The Patriot Post® · Party Favors, Courtesy of the House Freedom Caucus
Short-term loss or long-term win? That’s what analysts are starting to ask about the sudden collapse of the health care bill last Friday. The House Freedom Caucus didn’t exactly endear itself to leadership when it stuck to its guns on the Obamacare replacement. But based on new polling, they may have done their party the biggest favor yet! Holding the line may not have been the popular choice — but it could be a rewarding one, according to Wilson Perkins Allen.
While Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) and other leaders did their best to improve the plan, there were still major concerns over the price tag — for taxpayers and policyholders. That was a non-starter for conservatives like Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC), chair of the Freedom Caucus. They didn’t just want to repeal Obamacare — they wanted to replace it with something much better. Turns out, the American people agree with them! WPA Research dug deeper after Friday’s disappointment and found that the president’s annoyance may soon turn to appreciation. “The data show overwhelming support for full repeal and replace and suggest that the House Freedom Caucus did the Senate, and Republicans’ hopes of expanding their Senate majority, a great service in stopping the bill before it made it across the Capitol.” In other words, these conservatives may have saved a lot more than money by asking for a better bill. They may have saved their majority.
“House Freedom Caucus members held the line, and the data show that is precisely what their constituents wanted,” WPA experts go on. “While full repeal and replace of Obamacare has overwhelming support in these districts, even keeping Obamacare intact was more popular than the American Health Care Act, often by more than a two-to-one margin.” If that’s the case, Republicans may have escaped certain disaster. “While it is clear the constituents of House Freedom Caucus members prefer repeal and replace, supporting this approach would also be a net-win in the key 2018 Senate states,” WPA points out. “Likewise, a vote to preserve Obamacare, rather than repealing and replacing, would be a net-loss for endangered Democrats.” Looking at these tables, WPA’s Chris Wilson compares the number of supporters who prefer a repeal-and-replace plan versus those who “support keeping Obamacare as is.” “While the margins are tight in some states, in every state there is a net preference for repeal-and-replace.”
Now, after weeks of hammering out a plan that only 17 percent of Americans supported, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) says it’s time to try again. “Let’s do the responsible thing. Let’s get back to work and do what we told the voters we were going to do.” In our opinion — and a growing number of conservatives’ — that means dusting off the 2015 reconciliation bill that survived both chambers of Congress. The GOP already proved that the measure, which toppled Obamacare and gutted Planned Parenthood funding, works. It’s time to put the reconciliation bill back on the table and finish what Republicans started two years ago: repeal, then replace.
Originally published here.
Time to Kick the (Co)Habit!
More people are shacking up to avoid shaking up their finances. But a new column from USA Today says that’s not as easy as it sounds. Moving in with each other can be an economic “game-changer,” writes Tamara Holmes, before offering a number of “smart moves” for non-married “domestic bliss.” From creating a purchasing plan to talking frankly about obligations, Holmes insists that couples can survive the pitfalls of living together. Toward the end of the article, though, she hints at the dangers of the arrangement and encourages everyone to draw up legal protections for themselves. But here’s the irony: there is already a legal protection available to couples — it’s called marriage!
Anyone who’s worried about their money should count the costs of cohabiting first. Physically, emotionally, and financially, the numbers don’t lie. Men and women who enter into committed, monogamous relationships are safer, healthier, and more prosperous in every measurable way. Studies show that these folks are more likely to: be unhappy, divorce, cheat, feel depressed, get abused — and in the end, they’re less likely to marry each other! In a paper just released by Brad Wilcox, the rate of failure for these “trial marriages” is astounding. “Analyzing data from 16 countries across Europe, we find that children born to cohabiting couples are about 90 percent more likely to see their parents break up by the time they turn 12, compared to children born to married parents,” he wrote for the Brookings Institute. In places like Norway, the numbers were jaw-dropping. “[C]hildren born to cohabiting parents are about 88 percent more likely to see their parents’ union dissolve.”
But as long as kids have a man and woman in the house, they’ll turn out okay, right? Wrong. If that couple’s not married, it could make a big difference in that child’s future. “[C]ohabitation continues to confer a stability disadvantage on individual children even as cohabitation has become more normative.” Translation: There’s no substitute for marriage. As Wilcox points out, “It could be the elaborate ritual marking the entry into marriage; the norms of commitment, fidelity, and permanence associated with the institution; the distinctive treatment of family and friends extended to married couples; or, most likely, a combination of all these things and more — that promotes greater commitment and stability.”
Healthy societies start with healthy homes. That’s why our public policy should encourage — not discourage — what’s best for individuals. When the Supreme Court redefined marriage, it wasn’t spreading the benefits of marriage, it was undermining the foundation of the institution itself. Tax policy shouldn’t punish marriage — but promote it. Welfare policy shouldn’t discourage marriage — but promote it. And women who marry the father of their children shouldn’t be immediately dropped from public assistance, including housing. We should be building a bridge to self-sufficiency so that the family begins to sow the fiscal and emotional benefits. For eight years, marriage took a beating under an administration determined to devalue it. Let’s hope President Trump understands that making America great again starts by making marriage a priority again.
Originally published here.
This is a publication of the Family Research Council. Mr. Perkins is president of FRC.