The decline of family stability in Black communities has led to generational poverty, increased reliance on government programs, and diminished opportunities for children to succeed. One of EBLM’s proposed policies aims to address this issue by incentivizing fathers to marry the mothers of their children and live together as a family. Under this plan, families where the genetic father marries the mother and resides in the household will receive financial benefits that exceed what a single mother would receive. The goal is to rebuild traditional family structures, reduce long term dependency, and foster long-term stability for children. This concept is referenced in Neil Mammen’s new book: How to Stop Racism In America. Available here: racism.j3ip.com

The policy, while bold, will draw criticism. Below, we address possible key objections and provide counterarguments to demonstrate the policy’s potential to create meaningful change.

The Policy

The central tenet of this policy is simple: if the genetic father of a child marries the mother and cohabits with the family, they will qualify for financial benefits greater than those available to similar single mothers who are also receiving financial benefits. This incentive is designed to encourage stable family units, which research shows are critical for children’s emotional, educational, and economic success. Benefits are contingent on ongoing cohabitation and verified paternity, ensuring that the policy is both effective and resistant to abuse. Furthermore, to ensure effectiveness for an entire generation of children but not create a long-term dependency the program sunsets irrevocably after 20 years, with the payment levels starting to decrease by 10% every year after year 10 till it terminates.

Objections and Responses

Objection 1: The Policy Could Be Gamed

Critics argue that families could exploit the policy by engaging in sham marriages or fraudulently claiming cohabitation to receive benefits.

Response:
The policy includes safeguards to prevent gaming. For example:

• Verification of residency: Shared utility bills, rental agreements, and tax filings would be required to prove cohabitation. Spot checks or randomized audits could further deter fraud.
• Genetic testing: Eligibility for benefits requires robust genetic testing to verify paternity, eliminating fraudulent claims of biological fatherhood.
• Sequential marriages: Critics suggest that fathers could exploit the system by “marrying” multiple women for short periods to claim benefits. However, this is unlikely. The policy only applies while the father is actively living with the mother and child, and benefits cannot be stacked or transferred sequentially. Additionally, most women would find giving up income after a few months unacceptable, making this concern largely theoretical.

By designing the policy to reward continuous, stable cohabitation, it minimizes opportunities for manipulation while focusing on the desired outcome: strong family units.

Objection 2: The Policy Encourages Dependency on Government

Some argue that providing financial benefits to families could perpetuate dependency on government support, much like welfare policies that undermined family structures in the past.

Response:
This policy is distinct from traditional welfare because it invests in creating stability for the next generation. Studies consistently show that children raised in father-present households are less likely to rely on government aid as adults: Second it has a sunset clause.

• Children in father-present households are four times less likely to live in poverty than those in father-absent homes.¹
• Students with involved fathers perform better academically and are less likely to drop out of school.²
• Children with fathers present are less likely to engage in criminal behavior or drug use.³

Rather than fostering long-term dependency, the policy aims to disrupt the cycle of poverty by creating conditions that allow children to thrive. In turn, this reduces the likelihood of future reliance on government programs.

Objection 3: The Policy Could Lead to Household Conflict

Some critics argue that marriages incentivized by financial benefits might not create stable, harmonious households. Financial stress, manipulation, or conflict could undermine the benefits of cohabitation.

Response:
Conflict is a risk in any household, but adding a father’s presence typically improves stability rather than worsening it. Research consistently shows that children benefit from living in two-parent households, even in cases where the relationship between parents is less than ideal:

• Children in two-parent families experience better economic outcomes and emotional support than those in single-parent homes.⁴
• Father absence is strongly correlated with negative outcomes, including crime, poor academic performance, and emotional instability.⁵

Financial incentives merely encourage what benefits children the most: the presence of their fathers. Furthermore, the policy does not mandate marriage but rewards those who choose to build a stable family unit.

Objection 4: The Policy Discriminates Against Non-Traditional Families

Critics suggest that the policy unfairly excludes stepfathers, adoptive fathers, or non-married cohabiting couples who may also provide stable homes for children.

Response:
The policy is unapologetically designed to prioritize traditional family structures because these have consistently shown the best outcomes for children. Non-traditional families are not penalized; they simply do not receive the additional incentive. This is not discrimination but targeted incentivization to rebuild the traditional family structure that has been eroded in many communities. Policymaking often involves prioritizing the outcomes most likely to benefit society, and traditional family stability aligns with this goal.

Objection 5: The Policy Excludes Families Where Fathers Are Absent Due to Abuse or Death

Some argue that families without access to the biological father may feel penalized under this policy.

Response:
This policy is not about penalizing but rewarding specific behaviors that benefit children. Families without a biological father present are in no worse position than they are under current policies. This incentive does not take away existing benefits for single mothers or other family structures. Instead, it offers additional support for those who meet specific conditions that have proven societal benefits.

Moreover, encouraging father involvement wherever possible creates a baseline of stability that benefits all families in the long term. Families unable to participate can still access other forms of assistance, making this policy an addition rather than a subtraction.

Objection 6: The Policy Could Lead to Unintended Consequences

Critics warn that incentivizing marriage might encourage men to father children irresponsibly, knowing they could gain financial benefits by marrying the mother later.

Response:
The financial benefits are only accessible after marriage and sustained cohabitation, incentivizing responsibility from the outset. Irresponsible fatherhood without long-term commitment offers no rewards under this policy. By aligning incentives with desirable behaviors—marriage, cohabitation, and support—this concern is effectively neutralized.

Objection 7: The Policy Is Racist and Targets Black Communities

Some media outlets or activists may claim that the policy disproportionately targets Black communities, perpetuating stereotypes about Black fatherlessness or reliance on government programs.

Rebuttal:

• Addressing Real Needs: The policy directly addresses systemic challenges that disproportionately affect Black families, including the legacy of welfare policies that undermined family cohesion.⁶ Far from being racist, the policy seeks to repair the damage caused by historical injustices. Nothing in the policy addresses skin color or ethnicity. Everyone who meets the qualifications can get the benefits. Worse, would you begrudge black families this benefit?
• Proactive, Not Stereotypical: This is not about stigmatizing any community but empowering families to break cycles of poverty and dependence. By focusing on rebuilding family structures, the policy provides a solution rather than perpetuating stereotypes.
• Focus on Data: Studies show that rebuilding family structures in underserved communities reduces poverty, crime, and dependency. While the policy applies universally, it also responds to urgent needs in Black communities caused by systemic inequities.⁷

Objection 8: The Policy Will Increase Domestic Violence

Critics may claim that incentivizing cohabitation could trap women and children in abusive relationships for financial gain.

Rebuttal:

• Protections Built In: The policy does not require women to stay in abusive relationships. If the relationship ends, so do the financial incentives, but women retain access to existing benefits for single mothers.
• Abuse Exists Across Structures: Abuse is not confined to traditional families. This policy does not create abusive dynamics but offers financial stability, which can reduce the stressors that lead to conflict.⁸
• Support Services Included: Programs tied to this policy could include counseling, conflict resolution resources, and domestic violence protections to ensure that families are supported holistically.

Objection 9: The Policy Promotes Christian Nationalism

The left might claim the policy reflects a religious or ideological agenda, prioritizing traditional family values often associated with Christianity.

Rebuttal:

• Secular Benefits, Universal Application: The policy is not rooted in religion but in secular data showing the benefits of two-parent households for children. Studies consistently show that children with both biological parents are less likely to experience poverty, crime, and poor education outcomes.⁹
• No Religious Requirements: The program applies equally to families of any faith—or no faith—based purely on cohabitation, marriage, and paternity.
• Focus on Outcomes, Not Ideology: This policy is pragmatic, not ideological, as it seeks measurable improvements in family stability and child welfare, grounded in evidence-based solutions rather than religious mandates.

Conclusion: A Transformative Approach

This policy represents a bold step toward rebuilding Black families, reducing government dependency, and fostering stability for future generations. By incentivizing marriage and cohabitation, it aligns financial rewards with behaviors that have proven benefits for children and society.

Far from replicating the failures of traditional welfare programs, this approach acknowledges the systemic damage caused by past policies and seeks to create a path forward. With robust safeguards against fraud and a focus on measurable outcomes, this policy has the potential to address the root causes of generational poverty and set a new standard for family-focused interventions.

References

1. S. Census Bureau, “The Majority of Children Living in Poverty Are in Father-Absent Homes,” accessed November 2024, https://www.census.gov/fatherhood-poverty.
2. National Center for Education Statistics, “Parental Involvement and Academic Success,” accessed November 2024, https://nces.ed.gov/parental-involvement-academic-success.
3. S. Department of Justice, “Fathers and Juvenile Crime Prevention,” accessed November 2024, https://justice.gov/fathers-crime-prevention.
4. Pew Research Center, “Economic Outcomes of Two-Parent Families,” accessed November 2024, https://pewresearch.org/economic-two-parent-families.
5. National Center for Fathering, “The Consequences of Father Absence,” accessed November 2024, https://fathers.com/consequences-of-absence
6. Pew Research Center, “Black Family Life and Welfare Policies,” accessed November 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/black-family-welfare.
7. National Fatherhood Initiative, “Father Involvement and Child Well-Being,” accessed November 2024, https://fatherhood.org/child-well-being.
8. Brookings Institution, “Family Stability and Economic Outcomes,” accessed November 2024, https://www.brookings.edu/family-stability-outcomes.
9. S. Census Bureau, “The Benefits of Two-Parent Families for Children,” accessed November 2024, https://www.census.gov/two-parent-benefits.