It’s true: there’s something not quite right about Ms. Suleman. I suspect psychiatric analysis would reveal a number of mental health issues and neuroses, the treatment of which would pay for at least a couple shrinks’ kids to attend Ivy League schools. This we can agree on: she’s a wee nuts. Whatever doctor implanted six embryos into her already overworked uterus: also a little nutso.
Here’s where I depart from most of you in opinion: I don’t think it’s any of my business. Or yours. It becomes my business when police show up at my door and tell me that I’ve been conscripted into nannying for Suleman. Or that a special Nadya Suleman tax has been deducted from my paycheck.
Now, I know what you’re saying: but my precious tax dollars! They’re supporting her!
Yeah, sure, like your tax dollars bought Air Force One and entitle you to a complimentary ride on it.
It always amazes me how many people still talk about how their tax dollars are paying for social service programs without knowing how few pennies of their tax dollars are actually allocated for social services like welfare. The following is from The American Psychological Association website:
| Myth: A Huge Chunk of My Tax Dollars Supports Welfare Recipients
Fact: Welfare Costs 1 Percent of the Federal Budget
Widespread misperception about the extent of welfare exacerbate the problems of poverty. The actual cost of welfare programs-about 1 percent of the federal budget and 2 percent of state budgets (McLaughlin, 1997)-is proportionally less than generally believed. During the 104th Congress, more than 93 percent of the budget reductions in welfare entitlements came from programs for low-income people (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 1996). Ironically, middle-class and wealthy Americans also receive “welfare” in the form of tax deductions for home mortgages, corporate and farm subsidies, capital gains tax limits, Social Security, Medicare, and a multitude of other tax benefits. Yet these types of assistance carry no stigma and are rarely considered “welfare” (Goodgame, 1993) (emphasis mine). Anti-welfare sentiment appears to be related to attitudes about class and widely shared and socially sanctioned stereotypes about the poor. Racism also fuels negative attitudes toward welfare programs (Quadagno, 1994). |
I was trying to do some really, really rough math using info on the web to figure out how much the average taxpayer is spending on welfare (welfare includes food stamps, cash payments, and subsidized health care):
Say you make $40k a year. After deductions, you end up paying $4,445 in income tax. Let’s say that 1% of your tax dollars is spent on welfare programs, since 1% of the federal budget is spent on welfare programs. This is being generous, since the federal budget has other sources of income besides income tax, but whatever. So roughly $44.45 of your tax dollars fund welfare programs. Now let’s divide that $44.45 among the approximately 2,000,000 welfare recipients for the year 2005 (that number has surely increased dramatically in light of current economic factors). That’s $0.000022225 per person.
Obviously I am no statistician or accountant (or even good at balancing a checkbook) and these numbers are really rough, but my point is that with a contribution of the tiniest fraction of a penny to this woman, we really don’t have much standing as individual taxpayers to claim that she’s soaking up all of our hard-earned tax dollars, and thus justifying mean-spirited judgment of her by claiming that she’s taking “our” money.
And let’s look at the double standards that apply to this single mother, and the married couples who also elect to conceive and give birth to what is called “higher-order multiples.” No one asks married couples for a copy of their financial statement to make sure they can afford their 50 gazillion “miracle” (um, science-created) children. Reporters do not track down inflammatory details about them. We assume that the
couples that opt to have multiple embryos implanted and opt to not terminate any of the viables have the means to support the children.
Why do we assume that? From what we see on TV, they don’t have the means, either– they need massive financial assistance. The difference is that they get assistance– from friends, family, strangers, and major corporations. We assume that they don’t receive public assistance (though they most likely do in some form, if it’s not straight-out welfare or food stamps, then in the form of state or federal medical and disability care for the kids who are inevitably born with medical issues common with multiple births. The McCaughey septuplets: two kids with cerebral palsy, in addition to other medical issues.) Why don’t we question their financial ability to support massive multiples? Because they’re married. Maybe they don’t have to go on welfare because of the aforementioned donations of goods, time, and money. But maybe they do need state assistance with health insurance or food stamps, because most people can’t afford to raise 50 gazillion “miracles” on a single income (or can’t afford to raise 50 gazillion kids and pay for daycare for them with two incomes, if both parents work). No one is really asking those questions of the married parents, is my point. They are, by virtue of being conventional (married), deemed worthy of assistance– which is lavished upon them, it seems. No one wonders what kind of psychological issues led them to such a risky and impractical choice– they are just assumed to be loving, benevolent, and next to frickin’ godly for loving children so much.
From Wikipedia, not the finest source in all the land, but sufficient for these purposes:
| The McCaugheys were the recipients of many generous donations, including a 5500ft² (511 m²) house, a van and diapers for the first two years, as well as nanny services, and even the State of Iowa offering full college scholarships to the babies upon their maturity and graduation from high school to any state university in Iowa. U.S. President Bill Clinton personally telephoned Mr. and Mrs. McCaughey to wish them his congratulations. |
So the McCaugheys opt to have fertility treatments, opt to not selectively reduce the number of fetuses, choose to have seven kids they can’t afford, and they’re heroes. If Suleman was married, her community would probably get together and build her an awesome, huge house. Pampers would have a delivery truck backed up in her driveway, crammed full of complimentary diapers.
If you’re a single mother, though, all bets are off. Your budget and lifestyle and the number of children you have birthed, and how they were birthed, are scrutinized and judged. Nobody checked any of our checkbooks balances before we conceived; why is it our business if she has 50 gazillion kids? If she has some child-collecting mania and her parents are dumb enablers, why is it our business? Why is that any worse than a married couple who has sextuplets or whatever crazy number of multiple births? You know, the ones that were just as freaky child/baby-hungry as she likely is and also went to astonishing and insane lengths to have children, resulting in 50 gazillion kids? The difference between the two scenarios is that one situation is valid by virtue of the presence of a man. That all-important husband. The legitimizing man.
And now you’re back to, “But my precious tax dollars!!! Those babies will cost taxpayers MILLIONS!” Let me remind you that if she had private insurance and not taxpayer-funded insurance, and it happened to be the same insurance company that you have, your insurance premiums would have gone up. Just like all of our private health insurance premiums go up when people drink themselves to a liver transplant and accrue a million dollars in medical costs. Just like the rate increases resulting from the myriad health problems resulting from the millions of people who commit the voluntary act of smoking. Do you do anything that endangers your health and could result in financial burden (directly or indirectly) to taxpayers or the people who are part of your private health insurance company? Do you ride a bike? Drive a car? Eat fast food? Smoke? Jog? Jaywalk?
Nadya Suleman: not someone we generally hold in high esteem, agreed. We’re probably not rushing to her website to make a PayPal donation. Us: hardly the kings and queens of perfect judgment, also agreed. Lots of people in glass houses throwing stones: glass everywhere; watch your step.
