Rea S. Hederman, Jr.

The job hires rate looks at the number of new employees, whether full-time or part-time, added to a business. The rate is important because it shows how fast businesses are adding new workers to their payrolls.

The higher the rate of hires, the better the job market, which indicates an expanding economy and is a harbinger of higher wage increases. A falling or low hires rate shows a recession or flat economy. The hiring rate and quits rate, tracking voluntary worker departures from companies, are strongly linked; when workers see openings and companies hiring, they are more likely to leave their current jobs to pursue better opportunities.

The hires rate is on the wrong track; even after six straight years of improvement, it remains below the rate during the peak of George W. Bush’s presidency in 2005. The chart shows the slow recovery from the Great Recession, with employers reluctant to add employees at the same rate as the pre-recession level. The good news is that 2016 is on track to be the best year for hires since 2006.

Normally, the hiring rate exceeds the rate of job openings. A high open rate and lower hires rate is a sign that employers are having trouble finding qualified workers. In some industries, the open rate is outpacing the job hires rate, which could indicate a skills mismatch. Such a mismatch occurs when companies have openings but are unable to find workers with the right skills to do the job. Many jobs require more technical skills, and employers may have trouble finding qualified people to fill these positions.

The labor force participation rate is also slow to rebound in this recovery. While some of this is due to demographics, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that government policies like Medicaid expansion reduce the supply of labor.[1] Employers have a smaller pool from which to find employees, so it can take longer to find the right ones. Some businesses report that drug or alcohol abuse can contribute to the difficulty of finding qualified employees.

In the Midwest region, which starts at Ohio’s borders and goes west to Nebraska and the Dakotas, the hires rate has increased steadily, and the region now leads the nation.[2]

Hiring in the Midwest, for example, is almost triple the rate of hiring in the Northeast.[3] The industrial heartland economy is not only strengthening but also diversifying from its older manufacturing base. Some Midwestern states have enacted free market policies like tax and labor reforms that have helped boost the region.

In Ohio, the private-sector labor market has not yet recovered to its pre-recession level, which peaked in 2000. Since that time, private-sector employment growth in Ohio has been near the lowest in the country. Recent reductions in marginal tax rates have encouraged people to work, and the labor market is now growing faster than it has grown in the past several years. From being nearly last, Ohio’s labor market is now close to the national average.

— Rea S. Hederman, Jr., is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.

Endnotes

1. Edward Harris and Shannon Mok, “How the CBO Estimates the Effects of the Affordable Care Act on the Labor Market,” Congressional Budget Office, Working Paper 2015–09, December 2015,
   http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/workingpaper/51065-ACA_Labor_Market_Effects_WP.pdf (accessed June 9, 2016).
2. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey News Release,” March 17, 2016, http://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/jolts_03172016.htm (accessed June 1, 2016).
3. Kevin Dubina “Job Openings Reach a New High, Hires and Quits Also Increase,” Monthly Labor Review, June 2015,
   http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2015/article/job-openings-reach-a-new-high-hires-and-quits-also-increase.htm
   (accessed June 1, 2016).

Next Up in the Index:

Money Taxed Away by Federal Government

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index in PDF

© 2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Job Hires Rate Slow to Recover was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Alejandro A. Chafuen

How are economic freedom, culture, and the basic social institutions of a free society connected? Family and private property are the two pillars of the free society. The institutions of private property emerged not only to improve economic results, but also to protect the intergenerational family: Passing down homes and lands generation by generation was seen as essential to preserving a family. As the family is a social institution and occupies a space between the individual and the state, socialists have attacked the institution almost as much as they attack private property.

Private property is a condition sine qua non of economic freedom. I usually define this freedom as the right of adults to try to use what they own as they please. This definition echoes the one used by The Heritage Foundation in describing its 2016 Index of Economic Freedom:

Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please. In economically free societies, governments allow labor, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself. [1]

Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom has been measuring America’s economic freedom since 1995. Scores for freedom from corruption have suffered the worst decline since then: They are down by 16 points. During this past decade, the ratings on respect for private property in the U.S. have fallen over 10 points while the overall score of U.S. economic freedom has fallen by almost six points. In fact, eight out of the 10 aspects of America’s economic freedom measured in the Index show declines. While respect for private property has declined considerably, other critical areas have recorded score deteriorations during this decade as well: Financial freedom, for instance, declined by 20 points, and government spending has deteriorated by over 6 points (although it has shown improvement during the past couple of years).

Human freedom encompasses more than just economic freedom. We know that economic freedom leads to prosperity. A person can use his economic freedom to buy alcohol or drugs yet remain a slave to his addictions. We have also learned that the economic problems that come with low rates of economic growth (such as reduced opportunity and low wage growth) can cause families to endure stress and ultimately to break up.

The family, as Michael Novak has taught us, is the original and best department of health, education, and welfare; therefore, lower levels of economic freedom negatively affect several cultural indicators, albeit indirectly. Within a strong and supportive family environment, one absorbs such key values as abstinence, fidelity, and work ethic and practices like religious observance and volunteer work. Reliance on the state tends to reduce a sense of personal responsibility and commitment to sustaining and protecting the rule of law.

In the latest Index of Economic Freedom, the United States ranks a dismal 154th in fiscal freedom and freedom from regulation and 131st in government spending. The growth of the state and overregulation also has a negative impact on a culture of respect for laws.

I saw the impact of this in my native country, Argentina. After decades of government growth and regulation, Jorge Luís Borges (1899–1986), the country’s most famous writer, remarked that “the Argentine tends to lack a moral, not an intellectual culture; he is less concerned to be seen as immoral rather than as a fool. Dishonesty, as we know, enjoys the veneration of all, it is called creole wise-guy (viveza criolla).”[2] The term describes an attitude whereby most of the population ignores the rules; they find and use loopholes, and the sense of responsibility and consideration for others is weakened.[3]

The weakening of the rule of law is one of the main reasons for the gradual decline in economic freedom in the United States, which is now down to 11th place in the world. Reversing this downward trend is essential in order to nurture a culture of respect, liberty, and responsibility and increase widespread opportunities for prosperity.

— Alejandro A. Chafuen is President of the Atlas Network.

Endnotes

1. “What Is Economic Freedom?” in “Frequently Asked Questions,” 2016 Index of Economic Freedom website, The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/index/about (accessed June 4, 2016).
2. Jorge Lanata, 2004, ADN: Mapa Genético de los Defectos Argentinos (Buenos Aires: Editorial Planeta, 2004), p. 104. Quotation translated from Spanish by the author.
3. Leonard P. Liggio and Alejandro A. Chafuen, “Cultural and Religious Foundations of Private Property,” Chapter 1 in The Elgar Companion to the Economics of Property Rights, ed. Enrico Colombatto (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2004).

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index as a PDF

© 2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

The Cultural Conditions of Prosperity was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Learn about the many writers, scholars, and researchers who contributed to this publication.

— Julie Baumgardner is President and Chief Executive Officer of First Things First.

— William W. Beach is Vice President for Policy Research at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.

— Ken Blackwell is Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment at the Family Research Council and former Undersecretary at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

— Derrell Bradford is Executive Director of the New York Campaign for Achievement Now (NYCAN).

— Tarren Bragdon is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Foundation for Government Accountability.

— The Honorable Sam Brownback is Governor of the State of Kansas and a former member of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate.

— Alejandro A. Chafuen is President of the Atlas Network.

— Eric Cochling is Executive Vice President and General Counsel at the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

— Kevin Dayaratna is Senior Statistician and Research Programmer in the Center for Data Analysis, of the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.

— Brian Fikkert is Founder and President of the Chalmers Center for Economic Development at Covenant College.

— Diana Furchtgott-Roth, former Chief Economist at the U.S. Department of Labor, is a Senior Fellow and Director of Economics21 at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.

— Salim Furth is a Research Fellow in Macroeconomics in the Center for Data Analysis.

— Jay P. Greene is the endowed Professor of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas.

— Jamie Bryan Hall is a Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis.

— Rea S. Hederman, Jr., is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions.

— Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a Senior Editor at The Federalist.

— Timothy Jeffries is Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security.

— Jo Kwong is Director of Economic Opportunity Programs at the Philanthropy Roundtable.

— Caitlin La Ruffa is Executive Director of the Love and Fidelity Network.

— Amber and David Lapp, co-investigators of the Love and Marriage in Middle America Project, are Research Fellows at the Institute for Family Studies and Affiliate Scholars at the Institute for American Values.

— Seth Leibsohn is host of the Seth Leibsohn Show in Phoenix, Arizona; Chairman of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy; and Chairman of NotMYKid.

— Daniel Mark is an Assistant Professor of Political Science and the Navy ROTC Battalion Professor at Villanova University.

— Mary C. Mayhew is Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services in the State of Maine.

— Michael Novak, retired American Enterprise Institute George Frederick Jewett Scholar in Religion, Philosophy, and Public Policy, is an author, philosopher, and theologian.

— Robert Rector is a Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies, of the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, at The Heritage Foundation.

— Nina Rees is President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

— Jay W. Richards is an Assistant Research Professor in the School of Business and Economics at the Catholic University of America and Executive Editor of The Stream.

— Sabrina L. Schaeffer is Executive Director of the Independent Women’s Forum.

— Rachel Sheffield is a Policy Analyst in Domestic Policy Studies.

— James Sherk is a Research Fellow in Labor Economics in the Center for Data Analysis.

— Andy Smarick is a member of the Maryland State Board of Education and a partner at Bellwether Education Partners.

— Ryan Streeter is Director of the Center for Politics and Governance at the University of Texas at Austin.

— Richard Vedder directs the Center for College Affordability and Productivity, teaches at Ohio University, and is an Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.

— Randall Wenger is Chief Counsel of the Independence Law Center.

— Mark Wilson is Vice President and Chief Economist for HR Policy Association.

— Scott Yenor is currently a Visiting Fellow in American Political Thought in the B. Kenneth Simon Center for Principles and Politics, of the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity, and a Professor of Political Science at Boise State University.

Next Up in the Index:

Acknowledgments

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index in PDF

© 2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Our Contributing Authors was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Jay Wesley Richards

Federal, state, and local governments in the United States today spend enough on means-tested welfare programs that if all of the welfare bureaucracy just got out of the way and cut checks to the 40 million poorest Americans, they could give each and every one of them roughly $20,000 a year: $20,000 for each poor individual, $40,000 for every impoverished couple, and $80,000 for every family of four in this group. If handing out money is really the way to solve poverty, then why don’t we just do that?

When President Johnson championed a “War on Poverty” as part of his Great Society in the mid-1960s, he pledged to eliminate domestic poverty. Today, over 80 means-tested welfare programs are providing cash, food, housing, medical care, and targeted social services for poor and low-income Americans — and this does not include Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance, and veterans’ benefits.

By 1970, the government was already spending over $175 billion a year (in fiscal year 2015 dollars) on such programs. With few exceptions, welfare spending has gone up every year, no matter who is in the White House. In the decade from 2005 to 2015 alone, spending on those 80 welfare programs went up $288 billion (in 2015 dollars). Federal, state, and local spending now totals more than $1 trillion annually.

If domestic poverty had disappeared as a result, debates about the cost of welfare programs might be left to the accountants and budget wonks, but the percentage of the population that the government deems below the poverty line — which today is roughly 15 percent — has barely budged in the intervening 50 years. Worse, the poverty rate was declining steadily in America until the war on poverty ramped up in earnest.

Part of the reason for the persistently high poverty rate is the fact that the government does not count most welfare benefits in its calculation of poverty. Another factor is that the welfare system has failed to promote self-sufficiency. Our sprawling welfare state has often discouraged work, the normal way individuals and families have emerged from poverty. Less than 3 percent of Americans who work full-time meet the government’s definition of poverty. [1]Surely, welfare programs should be designed to encourage recipients to find work rather than to become government dependents. However, the vast majority of welfare programs fail to promote work.

The Welfare Reform Act of 1996 managed to reform one program — Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) — by adding a work requirement. Opponents cried that it would create an epidemic of homelessness and poverty among single women and their children. In fact, former recipients did not become homeless: They found jobs, dignity, and a way out of poverty. Now, under President Obama, even that modest reform has been undone.

Besides creating perverse incentives, the welfare system also encouraged negative social patterns — from long-term unemployment and dependence on government to substance abuse and unwed births — that have trapped millions in a multigenerational cycle of poverty. An intact family with a married mother and father may be the best way to prevent childhood poverty in the U.S., so any rational welfare program should promote marriage for parents, not undermine it. Yet the welfare system is rife with marriage penalties.

Too often, debates over welfare spending assume that if the government spends enough, poverty can be vanquished. Materially speaking, government could spread the wealth to raise living standards. But that is quite different from increasing self-sufficiency, which should be the goal of welfare policy. Yet, if many of the policies actually exacerbate dependence, then increases in spending are doubly bad. They waste precious tax resources and harm recipients.

This is why simply cutting fat checks to 40 million Americans would not solve the poverty problem either. The war on poverty would become, in essence, a more lavish and efficient delivery vehicle for a cultural toxin that the welfare system is already delivering far too abundantly — sapping initiative, undermining dignity, accelerating family breakdown, and encouraging the cycle of poverty, even intergenerational poverty.

Most Americans want a social safety net that provides necessities for those who cannot help themselves, and they want to help the poor and unemployed find meaningful work. It does not follow, however, that a massive welfare state funded and controlled by the federal government is the best way to do that. The evidence of the past half-century shows just the opposite.

The time has come for a serious conversation about reforming the nation’s safety net, which is not so much a springy net as it is a massive, expensive, and sticky spider’s web.

— Jay Wesley Richards is an Assistant Research Professor in the School of Business and Economics at The Catholic University of America and Executive Editor of The Stream.

Next Up in the Poverty and Dependence Section:

Subsidized Housing Participation

Endnotes

1. Carmen DeNavas-Walt and Bernadette D. Proctor, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2014,” U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Reports No. P60–252, September 2015, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf (accessed April 22, 2016).

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index in PDF

© 2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

The Welfare System’s Perverse Incentives Undermine Self-Sufficiency was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Robert Rector

The government means-tested welfare system consists of dozens of programs, which provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services. Most lower-income families on welfare receive benefits from many of these programs. When these benefits are piggy-backed on top of each other the cost of the total benefit package can be quite large.

For example:

• A single mother with two school-aged children who worked full-time at the federal minimum wage throughout the year would receive $13,853 in post-tax earnings. In most cases, however, this mother would also receive $7,260 in refundable tax credits and $4,623 in food stamp benefits, and her children would receive the equivalent of $1,506 in school lunch and school breakfast benefits.
• In most states, the family would also be eligible for Medicaid, which would be valued at $10,005 per year. [1] The total value of post-tax earnings plus welfare benefits would come to $37,247, or more than twice the federal poverty level (FPL) for a family of three.
• If Section 8 housing or other subsidized housing is added, the benefit stack becomes much higher. With housing added, the combined post-tax earnings and benefits, on average, are between $42,985 and $46,967 per year, depending on the size of the apartment. [2]

Like the overall trend in means-tested government programs, participation in public housing programs has increased over the past decade. More than 1 million more individuals received housing assistance in 2015 than received it in 2005.

Most low-income households do not receive housing assistance, however. Public housing benefits, provided through vouchers and rent subsidies, are rationed because of their very high cost. In 2015, approximately 9 million families with children had non-welfare cash incomes that were below 125 percent of the FPL. [3] Only one-fifth of these families received housing aid. [4]

Because public housing payment standards are closely linked to the median rent in each community, nearly half of the regular renters in each town and city are renting apartments or homes that cost less than the units provided to the low-income renters with government vouchers. The government seeks to ensure that everyone has housing that is equivalent to the median rental units in their city. This “Lake Wobegon” housing policy seeks to guarantee that everyone in America has housing that is at or “above average.”

Thus, rental payment standards can be very high. The Section 8 payment standard for a three-bedroom unit is around $24,000 per year in Los Angeles; $23,412 in Washington, D.C.; $26,566 in Oakland; and $29,040 in Stamford, Connecticut. [5] The taxpayer pays around 70 percent of these rental costs. [6]

Another problem with the public housing system is that it appears to discriminate heavily against married couples with children. Nine out of 10 families with children that receive housing benefits are headed by single parents. [7] Roughly one-quarter of poor and near-poor single mothers receive rent subsidies, compared to only 6 percent of married couples with children at similar income levels. [8] Even worse, public housing programs penalize marriage. If a low-income single mother marries the employed father of her children, she will lose most of her housing benefit.

While providing assistance to those who are in need is important, taxpayers should not be required to subsidize rents that they themselves could not afford. Furthermore, a system that penalizes marriage — one of the greatest protectors against poverty — stands in the way of self-sufficiency and well-being, which should be the ultimate goal of all welfare assistance.

— Robert Rector is a Senior Research Fellow in the Institute for Family, Community, and Opportunity at The Heritage Foundation.

Next Up in the Poverty and Dependence Section:

Food Stamp Participation

Endnotes

1. This is the national average cost of Medicaid benefits for two children and one non-elderly, non-disabled adult.

2. The national average payment allowance under Section 8 for a two-bedroom unit in 2014 is estimated at $11,752. The national average payment allowance under Section 8 for a three-bedroom unit in 2014 is estimated at $15,644. These figures equal the national average fair market rent weighted by the number of Section 8 units in each relevant area. Calculated from U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, “Fair Market Rents” database, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/fmr.html (accessed May 28, 2016). The estimate in the text (the tenant’s rental payment based on earnings) has been deducted from the payment allowance.

3. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, “Table POV27: Source of Income by Ratio of Poverty Threshold for Families and Unrelated Individuals: 2014 Families with Related Children Under 18 (13),”
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032015/pov/pov27_000.htm (accessed May 28, 2016).

4. Housing data taken from HUD database for all subsidized housing in 2015 (based on the 2010 Census). See U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, “Picture of Subsidized Households” database, https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/picture/yearlydata.html (accessed May 28, 2016).

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Some 1.6 million single-parent families received HUD rent subsidies in 2015; there were 5 million single-mother families below 125 percent of the FPL in 2014, It is likely that around a third of poor and near-poor single-mother families receive housing benefits. By contrast, only 190,000 families with children containing two or more adults received HUD rent aid in 2015; there were roughly 3 million married couples with children with money incomes below 125 percent of the FPL in 2014. See U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, “Table POV26: Program Participation Status of Household–Poverty Status of People: 2014,” http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032015/pov/pov26_002.htm (accessed May 28, 2016).

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index in PDF

© 2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Our “Lake Wobegon” Public Housing Policy was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Mary C. Mayhew

Today, more than 45 million people in America receive food stamps through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). With an increase of 27 million since 2000, and now with one out of every six people in our country on food stamps, it is time to examine honestly both the program’s failings and the misguided policies that have promoted dependence over independence and economic opportunity.

Welfare advocates and the federal government will argue that this was caused entirely by the “Great Recession,” but that argument falls short. While economic slumps drove some enrollment, this unprecedented spike in dependence on government was facilitated by intentional design in Washington, D.C. The federal government established several destructive “waivers,” including one that allows able-bodied adults with no children to avoid work and stay on food stamps over the long term.

Regrettably, most states, including Maine prior to the administration of Gov. LePage, took the bait. The federal promise of a lighter “administrative burden” and cash rewards for “performance bonuses” spurred states to waive meaningful welfare reforms like work requirements and time limits. Now nearly one in every four SNAP households nationwide is comprised solely of an able-bodied working-age adult with no children. [1] The average SNAP recipient in Maine has been on the program for more than seven years. [2] Other waivers allow states to require notification of income changes and household composition only once every six months instead of (like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and Medicaid) when changes occur and to waive asset limits on households. In Maine, waiver of the asset test has led to million-dollar lottery winners staying on SNAP. [3] These various efforts by the federal government have paved the pathways to enrollment, often at the expense of program integrity, and have redefined success as based on ever-increasing welfare caseloads, not on the number of individuals leaving welfare for jobs and self-sufficiency.

Worse still is the cumulative effect of these welfare policies on our deeply rooted culture of a strong work ethic, family commitment, and personal responsibility. President Franklin Roosevelt said in his 1935 State of the Union address that “continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole our relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit.” [4] We cannot turn a blind eye to the destructive impact that these policies have had on the workforce and the work ethic.

We talk about the American dream but then design welfare programs that trap people in a nightmare of poverty, dependence, and despair. That’s the bad news.

The good news? These dependence-producing waivers are optional for states, and a few states are eliminating them to return able-bodied adults to work, verify income and assets, and prioritize program integrity. Maine is proud to be part of this common-sense, employment-focused reform movement.

As Commissioner of the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, I have witnessed firsthand the value and importance of a job to those we serve. Employment develops self-esteem, a sense of worth, and a real pathway out of poverty. A taxpayer-funded welfare benefit loaded on an EBT card is no substitute for the human dignity and pride that comes from earning a living and being financially independent.

Employment-focused outcomes must become the foundation for SNAP and all other welfare programs in our country. Time limits and work requirements are critical. It is working in Maine.

• We have reinstated the work requirement for able-bodied adults and have seen incomes rise by 114 percent in just the first year for that group as people leave welfare for employment. [5]
• Overall, Maine was first in the nation for decline in food stamp enrollment in 2014–2015, and our economy has received a boost as these individuals move into jobs in an economy with the lowest unemployment rate in 15 years.
• Since 2012, Maine has experienced a 23 percent reduction in food stamp enrollment.

These common-sense reforms are grounded in our fundamental belief that welfare should be a temporary stop, not a way of life, for Mainers. More people receiving welfare means more people living in poverty, which is nothing short of failure.

It is time for our states and country to rise to the challenge and reorient a safety-net program that has lost its way and become a maze of dependence. Let’s get it moving in the right direction: toward opportunity, jobs, and self-sufficiency.

— Mary C. Mayhew is Commissioner of the Department of Health and Human Services in the state of Maine.

Next Up in the Poverty and Dependence Section:

TANF Participation

Endnotes

1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Office of Policy Support, Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal Year 2014, Report Number SNAP-15-CHAR, December 2015, http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2014.pdf (accessed May 28, 2016).

2. Internal DHHS research done by query of Automated Client Eligibility System (ACES) data system, January 2016.

3. Dave Sherwood, “People on Public Assistance Spent Hundreds of Millions on the Lottery — and Took Home $22 Million in Winnings,” Pine Tree Watchdog, December 16, 2015, http://pinetreewatchdog.org/people-on-public-assistance-spent-hundreds-of-millions-on-the-lottery-and-took-home-22-million-in-winnings (accessed June 7, 2016), and DHHS, “Maine-Welfare-Lottery-Winners-2010–2014,” November 2015, http://pinetreewatchdog.org/people-on-public-assistance-spent-hundreds-of-millions-on-the-lottery-and-took-home-22-million-in-winnings (accessed June 7, 2016).

4. Franklin D. Roosevelt, “Annual Message to Congress,” January 4, 1935, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=14890
(accessed May 28, 2016).

5. Paul Leparulo, “Preliminary Analysis of Work Requirement Policy on the Wage and Employment Experiences of ABAWDs in Maine, April 19, 2016, Maine Office of Policy and Management,
http://www.maine.gov/economist/econdemo/ABAWD%20analysis_final.pdf (accessed June 7, 2016).

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index in PDF

© 2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

How Intentional Design Increased Dependence on Food Stamps and Undermined Work was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Timothy Jeffries

Why should we seek to help people overcome dependence on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)? Why does gainful, stable employment mean more than a simple paycheck?

Our nation was founded on the principles of hard work, diligence, passion, and perseverance. Americans take pride in their work and the satisfaction of a job well-done. Our work plays a large part in defining who we are and the principles upon which we stand in this great country. A strong work ethic and pride in one’s work are values held dear by Americans. A job done well fosters a sense of personal satisfaction. In fact, the term “Made in America” is a patriotic theme that communicates pride in our productivity and its quality.

Working and becoming self-sufficient allows individuals to improve their financial positions while providing a sense of accomplishment and dignity. Government involvement is a safety net, but government should not be the sole provider. Its role is temporarily to help people in need when they fall on tough times and have nowhere else to turn. Government assistance was never meant either to be a permanent solution or to meet one’s financial requirements. A healthy, robust economy stems from a strong and stable workforce; too much government involvement stymies a growing economy’s health and stability.

The reality is that poverty is much more than financial. It often results from a combination of non-monetary factors like family breakdown, drug problems, mental health issues, or abuse. If money were the only problem, solutions would be much more straightforward. When families experience poverty today, monetary limitations are not their only worry. Deep-seated familial dysfunction and other factors are the root causes of poverty in most situations.

TANF is designed to help needy families achieve self-sufficiency. States receive a fixed-amount grant from the federal government to design and operate programs that accomplish one of the program’s four purposes:

• Provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes;
• Reduce the dependence of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
• Prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and
• Encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

From a historical perspective, it is important to note that from 1961 to 1993, the number of individuals receiving cash assistance grew to 14.2 million from 3.4 million. Since that time, the numbers have declined sharply. In 2015, the number of people receiving aid stood at 4.1 million — only somewhat higher than at the program’s inception — and from 2005 to 2015, it decreased by nearly 900,000.

What the numbers in the TANF indicator show is that more Americans are less dependent on government aid in the form of cash assistance. The notions of self-sufficiency and sustainability are becoming not only more relevant, but also desired by families. The idea that families can support themselves without cumbersome, invasive, and limiting government involvement is increasingly appealing.

That is the true American dream.

— Timothy Jeffries is the Director of the Arizona Department of Economic Security.

Next Up in the Poverty and Dependence Section:

TANF Work Participation Rate

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index in PDF

© 2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

American Principles Lead to Opportunity for All was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Eric Cochling

Any married person with children realizes how incredibly tough single parenting must be. With two parents, the job is daunting. A single parent who successfully raises a child does what can only be described as heroic. Between providing financially, emotionally, and spiritually, a single parent has an enormous amount of responsibility. By its very nature, single parenting means — in all but the rarest of cases — fewer resources, less time, more stress, and more struggle than typically exists in a two-parent household.

It is no wonder, then, that in Creating an Opportunity Society,[1] authors Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill cite marriage before the birth of children as one of the key steps in what they call the “success sequence” for individuals to avoid poverty. The “marriage-then-children” step, along with the other aspects of the success sequence — graduating from high school and obtaining a stable, decent-paying job — paves the way for avoiding poverty and achieving a middle-class income. Of those who follow all three elements of this sequence, only 2 percent will be in poverty. Among those who do not, about three-fourths will experience poverty in any given year.

Haskins and Sawhill are not alone in their assessment of the key role of an intact family in achieving life success. Raj Chetty and his colleagues from Harvard University and the University of California–Berkeley reached similar conclusions in a 2014 study of opportunity and economic mobility in the United States.[2] They cited family structure as one of five key factors for economic mobility across generations. Specifically, they found significantly less mobility for individuals from single-parent households. The Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector has made a similarly compelling case for the antipoverty significance of intact families, estimating that marriage reduces the probability of child poverty by more than 80 percent.[3]

Given these consistent findings about the role of family structure and the ideological diversity of the groups and individuals reaching the same conclusion, it is disheartening to see that the percentage of children in America being raised by single parents continues to grow. While the trend is not surprising — after all, it has gone on for nearly 50 years with barely an interruption — what it tells us about the future should be of grave concern to anyone who cares about poverty and the countless challenges that adults and children in single-parent households face. The children being raised in these households, through no fault of their own, are bound to face struggles that their similarly situated friends from intact homes will not face.

When parents misstep in the success sequence, their children’s steps to success — high school graduation, employment and intact family formation — are more difficult to achieve. Children raised by single moms are less likely to graduate high school. Without a high school diploma, young adults often struggle to find good-paying jobs. Young adults — especially young men — without a job may be seen as less marriageable but become parents nonetheless. When this happens, instead of a success sequence, a person is more likely to be set on the path of the poverty cycle, which quickly becomes generational, absent significant change or intervention.

Unabated, this decades-long trend will mean very predictable things for our country: progressively higher levels of poverty and the brokenness related to both poverty and broken relationships. As poverty grows, demands on an already vast welfare system will grow. Since the start of the War on Poverty, also about 50 years ago, federal spending on poverty relief has grown by over 1,600 percent.[4] Given the growth in single-parent homes — and the even faster rise in unwed childbearing — we should expect that trend to continue well into the future.

Sadly, the War on Poverty has taught us that while it is possible to intervene in the lives of children and adults when family falls short, those interventions are expensive and cannot fully compensate for what a stable family life would have provided. To reinvigorate opportunity in America, we have to start by restoring the health and vitality of the American family. Nothing less will do.

— Eric Cochling is Executive Vice President and General Counsel at the Georgia Center for Opportunity.

Next Up in the Index:

Teen Drug Use

Endnotes

1. Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill, Creating an Opportunity Society (Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 2009).
2. Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Patrick Kline, and Emmanuel Saez, “Where Is the Land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper No. 19843, January 2014, http://www.nber.org/papers/w19843 (accessed May 16, 2016).
3. Robert Rector, “Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty,” Heritage Foundation Special Report No. 117,
   September 5, 2012, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/09/marriage-americas-greatest-weapon-against-child-poverty
4. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, “The War on Poverty After 50 Years,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2955, September 15, 2014, http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/09/the-war-on-poverty-after-50-years

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index in PDF

© 2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Reinvigorating Family Life: Critical to Restoring Opportunity was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Seth Leibsohn

When it comes to teen drug use, not only are we on the wrong track, but things are getting worse. This is not a mysterious happenstance. First, note two data points in the accompanying chart: The high-water mark of teen drug use in America was 1979; the low-water mark was 1992. However, since 1992, the share of 12th graders reporting recent drug use has increased 64 percent. These facts should immediately shape the conversation, but, sadly, they do not.

What these data reveal is the fallacy of the commonplace notion that “keeping drugs illegal doesn’t work.” In fact, reducing any social or policy problem by more than half in the course of about a decade is the definition of public policy success. Just imagine what would be said about policies and results that cut fatherlessness or poverty or budget deficits by more than half. Too few remember this success, and too many are ignoring the lessons learned, which is why the trajectory of teen drug use is back up and getting worse.

How were we successful? By taking a page from the first step in substance abuse recovery: The country recognized that there was a problem and got serious about dealing with it. As the nation’s first drug czar, William J. Bennett, put it, practically the entire country — from law enforcement to Hollywood to athletes to political leaders — rolled up their sleeves and went to work:

Those old enough to remember will recall how much the cultural message used to be anti-drug. There were the “This is your brain on drugs” ads that were ubiquitous…. There were sit-coms aimed at children with anti-drug messages. President George H.W. Bush and First Lady Nancy Reagan, in their tenures, gave innumerable speeches on the harms of drug use. [1]

What resulted? Drug use in America plummeted. We didn’t lose the drug war; we began winning — big — and then we gave up on it. Now, particularly in the teen population, drug use is going up again. We need to ask ourselves a few questions about the changes in the culture and the different cultural messages we now send in light of this growing problem.

When was the last time anyone saw an anti-drug or “this is your brain on drugs” ad? When was the last time anyone saw an anti-drug message embedded into a popular television show or movie? How often has the President ever spoken to this issue? (To my knowledge, the only time this President, a man uniquely gifted at attracting the attention and seriousness of our youth, delivered a major speech on substance or drug abuse was this year — his last in office — in Atlanta).

Today, popular television shows (still downloaded and aired “On Demand”) like Breaking Bad, Weeds, and High Maintenance laud, celebrate, and make heroes of drug users and drug dealers. As the President of Showtime said of Weeds (where the heroes and laugh lines are about a drug-dealing family): “Our ratings were va-va-va-voom! Who said hedonism is passe?”[2] The popular toy store Toys R Us had to face protests before discontinuing the sale of a Breaking Bad doll complete with a fake bag of cash and crystal meth.

As for the law, opposition to legalization of drugs is at an all-time low, especially as it relates to marijuana, just as marijuana has become more potent and dangerous and as more and more scientific research is establishing its harms — particularly in the teen and adolescent brain.[3] Research shows that the more drugs — particularly marijuana — are destigmatized, the more the perception of harm goes down, and as the perception of harm goes down, initiation and use increase.[4]

Again, all of this is taking place just as the dangers are becoming more and more widely known and understood by the scientific and medical communities. This is public policy cognitive dissonance, and it helps to explain why states like Colorado that have pioneered the legalization movement have not only the highest teen marijuana use rate, but also the highest overall teen drug use rate in the nation: a whopping 60 percent higher than the national average.[5]

The efforts to destigmatize and legalize drugs have caused great harm and have signaled the greatest surrenders in our previous efforts that kept drug use low. They are upending decades of hard work to prevent substance abuse and leading to greater costs in treatment, rehabilitation, accidents, enforcement, and criminal violations, as well as true education deficits. This is the opposite of good public policy and good youth policy. Instead of building a culture that makes greater health, education, and opportunity available to all, this is how a society harms itself.

The tragedy here is that we know what has worked in the recent past. We simply cannot afford to surrender those lessons before it is too late.

— Seth Leibsohn is the host of the Seth Leibsohn Show, heard nightly in Phoenix, Arizona, on KKNT/960am; Chairman of Arizonans for Responsible Drug Policy; and Chairman of NotMYKid.

Next Up in the Culture Section:

Abstinence Among High Schoolers

Endnotes

1. William J. Bennett and Robert A. White, Going to Pot: Why the Rush to Legalize Marijuana Is Harming America (New York: Hachette Book Group, 2015), p. 116.
2. Kimberly Nordyke and Associated Press, “’Weeds’ Sets Showtime Ratings Record,” The Hollywood Reporter, June 17, 2008,
   http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/weeds-sets-showtime-ratings-record-113998 (accessed June 16, 2016).
3. For example, see Nora D. Volkow, Ruben D. Baler, Wilson M. Compton, and Susan R. B. Weiss, “Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 370, No. 23 (June 5, 2014), pp. 2219–2227,
   http://dfaf.org/assets/docs/Adverse%20health%20effects.pdf (accessed May 27, 2016).
4. White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, “Marijuana Use Is Inversely Related to Perceived Risk of Occasional Use in 12th Graders,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/perceived_risk_inversely_related_2011.PNG (accessed June 6, 2016).
5. Rocky Mountain High Intensity Trafficking Area, “The Legalization of Marijuana in Colorado: The Impact,” January 2016,
   http://www.rmhidta.org/html/FINAL%20NSDUH%20Results-%20Jan%202016%20Release.pdf (accessed June 6, 2016). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Comparison of 2012–2013 and 2013–2014 Population Percentages (50 States and the District of Columbia), 2014, http://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHsaeShortTermCHG2014/NSDUHsaeShortTermCHG2014.pdf (accessed June 22, 2016).

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index in PDF

©2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Teen Drug Use: Cultural Amnesia, Current Harm was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.

Caitlin La Ruffa

Sex has become the expected price of entry for the dating market today. In response to numerous forces driving the cost of sex downward over the past few generations, more and more high school seniors are engaging in sexual relationships as they begin their foray into the adult dating and marriage scene.

The media’s ubiquitous portrayal of casual sex as lighthearted fun with limited consequences has created a cultural perception of sex as costless. Pornography, through its ability to shape perceptions of “normal” behavior and by acting as a competitor (mostly to women) in the dating market, also has exerted downward pressure on the price of sex. Other cultural influences — like the voices of elites who preach self-actualization through sexual experimentation (while living largely conventional family lives themselves) and early sex education that explicitly introduces and teaches risky behavior to young teens — have increased the demand for earlier and more frequent sexual experiences.

Perhaps no other single factor has influenced the cost of sex more than readily available contraception. The pill and its counterparts have influenced our collective conscience so greatly that sex and reproduction hardly maintain their link in the Millennial mind.

The trend toward early commencement of sexual activity is linked to a greater number of lifetime sexual partners; higher risk of sexually transmitted infection; increased likelihood of unwed pregnancy (despite easy access to nearly free contraception); abortion; and single parenthood. More partners and quicker initial sexual encounters are negatively correlated with lifelong marital happiness and fidelity, both empirically and intuitively.[1] Early entanglement is also linked to poor decision-making in spousal selection,[2] the effect of which is compounded by creating a cycle of broken marriages and families.

Rates of depression and anxiety, conditions for which nearly one-quarter of American women are clinically treated,[3] are higher among those who engage in casual sex, and women who “hook up” are more likely to report feeling disrespected by their partners.[4] Add to this the current teen and twentysomething generation’s lack of hope in the possibility of lifelong faithful marriage. While the divorce rate among the college-educated has stabilized, among those with a high school but no college degree — a majority of Americans — the divorce rate continues to rise.

The generation of children who grew up under full-blown no-fault divorce are suffering the consequences of their parents’ (and lawmakers’) decisions. They have never been taught, either in formal relationship education or by the lived example in the classroom of the family home, what healthy, loving, faithful relationships look like. They are terrified of repeating their parents’ mistakes, but their attempted solutions — like overwhelming hesitancy toward commitment and avoidance of relationship labels — actually perpetuate the problem.

To address this generational cycle of heartache and broken relationships, we need to begin by piecing back together the puzzle of love, marriage, sex, and children. When these pieces are well integrated, we witness the flourishing of family life. Conversely, when our culture has scattered them, we see the sexualization of childhood and the breakdown of the family in a vicious cycle.

We need to impart to the next generation an understanding of sexuality that grounds it in human reality — which includes human biology. We need to instill a sense of intentionality in dating and teach authentic relationship skills, not just “condom negotiation.”[5] These include skills like those taught in Dr. John Van Epp’s Relationship Attachment Model or Dr. Scott Stanley’s Sliding vs. Deciding framework, both of which show students the progression of a healthy relationship.[6]

In essence, we need to focus less on teaching young people the mechanics of sex and more on instilling the virtues of love and prudence. We need to give postponement of sexual activity a purpose greater than mere utilitarian pregnancy avoidance, especially since recent research shows that many young women in middle America are largely ambivalent about avoiding pregnancy.[7]

Young people themselves are starting to recognize the harmful effects of the sexual revolution ideology that they have been spoon-fed from a tender age. Many have dedicated themselves, through the work of Love and Fidelity Network and other ministries and organizations, to educating their peers in the pursuit of authentic love and giving them hope that lifelong marriage is both attainable and worth sacrificing to maintain.

We should applaud their efforts and follow their lead, recognizing that this generation does not want to live enslaved to their sexual desires but simply has never been shown another way.

— Caitlin La Ruffa is Executive Director of the Love and Fidelity Network.

Next Up in the Culture Section:

Abortion Rate

Endnotes

1. Robert E. Rector, Kirk A. Johnson, Ph.D., Lauren R. Noyes, and Shannan Martin, “The Harmful Effects of Early Sexual Activity and Multiple Sexual Partners Among Women: A Book of Charts,” The Heritage Foundation, June 23, 2003,
   https://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf (accessed June 6, 2016).
2. Ibid.
3. Katherine Bindley, “Women and Prescription Drugs: One in Four Takes Mental Health Meds,” Huffington Post, November 16, 2011, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/16/women-and-prescription-drug-use_n_1098023.html (accessed April 20, 2016). See also Melinda Bersamin, et al. “Risky Business: Is There an Association between Casual Sex and Mental Health among Emerging Adults?” Journal of Sex Research, June 7, 2013, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23742031 (accessed June 6, 2016).
4. Paula England and Jason Young, “Understanding the Hook-up Culture: What’s Really Happening on College Campuses. Media Education Foundation Study Guide,”
   http://www.mediaed.org/discussion-guides/Understanding-Hookup-Culture-Discussion-Guide.pdf (accessed June 6, 2016), p. 23.
5. International Planned Parenthood Federation, “Condom Negotiation,” April 26, 2012,
   http://www.ippf.org/news/blogs/condom-negotiation (accessed April 20, 2016).
6. For John Van Epp’s Relationship Attachment Model, see www.lovethinks.com (accessed June 23, 2016). For Dr. Scott Stanley’s Sliding vs. Deciding framework, see slidingvsdeciding.blogspot.com (accessed June 23, 2016).
7. Amber Lapp, “When Pregnancy Is ‘Planned But Not Planned,’” Institute for Family Studies, April 20, 2015,
   http://family-studies.org/when-pregnancy-is-planned-but-not-planned/ (accessed April 20, 2016).

2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity

MAIN SECTIONS:
- Culture
- Poverty & Dependence
- General Opportunity

ABOUT:
- Preface by Jim DeMint
- Executive Summary
- Introduction by Michael Novak

Download the Index in PDF

 © 2016 by The Heritage Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Responding to the Sexual Revolution with Love and Fidelity was originally published in 2016 Index of Culture and Opportunity on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.