Dallas, TX USA
Info(at)Everyblm.com
Written by Neil Mammen, VP
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.
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:
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.
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:
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:
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:
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:
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
Turning Point USA was never meant to be “Charlie Kirk USA.” It was never designed as one man’s pulpit or a monument to his ego. And that, precisely, is why it flourished.
When was the last time the government took your money and spent it wisely? Can you name a single government program that runs as efficiently as a private business? If so, you’re in the minority. For most people, the answer is a resounding “never.” Now, what if I told you
Reforming the presidency and government isn’t about undermining the office but ensuring it remains accountable to the people. By enacting these reforms, the United States can safeguard itself against the whims of any future leader and create a foundation for lasting stability and prosperity.
While executive orders can provide quick solutions, they are inherently fragile. They only last as long as the president who signed them remains in office—or until a new president decides to reverse them. This temporary nature highlights the urgent need for Congress to pass legislation that turns these policies into
