10.31.2012

The Cost of Family Fragmentation in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas.

Every state has expended budgetary money toward helping individuals in fragmented families.  But this has resulted in expansion of government programs for families.  Combined with social and constitutional expansion of individual rights, this has resulted in an increased need, even a demand, for state interference, and that in turn has resulted in an increased reliance on state funds, government dependence. 

So the vicious cycle is self-perpetuating.  The very people that the support is designed to protect are operating in a context of enslavement and fragmentation – which becomes an addiction – government support requiring continued instability to receive benefit, thereby trapping those vulnerable individuals in the very support designed to assist them. 

Each consecutive post for the next several weeks will focus on the costs by state.  Today we’ll look at four states.

Alabama had a 21% increase in TANF expenditures over the last five years, Alabama households had a 248% increase in annual SNAP costs since 2007, and the State saw an 18% increase in food costs for WIC from 2007-2011.  The conservative five year cost of family fragmentation of TANF, SNAP and WIC for Alabama is $1,862,129,121.52.

Alaska had a 23% decrease in TANF expenditures over the last five years, Alaskan households saw a 205% increase in annual SNAP costs since 2007, and the State saw a 10% increase in food costs for WIC from 2007-2011.  The conservative five year cost of family fragmentation of TANF, SNAP and WIC for Alaska is $274,886,680.26.

Arizona over the past five years had a 16% increase in TANF expenditures, households in Arizona had a 255% increase in annual SNAP costs since 2007, and the State saw a 27% increase in food costs for WIC for the same time period. The conservative five year cost of family fragmentation of TANF, SNAP and WIC for Arizona is $2,354,443,060.04.

Arkansas from 2007-2011 saw a 12% increase in TANF expenditures over the last five years, households had a 175% increase in annual SNAP costs, and the State saw a 32% increase in food costs for WIC. The conservative five year cost of family fragmentation of TANF, SNAP and WIC for Arkansas is $1,097,235,429.35.

Look for California’s numbers in the next post…

4 comments:

  1. I am very interested to see the statistics for the state of Virginia since that is where I plan to practice. I would like to compare Virginia's TANF expenditures and SNAP costs over the past five years to that of other states and see where we fall in the mix. After reading the statistics for Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, and Arkansas I was shocked to see how much money is being spent because of family breakdown and family fragmentation. I hate to see that state interference and assistance has become necessary due the effect that family breakdown and family fragmentation is having on our society as a whole. I hope that the individuals that are stuck in this cycle are able to break free from relying on the government and will once again become independent. Hopefully the new generation of lawyers that our society is molding will be able to counsel families to stay together and will be able to promote a sense family cohesiveness that will drive people and families away from government dependence and towards a sense a family independence. Family breakdown and family fragmentation are costing our country billions and billions of dollars and attorneys, acting as counselors, are in a great position to explain these costs and consequences to their clients in an effort to promote sense a family unity and cohesiveness. I hope attorneys all over the United States will answer this calling in an effort to free these people from the hold that family fragmentation and government dependence has on them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I agree with Patrick. With the slow down of the economy and rising prices, many state budgets are strained to the breaking point. With the economy growing at an anemic rate, States are forced to make cuts across the board. Thus, a new problem arises. Do we cut spending on programs like SNAP and TANF to save the budget or do we continue to fund programs that people rely on at the cost of going bankrupt? People generally agree that families and individuals are more financially stable when the family stay together rather than when they split apart. Many couples and families that break up tend to have more financial troubles and/or become insolvent. Resulting in an increasing number of people speaking I believe that more states should adopt a policy of family restoration. If more states took a proactive role in keeping the family together, rather than facilitating a the break, less families will need government assistance. This would free up monies for other families that must go on assistance and relax the strain on state budgets.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Immorality and sin are expensive. This is a generalized statement, but I would be willing to bet that a lot of the family breakdown has a root in sin. We as a society are feeling the effects of the widespread epidemic of sin and familial breakdown. By recognizing the root of the problem we can also see the solution. We as a nation need to refocus on raising families with a moral foundation. Stronger families would lead to a stronger future generation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that ultimately, the best solution is one based in faith, with an emphasis on preserving the family. However, with our fallen nature, I am not sure that such an end can be accomplished just by cutting funding for these programs. I believe that for such a cultural shift to occur is today's society we need some sort of positive incentive for people to change the way they live their lives. Perhaps by re-appropriating the money used in some of these programs to benefit and promote the family, we can help to change some of the individualistic habits which they currently promote.

      Delete