THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, September 15, 1996 TAG: 9609150045
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: ELIZABETH SIMPSON
LENGTH: 64 lines
The race is on, and the scramble ought to be interesting.
No, not for president, but for a $20 million bonus that the feds will dole out to each of five states in 1999.
The rules of the game are simple: The five states that curb their out-of-wedlock birth rates by the most in two years get a $20 million bonus prize.
It sounds like government-by-game-show. Why do I keep hearing that ``Price is Right'' line? ``Virginia, come on down!''
Still, it's no wonder state officials are salivating at the prospect. What with welfare reform and budget cuts, Virginia could sure use the money for things like child-care subsidies. Or to replace that Goals 2000 education money the governor is so intent on giving to every other state in the nation.
The perplexing part of the equation, however, is this: How the heck do you curb out-of-wedlock births?
There's always a catch, isn't there?
We're not going to see a return to shotgun marriages, are we? Gov. George Allen isn't going to show up on some whippersnapper's doorstep and demand he marry the young girl he impregnated, is he? Or maybe we could just require pregnant women to show marriage certificates before we let them through the maternity-ward doors.
No, no, no, of course not. The state's not going to resort to Draconian measures for a measly $20 million.
Well, not at first anyway.
In fact, Scott Oostdyk, deputy secretary for Virginia's Department of Health and Human Resources, says the state has a much more dignified way of going about this.
We'll start with meetings, the way all good, and bad, government programs begin, and proceed from there. He expects the state will go after the money by expanding programs that give teen-agers education and job opportunities, or that encourage responsibility of teen parents.
There is one tiny little string attached to the deal. States can't have an increase in abortions, which makes the race all the more tricky.
In what may be the understatement of the year, Oostdyk said this:
``It's a very complicated calculation.''
I'll say.
Well, it's an interesting idea, anyway. I'll give the feds that. There's no ignoring the link between welfare and single parenthood. Even though this bounty-prize idea ignores the fact that there are very good single parents and very lousy two-parent families, it's laudable to try to boost the rates of children living in married families.
Still, the idea leaves me feeling queasy, and not just because it reeks of social engineering.
My biggest concern is that the government - federal and otherwise - does not exactly have a good record of solving social problems with money.
And now we're going to be throwing out $100 million in blind faith that a bunch of state workers scurrying around like bounty hunters will somehow result in a plan to save the American family?
I can tell you right now how we can win this contest. (There's that voice again: ``Elizabeth, come on down!'') We can give everyone the job and education opportunities they need. We can give parents more free time to spend with children. We can make sure all young people feel good about themselves. We can give every citizen a greater sense of future.
Although I'm interested in seeing what states come up with, I suspect the items on my list can't be bought with money, nor created with a government program. by CNB