to set aside far too little into their pension plans.

The difficulty with discount rates is especially acute, as it is crucial in disguising the true cost of public-sector pension plans and will likely result in chronic underfunding.

  • Many public-sector pension plans assume an 8 percent discount rate; that is to say, they assume their invested funds will generate an 8 percent annual return.
  • While this is a feasible outcome, it must be recognized that performance at that level carries substantial risk.
  • The pension plans’ outlays, on the other hand, are virtually guaranteed to have to pay out to workers when they retire.
  • This mismatch between the risk of revenues and expenditures is inappropriate and violates sound accounting principles — if there is no real risk of the plan escaping its obligations to workers, there should be no real risk in its investment portfolio.
  • Therefore, pension plans should be discounted at the risk-free investment rate (likely government bonds at around 2 to 3 percent) instead of the convenient 8 percent.

When plan actuaries adjust projections and assessments to this appropriate discount rate, the cost of public-sector plans soars beyond their counterparts in the private sector.

Source: Jason Richwine, “The Real Cost of Public Pensions,” Heritage Foundation, May 31, 2012.

For text:


For more on Tax and Spending Issues:


The Spoiled and Unlearned Make European Noises in Quebec

‘Maple Spring’ protests:

Cuts, crackdown on student rallies roil Quebec

Christinne Muschi / Reuters

Thousands of demonstrators march against student tuition hikes in downtown Montreal, Quebec, on May 22. Tens of thousands marched in a rally marking 100 days of student protests.

By Miranda Leitsinger, msnbc.com

Demonstrators are filling Quebec’s streets daily to support a four-month-old student strike against a tuition hike that has morphed into a movement against efforts to curb the right to protest and to impose austerity measures in Canada’s largest province.

The walkout over a 75 percent increase in university and college tuition fees began on Feb. 13 with about 11,000 students. By late March, more than 300,000 people — or about three-quarters of Quebec’s student population — were participating, organizers say.

The number of striking students had dipped to around 160,000 when the province’s center-left government passed an emergency law on May 18 limiting where and when protests could be held and imposing potential fines of more than $100,000 on violators.

But instead of quelling the demonstrations, “Law 78” drove people who were unaffected by the tuition hike but angry over the legislation onto the streets, revitalized the strikers and sparked court challenges amid claims it endangers freedoms of expression and association.

‘A lot of anger’
The government also suspended classes until mid-August, essentially putting the students in a lockout. The movement has been dubbed the “Printemps Érable” — or “Maple Spring” — a play of words on the Arab Spring (“Printemps Arabe”) protests that swept across the Middle East and North Africa.

“I think that our strike arrived at a good moment where a vast majority of the population has a lot of anger against the government,” Gabriel Nadeau-Dubois, a spokesman for student association CLASSE, told msnbc.com. “This increase in tuition fees is only one part of the large broader austerity reforms” that include moves to privatize health care. Many Canadians consider universal health care to be a defining characteristic of their national identity.

“I think our mobilization just gives the opportunity to all those people who were just waiting … to go into the street,” he added. “The student movement … is really a movement to refute this change of the political cultural of Quebec.”

1,600 arrested
Quebec, a predominantly French-speaking province situated between Ontario, New Brunswick and Labrador, has a history of student activism, including a strike in 2005 that lasted more than 50 days. 

“The scale and the length of the conflict is unprecedented,” said Marcos Ancelovici, an assistant professor of sociology at McGill University in Montreal who studies social movements. “The movement so far is really showing an incredible capacity to mobilize large numbers of people, and the government did not anticipate that at all, they didn’t see it coming.”

Montreal police said at least 1,600 people had been arrested in connection with demonstrations as of Friday, though they reported dozens more on their Twitter account over the weekend when the Formula 1 Grand Prix race was held. At least five of the arrests were for people violating a new city bylaw that bans wearing scarves, masks and balaclavas at protestsPolice detain a demonstrator before a cocktail party kicking off the Canadian Grand Prix festivities in Montreal on June 7.

Four student associations are seeking a freeze on the tuition hike and have participated in four failed negotiation sessions with the government. 

In its budget report calling for the hikes, the government said that all of the universities had finished each fiscal period with a deficit since 2005. The total deficit for the institutions reached $469 million in 2009.


By 2010, the universities were underfinanced by an estimated $602 million, the government said, citing a report by the nonprofit Conference of Rectors and Principals of Quebec Universities.

The financing plan would bring in an additional revenue of $826 million, with $418 million coming from the government, that will go to improving the quality of education and research. About 35 percent of the new revenue will go to providing financial aid.

Even after the hikes, Quebec’s tuition fees will remain among the lowest in Canada, the CBC reported.

Though some observers criticized the province’s leaders for not trying to resolve the issue earlier, the government said in a statement on May 31 that despite “constructive” exchanges between the two sides — and counter-offers aimed at brokering a deal — it was “impossible” to reach an agreement.

The provincial government acted in “good faith” to try and find an acceptable solution for all parties to exit the crisis, said new Education Minister Michelle Courchesne, noting that the students had rejected tuition hikes entirely.

The former education minister, Line Beauchamp, resigned in mid-May over the issue, according to the CBC.

The protests had begun to flag around that time because Premier Jean Charest’s government appeared unwilling to back off the $1,582 (over five years — or about $316 per annum) in planned hikes from the current $2,110 tuition, or to offer significant concessions, Ancelovici said.

But Law 78, a “special” measure specifically designed to subdue the student movement until the law expires in July 2013, has so far only served to galvanize opposition to the Liberal party’s government and shifted momentum back to the protesters.

Under it, students face fines in the thousands of dollars for blocking entrances to universities, while their associations are potentially subject to fines of more than $100,000. It requires police to be given protest itineraries eight hours before any gathering of more than 50 people.

‘Its scope is very wide’
The Quebec Bar Association denounced Law 78 as endangering the freedoms of expression and association. A legal nonprofit has already filed two challenges against the legislation, said Pierre Thibault, an assistant dean at the University of Ottawa’s law school. He believes at least parts of the law would be struck down as unconstitutional.


“It’s quite unusual to have a law like Law 78 because its scope is very wide and that is part of the problem,” he said. “How can you impose this punishment to students? It’s hard for them to even pay their … fees.”

Rogerio Barbosa / AFP – Getty Images

Students protest against Law 78 in Montreal on June 4.

Law 78 also triggered a new style of protest in Montreal: A college teacher reportedly called for a type of demonstration made popular in Chile, Argentina and Spain to be used on the nightly marches: the banging of pots and pans, called “les casseroles” in French.

This law “galvanized everybody because suddenly people said well this is completely outrageous, we cannot let our freedoms, our rights be … restricted in this way,” Ancelovici said, noting that many families and senior citizens were now attending the protests and neighborhoods were organizing into assemblies.

Activists also grabbed hold of the concept and called for similar demonstrations to be held across Canada and in some European and American cities. Some in Occupy Wall Street are using the red felt square worn by Quebec protesters as a symbol of student debt (meaning “totally in the red”) and are holding ongoing casserole protests in the U.S.

“I think the reason why people have been so eager to jump on board with this …. is because people feel that they are all having the same problem and that problem is with a broken economic system,” said Ethan Cox, a writer for alternative media nonprofit rabble.ca who helped to organize the casserole protests outside of Quebec. “That problem of austerity, that problem of misplaced priorities is a global problem and is one that affects people in the U.S. as much as it does here in Canada. And so I think that’s why it’s really struck a nerve.”

The protest has resonated with students in the U.S., where student debt passed $1 trillion earlier this year. Some New York City students have gone to Montreal to meet protesters and another group in Ohio has been discussing organizing Quebec-style student unions, said Jacob Remes, an assistant professor of public affairs at Empire State College who studies social movements in Canada and the United States.

Though Remes didn’t think a nationwide movement akin to what was happening in Quebec could occur in the U.S. due to the organizing it would require, he thought it could be possible in smaller locales.

In Quebec, not all are on board with the protests, Ancelovici said, noting that some of his students at the English-speaking McGill University were concerned about completing the term so they didn’t join the strike. Participation was also lower outside of Montreal, he said.


A poll conducted online after Law 78 passed showed a near split in sentiment over the legislation, with 51 percent supporting it and 49 percent opposed, according to the Montreal Gazette. The poll of 1,500 people also found that 64 percent sided with the government’s plan to raise the tuition, while 36 percent backed the freeze that the students are seeking.

With school out, Nadeau-Dubois acknowledged that it would be hard to keep up the momentum of the protests during the summer but said they would focus on the pots-and-pans brigade led by neighborhood groups. No matter the outcome, he said they had already won something.

“This movement gave us a lot of confidence in ourselves,” he said. “We really realized our collective force, our collective ability to mobilize and to change things, and yeah, a lot of students are beginning to realize that we are doing something historical actually and that’s why, even if the individual cost of the strike is very heavy, they are … continuing to be on strike because they know that they are doing something that is bigger than themselves.”

from MSNBC:   World News

Comment:    These students have been eating too much cake amd other substances.   Send them back to the farm for rehab.

Local MN Congressman Paulsen Gives Week’s Republican Address: Repeal Obamacare!

Weekly Republican Address: Rep. Erik Paulsen on Repealing ObamaCare to Protect Jobs & Our Economy 
WASHINGTON, DC — Delivering the Weekly Republican Address, Rep. Erik Paulsen (R-MN) highlights the House’s focus on jobs as the president’s policies continue to make our economy worse.  “His health care law may well be the worst offender, driving up costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers,” Rep. Paulsen says.  “It’s making things worse in our economy, and it needs to be fully repealed.”  A measure passed by the House this week, and sponsored by Rep. Paulsen, repeals an ObamaCare tax on medical device manufacturers that provides yet another vivid illustration of how this health care law is hurting small businesses.  The text and audio of the Weekly Republican Address are available immediately; the video will be ready to view and download after the embargo is lifted tomorrow at 6:00 a.m. ET.

Transcript   |  Download Audio  |  YouTube  |  Download Video

“Hello, I’m Congressman Erik Paulsen from the great state of Minnesota. 

“Last week the U.S.  Department of Labor gave Americans some very bad news.  Only 69,000 jobs were added in May, and the unemployment rate is 8.2 percent – far above the level the Obama administration promised it would be by now when the president’s “stimulus” spending bill was enacted.

“It’s clear that getting our economy going again should be job number one for everyone in Washington.  Too many Americans are still having a hard time finding jobs, small businesses are struggling to create them, and there’s little mystery as to why.  The president’s policies are standing in the way of a stronger economy.  His health care law well may be the worst offender, driving up costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers.   It’s making things worse in our economy, and it needs to be fully repealed.

“Republicans remain focused on removing government barriers to job creation so we can build a stronger economy for all Americans.  In the coming weeks, through our Plan for America’s Job Creators, the House will act on measures to boost domestic energy production and stop the massive tax hike on small businesses that is scheduled for January 1st.  This is on top of the more than 30 jobs bills the House has passed that are stalled in the Democratic-run Senate.

“One of those initiatives, passed just this week, repeals a massive job killing tax increase on medical device manufacturers that is in the president’s health care law.  Repealing this job-crushing tax is a critical step, also worthy of the Senate’s support.  And, it’s a vivid demonstration of why we need to fully repeal this health care law.

“The medical technology industry is an American success story that accounts for more than 423,000 jobs in our country, many of which are in my home state of Minnesota.  It’s made up of America’s best innovators, entrepreneurs, manufacturers, engineers and doctors, who are improving and saving lives.  In other words, this unique industry brings the wonders of technology to bear on the toughest challenges of life.  We’re talking about small businesses, those with less than 50 employees that are already struggling.  This new $29 billion tax has not even taken effect yet, but already employers are canceling plans to expand…they are moving their operations overseas…and they are cutting research and development. 

“Worse yet, I’ve heard from business leaders who say that this new tax is already forcing them to lay off workers and they may even have to shut their doors completely.  We cannot afford to lose these – or any – American jobs.

“Promises that this law would lower health care costs have also fallen well short.  Health insurance premiums for the average American family spiked nine percent last year – triple the increase seen the year before. 

“Clearly we can’t go on like this.  The health care law’s one-size-fits-all approach is unsustainable and unaffordable, and soon, the Supreme Court may rule it unconstitutional.  Republicans are ready to act on patient-centered reforms that protect Americans’ access to the care they need.  Families should be able to make their own choices, and see their own doctor.  Those decisions should not be made from Washington. 

“The bottom line is this: the president’s health care law is driving up health care costs and hurting small businesses, and for the sake of our economy, it must fully be repealed.

“Thank you for listening.”

Why Should American Men be Bothered with Marriage in Obamaland?

The single-mom catastrophe

The demise of two-parent families in the U.S. has been an economic catastrophe for society.

By Kay S. Hymowitz

The single-mother revolution shouldn’t need much introduction. It started in the 1960s when the nation began to sever the historical connection between marriage and childbearing and to turn single motherhood and the fatherless family into a viable, even welcome, arrangement for children and for society. The reasons for the shift were many, including the sexual revolution, a powerful strain of anti-marriage feminism and a “super bug” of American individualism that hit the country in the 1960s and ’70s.

In its broad outlines, the story is familiar by now. In 1965, 93% of all American births were to women with marriage licenses. Over the next few decades, the percentage of babies with no father around rose steadily. As of 1970, 11% of births were to unmarried mothers; by 1990, that number had risen to 28%. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women. And for mothers under 30, the rate is 53%.

Though other Western countries also concluded that it was OK for the unmarried to have kids, what they had in mind as the substitute for marriage was something similar to it: a stable arrangement in which two partners, cohabiting over the long term, would raise their children together. The embrace of “lone motherhood” — women bringing up kids with no dad around — has been an American specialty.

“By age 30, one-third of American women had spent time as lone mothers,” observed family scholar Andrew Cherlin in his 2009 book, “The Marriage-Go-Round.” “In European countries such as France, Sweden and the western part of Germany, the comparable percentages were half as large or even less.”

The single-mother revolution has been an economic catastrophe for women. Poverty remains relatively rare among married couples with children; the U.S. census puts only 8.8% of them in that category, up from 6.7% since the start of the Great Recession. But more than 40% of single-mother families are poor, up from 37% before the downturn. In the bottom quintile of earnings, most households are single people, many of them elderly. But of the two-fifths of bottom-quintile households that are families, 83% are headed by single mothers. The Brookings Institution’s Isabel Sawhill calculates that virtually all the increase in child poverty in the United States since the 1970s would vanish if parents still married at 1970 rates.

Well, comes the response, maybe single mothers are hard up not because they lack husbands but because unskilled, low-earning women are likelier to become single mothers in the first place. The Urban Institute’s Robert Lerman tried to address that objection by studying low-income women who had entered “shotgun” unions — that is, getting married after getting pregnant — on the theory that they represented a population roughly similar to those who got pregnant but didn’t marry. The married women, he found, had a significantly higher standard of living than the unmarried ones. “Even among the mothers with the least qualifications and highest risks of poverty,” Lerman concluded, “marriage effects are consistently large and statistically significant.”

Women and their children weren’t the only ones to suffer the economic consequences of the single-mother revolution; low-earning men have lost ground too. Knowing that women are now expected to be able to raise children on their own, unskilled men lose much of the incentive to work, especially at the sometimes disagreeable jobs that tend to be the ones they can get. Scholars consistently find that unmarried men work fewer hours, make less money and get fewer promotions than do married men.

Experts have come to believe that these are not just selection effects — that is, they don’t just reflect the fact that productive men are likelier to marry. Marriage itself, it seems, encourages male productivity. One study by Donna Ginther and Madeline Zavodny examined men who’d had shotgun marriages and thus probably hadn’t been planning to tie the knot. The shotgun husbands nevertheless earned more than their single peers did.

It’s true that some opportunities — particularly well-paying manufacturing jobs — have declined for men. But a father’s contribution to the family income, even if it’s just $15,000, can dramatically improve the mother’s lot, not to mention that of her — or rather, their — children. And it’s still possible for families to move up to the middle class, despite the factory closings of the last few decades. Ron Haskins of the Pew Center on the States’ Economic Mobility Project puts it this way: “If young people do three things — graduate from high school, get a job and get married and wait until they’re 21 before having a baby — they have an almost 75% chance of making it into the middle class.” Those are pretty impressive odds.

On the other hand, those who opt for single motherhood are hurting not just themselves but their offspring. The children of single mothers are twice as likely as children growing up with both parents to drop out of high school. Those who do graduate are less likely to go to college, even if you control for household income and the mother’s education. Decades of research show that kids growing up with single mothers (again, even after you allow for the obvious variables) have lower scholastic achievement from kindergarten through high school, as well as higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, depression, behavior problems and teen pregnancy. All these factors are likely to reduce their eventual incomes at a time when what children need is more education, more training and more planning. The rise in single motherhood was ill-adapted for the economic shifts of the late 20th century.

Comment:    Let us remember that single motherhood is a feminist concoction.  These hysterics demanded men be removed from the female  scenes beyond sexual enjoyment, and they got it.    The creepy gang that led this insane movement whose influence still governs university dogma insisted there was no future use for the human male.    Such insanity can only come from the human female brain cavities.

Nature has bestowed the strengths and weaknesses upon the human males and females whether American  Marxists and their feminist polecats like it or not.     One sex is still born a sexual predator and a natural killer;  the other ditsy,  hysterical, and conniving.    Cheap sex might be winsome for the college sluts,  but most men outside of the inner city plantation community still have a civilized leaning somewhere  which demands more in life than animal excitements.

The human male will determine his role in the American rule of things important when this feminism disease of both sexes passes further into the cesspools of civilization.    Let us pray the battles will not be bloody.

A single mom society is a catastrophe for a civilized peoples.    However, every decade,  Americana is becoming less civilized, less knowledgable, less religiously thoughtful, less  possessing an appropriate moral code.

What on Earth is the lure for American men to marry in Obamaland with its culture as it is today?