American Dreams Read Online Free PDF Page B

ignores the importance of the success sequence and the family unit. It views the breakdown of families as a product of poverty—not as the cause of poverty. As a result it promotes antipoverty programs to support families instead of pro-family programs to eradicate poverty.
    The fact remains that there is no government program—no matter how well intentioned or how generously funded—that has ever or could ever hope to achieve for American families what they can achieve by following the success sequence. It works regardless of whether you’re Hispanic, black or white, female or male, college or high school educated. It is, in short, proof of the proposition that in America you can still achieve success no matter who you are. So why isn’t the health of the family a bigger part of our conversation on saving the American Dream? Why aren’t politicians and Hollywood celebrities and everyone who claims to care about helping people get ahead in America shouting this from the rooftops?
    For conservatives, talking about family structure inevitably leads to charges of racism, sexism or somehow trying to force our religious beliefs on others. Political experts ceaselessly lecture us that this is no way to win elections. Liberals seem to think questioning such issues is judgmental and unjust. On issues of family and values, the Democratic Party, the party of big government, becomes curiously libertarian.
    This is no coincidence. Proponents are careful never to state it outright, but at the heart of the big-government approach are two central messages. The first is that government is our national family now. The role that husbands, wives and parents have traditionally played in the American family, this approach asserts, can now be safely assumed by government. When it comes to managing your health care, government—not the consumer—knows best. The same logic applies to the schools your children attend, how you save for your retirement and even how you choose the light bulbs for your home.
    The second unspoken message of the government-centered approach is the same message that those who believe income inequality is the central challenge of our time believe: that growing the economic pie to benefit the poor and middle class is no longer possible. The only just course is to use government to adjust the size of the slices.
    The minimum wage debate is a good example of this. Not surprisingly, raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10, as the president has proposed, polls well—people like the idea of more money. But there’s no getting around the law of demand: When you make something—even labor—more expensive, people buy less of it. The Congressional Budget Office predicts that an increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 could cost as many as five hundred thousand jobs.
    My family and I saw this firsthand last spring when we stopped for lunch at a Chili’s in Broward County, Florida. We were surprised to find what looked like an iPad on the table. The hostess who seated us explained that this mobile device would be our server. On it, we could tap items we wanted to order and pay the bill by swiping our credit card. It reminded me that a machine had just replaced at least one server in Florida. If we raise the minimum wage, companies like Chili’s will be driven to replace workers with machines sooner than planned.
    In fairness, the same CBO report said that nine hundred thousand Americans would benefit from the wage hike. But who are those Americans? Rather than mothers and fathers struggling to support families, the data show that over 74 percent are childless adults or teenagers. Just 16 percent are married parents with kids. 11 So it’s true that an increase in the minimum wage polls quite well, but in practice it would cost half a million American jobs. Some will benefit, but most won’t be the hardworking parents who need help the most. If the goal is